In a recent article for The Atlantic, Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called for the United States to take a firmer stance against Turkey. He argues that under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey poses a significant threat to Israel and could spark a conflict that might be unavoidable. Gerecht believes Erdogan is using tensions with Israel as part of his strategy to expand his influence abroad.
Gerecht’s concerns come as he advises President Donald Trump to abandon his friendly approach toward Erdogan, which he believes is insufficient. He emphasizes that simply labeling Erdogan a "friend" won’t address the underlying issues.
Gerecht is known for his hawkish views and previously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He now advocates for military action against Iran. His latest piece on Turkey doesn’t call for war but highlights what he sees as flaws in the neoconservative perspective, including an overblown view of threats and a tendency to prioritize Israeli interests over American ones.
While Erdogan is criticized for his authoritarian rule and aggressive foreign policy, Gerecht’s claims about Turkey as a direct threat to U.S. interests are questioned. Although Erdogan has undermined democracy in Turkey and supported groups in Syria that oppose the U.S.-backed forces, these actions do not necessarily threaten American interests directly. Instead, it is suggested that the Turkish people should be the ones to address their country’s democratic decline.
Turkey remains a key partner for the U.S., with a strong military and strategic control over important waterways. Despite Erdogan’s failure to enforce sanctions against Russia, he could play a crucial role in diplomatic efforts regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Instead of escalating tensions with Turkey, a more pragmatic approach is recommended. This would involve diplomatic engagement that keeps Turkey aligned with Western interests while managing Erdogan’s more extreme actions.
Gerecht’s article also reflects a broader concern that U.S. policy often prioritizes Israel’s security over its own national interests. He expresses worry about Turkey’s support for Hamas and its criticisms of Israel, but these actions are not direct threats to the U.S. In fact, during recent conflicts, Turkey continued to maintain oil shipments to Israel, suggesting a more complex relationship than Gerecht portrays.
The situation in Syria further complicates matters. Gerecht fears that the Turkish-backed group now in power in Damascus could become a significant threat to Israel, similar to Hezbollah. However, both Turkey and the new Syrian leadership have indicated they do not seek conflict with Israel.
Israel’s military actions in Syria, aimed at dismantling threats, may inadvertently push Turkey to strengthen its military ties with Syria. This could lead to a cycle of conflict that benefits no one.
In the broader context, Gerecht and others advocating for military action against Iran are seen as potentially dragging the U.S. into another prolonged conflict, diverting attention from more pressing challenges like China. A more balanced U.S. approach would involve diplomatic engagement with both Turkey and Iran, focusing on American interests rather than acting as a guarantor of Israeli security.
As the situation evolves, it remains clear that U.S. foreign policy needs to prioritize its own national interests while navigating the complex dynamics of the Middle East.