NOURNEWS: U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in Turkey to attend the NATO leaders' summit. During his meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and in subsequent media appearances, Trump reiterated his sharp criticism of NATO while simultaneously praising Ankara's policies and actions. On the one hand, he promised to move forward with the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey; on the other, he claimed that he would not have attended the summit had it not been hosted by Erdoğan in Turkey.

Although these remarks may appear to be an attempt to compensate Turkey for Washington's previous policies toward Ankara or to signal support for Turkey amid its growing tensions with Israel, they seem instead to reflect a broader strategy. On the one hand, Trump appears intent on undermining European NATO members by elevating Turkey's status within the alliance. On the other, his rhetoric should serve as a warning to Ankara that Washington may be seeking to exploit Turkey's strategic capabilities in regional calculations, including any future aggression against Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

Praising Erdoğan: A Tool for Pressuring NATO

Trump's supportive remarks and unusually warm praise for Erdoğan are difficult to reconcile with his well-known political style. Trump has consistently sought to belittle other leaders and has publicly criticized Erdoğan on several occasions in the past, including during the Gaza Peace Council event. Against this backdrop, his sudden change in tone can best be understood as a prelude to exerting greater pressure on NATO's European members.

The timing of Trump's praise, alongside his renewed attacks on NATO and his mockery of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, reinforces the view that his approach toward Erdoğan was intended to provoke other alliance members for two primary objectives: first, compelling NATO countries to allocate 5 percent of their GDP to defense spending, and second, encouraging their participation in any future U.S. military confrontation with Iran. Shortly after Trump's remarks, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called for increased defense spending within the alliance and publicly supported the U.S. military strikes against southern Iran.

The F-35 Game and the Revival of America's Arms Competition

During the Ramadan War, the United States faced what many described as the embarrassment of its "Israel First" policy, as well as its inability to guarantee the security of its own military bases, let alone those of its allies. These developments undermined Washington's strategic standing both regionally and internationally.

Given the U.S. strategy of generating revenue through new arms sales while encouraging Arab states to distance themselves from China and Russia, rebuild their security partnerships with Washington, and align more closely with Israel, Trump's praise for Erdoğan and his promise to provide Turkey with F-35 fighter jets—despite Benjamin Netanyahu's public opposition—appears aimed at reassuring America's regional partners and reshaping their strategic calculations.

In other words, Trump seeks to conceal the political costs of the "Israel First" approach in order to maintain the confidence of Arab governments. At the same time, by fueling a new regional arms race, Washington can both increase mandatory arms purchases from Arab states and justify billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel.

The United States is increasingly concerned about the Arab world's growing interest in a new regional order based on indigenous security arrangements and principles promoted by Iran. From this perspective, using Turkey as the centerpiece of the F-35 debate serves Washington's broader objective of persuading Arab governments to align with U.S. policies against Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. The meetings held by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, followed by CENTCOM officials with Arab states in Bahrain, illustrate this broader strategy.

F-35: A Genuine Offer or a Strategic Trap?

The central question remains whether Washington truly intends to transfer F-35 fighter jets to Turkey or whether Trump is once again employing a strategy of political deception.

Several considerations are noteworthy.

First, the Ramadan War—and Iran's reported ability to shoot down American and Israeli aircraft and drones, including the F-35—significantly damaged the perception of Western air superiority and reduced confidence among potential buyers of such advanced weaponry. Selling the F-35 to Turkey could therefore represent an effort to preserve America's share of the global arms market and prevent customers from turning to alternative suppliers. At the same time, the conflict highlighted the limitations of these platforms, suggesting that possession of the F-35 alone may no longer represent a decisive strategic advantage for Turkey.

Second, Trump's promise to sell F-35s appears difficult to take at face value. His record of abandoning previous commitments, combined with concerns that such a transfer could weaken Israel's qualitative military edge over regional states, makes the pledge highly uncertain. Moreover, with elections approaching, neither Trump nor the Republican Party is likely to risk confrontation with the pro-Israel lobby. Under these circumstances, the promise may instead be designed to draw Turkey into regional geopolitical calculations—an outcome that should concern Ankara, which has traditionally sought to position itself as a regional mediator rather than a participant in military conflicts.

Washington's Scenario: Drawing Turkey into Regional Crises

Trump's silence regarding Israel's occupation of parts of Syria—which directly affects Turkey's security interests—as well as Israel's recognition of the Armenian genocide and its threats of military action against Turkey, suggests that Washington's F-35 proposal may be intended to discourage Ankara from responding forcefully to these developments. Such silence, however, carries significant political and reputational costs for Turkey both domestically and internationally.

Another important element is Washington's effort to intensify geopolitical activity in the Caucasus through what has been described as the proposed "Trump Corridor," a project widely viewed as directed against Iran, Russia, and China. This raises the possibility that Trump's praise for Turkey is designed to encourage Ankara's deeper involvement in the Caucasus—a strategic competition that may appear beneficial in the short term but could ultimately entangle Turkey in prolonged regional tensions.

Trump's assertions that Turkey played an important role in the campaign against Iran, coupled with his repeated insistence that he is dissatisfied with NATO while supporting countries willing to join U.S. pressure campaigns against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, may encourage Turkish leaders to miscalculate the consequences of aligning more closely with Washington. While such initiatives may appear to strengthen bilateral ties, they ultimately risk drawing Turkey into strategic agendas that primarily serve Israeli interests.

Overall, Trump's praise for Erdoğan appears less a reflection of genuine strategic realignment than a warning signal for Turkey's leadership to remain vigilant against Washington's crisis-driven regional strategies. The experience of several Arab states demonstrates that participation in U.S.-led geopolitical projects has often produced greater instability and higher costs rather than lasting strategic gains.