A Deficit of Coherence? Türkiye and the Search for American Strategic Reason

Strategic Argument and Areas of Debate

The United States is experiencing a structural rationality crisis where its immense geopolitical power is no longer guided by state-level strategic reasoning, but is instead captured by the short-term transactional demands of lobbying networks and the electoral finance cycle. This dynamic generates a profound strategic paradox wherein Washington systematically enacts self-defeating policies against indispensable allies, such as Türkiye, sacrificing its own long-term hegemonic stability and supply chain resilience for immediate domestic political appeasement.

Executive Summary

The profound transformation of the United States foreign policy apparatus into a reflexive, interest-driven marketplace has severely eroded Washington’s capacity for coherent, long-term strategic planning. Captured by entities like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), and the Hellenic American Leadership Council (HALC), American statecraft frequently yields self-defeating outcomes, such as the imposition of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) on Türkiye and the unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Conversely, under the evolving diplomatic engagements between Donald Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Türkiye has emerged as an indispensable strategic anchor, offering vital rare earth elements and autonomous defence capabilities necessary to counter China and stabilise NATO. Ultimately, overcoming this pervasive rationality crisis requires Washington to detach its geopolitical objectives from domestic campaign financing and realign its actions with genuine national interests.

Analytical Framework and Key Drivers

• Institutional Erosion via Lobbying Capture: The United States foreign policy apparatus has transitioned from a strategic enterprise into a financial marketplace dictated by the Citizens United decision of 2010. This environment empowers groups like AIPAC and ANCA to substitute state reasoning with campaign finance imperatives.
• Paradox of Geopolitical Self-Sabotage: Short-term legislative actions, such as the imposition of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), frequently contradict Washington’s broader global objectives. Alienating a vital NATO ally fundamentally weakens Western security architecture while failing to advance long-term American interests.
• Geo-Economic Recalibration and Material Dependency: With China restricting the export of heavy rare earth minerals in April 2025, control over critical raw materials dictates the new global power balance. The integration of alternative supply chains is essential for the technological superiority outlined in the 2017 National Security Strategy.
• Multidimensional Diplomatic Strategic Autonomy: By simultaneously advancing the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) and maintaining operational dialogues across competing global blocs, emerging powers are bypassing traditional binary alliances. The successful mediation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative exemplifies this flexible, post-unipolar statecraft.

Strategic Assessment & Empirical Findings

• Türkiye’s exclusion from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme forced the Pentagon to relocate approximately 1,000 components, resulting in USD 500–600 million in direct losses and an estimated USD 7–10 million cost increase per aircraft.
• In October 2025, Türkiye confirmed control of 694 million tons of rare earth elements, making it the world’s second-largest reserve and offering a direct alternative to the United States’ current 70% dependency on China.
• Lobbying influence directly sabotaged the JCPOA non-proliferation objectives in 2018, triggering a rapid escalation of Iran’s uranium enrichment levels from 3.67% to 60%.
• Turkish defence exports experienced massive growth, increasing from USD 1.9 billion in 2023 to USD 7.1 billion in 2024, fundamentally altering the technological balance on NATO’s eastern flank.
• Türkiye currently contributes 4.59% of the common NATO budget, ranking eighth overall and maintaining the highest operational capacity on the alliance’s southern flank.
• The American defence industry heavily profits from the unconditional support of Israel, with the United States providing over USD 30 billion in military and economic assistance between 2023 and 2025 alone.

Geopolitical Trajectories & Policy Risks

• The United States faces a severe vulnerability in rare earth element supply chains, which could hamstring its defence and digital technology sectors if it fails to establish a functional, non-sanction-based partnership with Türkiye. China’s recent export restrictions on critical minerals heavily expose this technological and material dependency, necessitating urgent geoeconomic recalibration.
• Continued reliance on the electoral finance cycle to dictate foreign policy guarantees long-term institutional instability and global reputational damage for Washington. By allowing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to ensure unconditional backing for Israel, the United States risks a permanent loss of moral legitimacy and the erosion of strategic trust among traditional European and Middle Eastern allies.
• NATO’s internal cohesion is threatened by the alienation of net security producers due to externally driven legislative mechanisms like the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA). Pushing Türkiye to secure alternative military procurement—such as the Eurofighter Typhoon agreement with the United Kingdom—creates fragmented defence architectures and structurally weakens the alliance’s southern and eastern flanks.

Critical Policy Questions & Responses

Question 1 How does the electoral finance cycle fundamentally constrain the United States’ capacity for coherent geopolitical strategy?

Answer: Following the Citizens United ruling in 2010, Washington’s foreign policy priorities have become heavily dictated by corporate and lobbying donations rather than objective state reasoning. Organisations such as AIPAC and ANCA leverage campaign financing to enforce short-term political outcomes—like the 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA or the imposition of CAATSA sanctions—that actively sabotage America’s long-term global security and non-proliferation objectives.

Question 2 Why does Türkiye’s emergence as a rare earth element hub challenge existing Sino-American supply chain dependencies?

Answer: The United States currently relies on China for approximately 70% of its rare earth element imports, creating a critical vulnerability highlighted by Beijing’s April 2025 export restrictions on heavy minerals. The discovery and retention of 694 million tons of rare earth reserves in Türkiye, announced in October 2025, provides Washington with a pivotal geo-economic alternative to secure the materials essential for the 2017 National Security Strategy, renewable energy infrastructure, and advanced defence manufacturing.

Question 3 What are the strategic consequences of excluding Türkiye from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme?

Answer: Driven by Greek and Armenian lobbying pressure, the expulsion of Türkiye from the F-35 programme inflicted immediate financial damage on the United States, increasing the cost per aircraft by USD 7–10 million and forcing the relocation of 1,000 manufacturing components. Furthermore, it accelerated Ankara’s pursuit of independent defence capabilities, culminating in domestic platforms like the KAAN fighter jet and the October 2025 procurement of Eurofighter Typhoons from the United Kingdom, which structurally weakens Washington’s leverage over a crucial NATO ally.

Question 4 How does Türkiye leverage the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) to construct a third geopolitical axis?

Answer: Türkiye utilises the OTS to establish deep infrastructural, digital, and energy integration across Central Asia, effectively positioning itself as an independent balancer between China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. This multidimensional diplomatic autonomy allows Ankara to secure vital transit routes, such as the Middle Corridor and TurkStream, enhancing regional stability while reducing systemic reliance on Western or Eastern unipolar frameworks.

Key Actors and Systemic Dynamics

• United States → Depends on → China
• American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) → Constrains → United States
• Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) → Influences → Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)
• Türkiye → Competes with → China
• United States → Weakens → NATO
• Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) → Strengthens → Türkiye
• Electoral Finance Cycle → Undermines → United States
• Türkiye → Coordinates with → United Kingdom
• Donald Trump → Shapes → United States
• Belt and Road Initiative → Is affected by → Türkiye