The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is increasingly strained from within. The alliance was built on a simple premise: that its members share core security interests and act collectively when those interests are threatened. Its effectiveness depends on sustained alignment — and Turkey is putting it to the test.
NATO was formed in 1949, when its members understood that security depended on acting together, not just in principle, but in how they defined threats and responded to them. Article 5 makes that clear: an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all.
Recommended Stories
Though a key NATO member, Turkey has long played both sides. Over the past decade, it has deepened defense ties with Russia, including its purchase of the S-400 system — despite repeated warnings from NATO allies and at the cost of being removed from the F-35 program. It has taken positions that diverge from its allies on Iran, publicly opposing U.S. and Israeli actions while expressing sympathy for the Iranian leadership. It has also been linked to the exposure of intelligence networks targeting Iran and has maintained ties with terrorist actors such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
ERDOGAN’S WORDS DON’T PULL THE TRIGGER — BUT THEY LOAD THE GUN
The pattern is clear. Turkey is increasingly acting on its own terms — even when that puts it at odds with the alliance.
Turkey’s regional posture tells a consistent story. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has positioned himself as a leading voice in the Muslim world, and Turkey’s actions increasingly follow that direction — even when it diverges from U.S. interests. In 2015, a U.S. Delta Force raid on the compound of an Islamic State financial operative uncovered evidence linking ISIS oil revenues to networks operating through Turkey.
Ankara has also used migration as leverage in its dealings with Europe. Under the 2016 E.U.–Turkey Deal, the European Union committed more than $7 billion in exchange for Turkey’s efforts to curb irregular migration. By 2020, Turkish officials signaled they would no longer prevent crossings into Europe — a move the Greek government described as “extortion diplomacy.” At the same time, reports point to Turkey’s ties with Hamas, the group behind the Oct. 7 massacre, and its continued engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, even as it prepares to host the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.
And this is no longer limited to Turkey. As tensions with Iran escalate, the lack of alignment within NATO is becoming harder to ignore. Securing the Strait of Hormuz, a route critical to global energy, should be a shared priority. Yet key European members have hesitated to support U.S.-led efforts. France, Italy, and Spain have reportedly gone as far as limiting operational support, including access to their airspace.
This raises a broader question about the meaning of collective defense. Article 5 is built on more than a formal commitment — it depends on a shared understanding of who stands on which side. That understanding becomes harder to sustain when a member state adopts an openly confrontational posture toward a close partner of the alliance.
Turkey’s rhetoric toward Israel has grown increasingly sharp. Erdoğan has repeatedly condemned Israeli actions in strong terms, framing them as violations of international law and positioning Turkey in direct opposition. Even without direct confrontation, this kind of divergence points to a deeper problem: a weakening sense of shared alignment on allies, adversaries, and strategic priorities.
Recent reporting suggests that this tension is no longer theoretical. The Trump administration is reportedly considering steps to penalize NATO members that did not support U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran, including shifting U.S. military deployments away from those countries. Such moves point to a deeper reality: When alignment weakens, so does the willingness to sustain collective commitments. NATO cannot function as a military alliance if its members no longer operate within a shared strategic framework.
TURKEY IS THE NATO ALLY TRUMP SHOULD PRESSURE FIRST
Can Turkey’s approach become a model for NATO as a whole? If key European members continue to drift from U.S. priorities, it raises a harder question: What sustains U.S. commitment to the alliance — whether in Ukraine or beyond? At some point, NATO will have to decide whether its principles still guide its members, or whether they are already being set aside.
At its core, it comes down to a simple question: Can NATO’s members still rely on one another?
Bradley Martin is the executive director of the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Follow him on Facebook and X @ByBradleyMartin. Liram Koblentz-Stenzler is a senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at Reichman University, Herzliya, and a visiting scholar at Brandeis University. Follow her on LinkedIn and Twitter @koblentz_liram.
