Türkiye’s options in quest for global balance

The push to create a new world order has accelerated during President Donald Trump’s time, opening a chapter rich with major moves. The traditional dynamics and balances are changing at an unpredictable pace. The global system, once characterized by unipolarity after the Cold War, is now transitioning toward a multipolar structure, with the United States, China and India at the helm. 

In contrast, the European Union is gradually losing ground—both economically and geopolitically—relative to these emerging players. Meanwhile, there are significant shifts in the Middle Eastern balance of power, where Türkiye holds comparative advantages. Iran’s regional influence is diminishing, and its proxy forces—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—are increasingly under pressure. These developments could fracture Iran’s so-called “Shia Crescent” and lead to a transformation of the regional geopolitical status quo.

What’s more, the prospect of regime change in Iran is becoming an increasingly common topic of discussion. Should such a transformation occur, it could present Türkiye with both new opportunities and new threats. How Ankara positions itself within this evolving world order will have consequences not only at the regional level but globally as well.

Given its geopolitical position and economic potential, Türkiye is compelled to make a strategic choice during this period of transformation. Just as in the past, the direction of the government’s foreign policy is likely to deeply influence not only global power balances but also the country’s domestic political and economic structure.

Whether Türkiye redefines itself as part of the West, pivots toward an Asia-centric structure, or pursues an autonomous strategy of strategic balance will shape the country’s trajectory for decades to come. Türkiye faces four primary strategic options, each with its own set of opportunities and risks that must be carefully calculated to avoid irreversible missteps.

Strengthening ties: NATO, Israel and the Gulf

While remaining a member of the Western alliance through institutions such as NATO, the OECD, the Council of Europe, and the EU Customs Union, Türkiye could simultaneously strengthen its ties with Russia, China, and the Gulf states to pursue a multi-vector balance-of-power strategy. This model offers certain advantages in terms of regional security, energy policy, and defense industry development, but it also carries the risk of increased dependency.

Military cooperation under NATO could continue. However, issues such as the unequal distribution of defense burdens, the potential withdrawal of the U.S. security umbrella, and differing perspectives on Russia between the U.S. and the EU are weakening trans-Atlantic solidarity. From Washington’s perspective, forging a new partnership with Russia to neutralize—or ideally contain—China has become a top priority.

Trump, as it seems, aims to safeguard American influence in the region through a strategic alignment with Russia, Türkiye, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—while shifting his full focus to the Indo-Pacific, where he sees China as the primary threat.

Trump and Erdogan have not yet met; perhaps a delayed meeting could prove more beneficial. In the words of George W. Bush: “You’re either with us or against us.” Trump may demand long-term friendly engagement with Israel and expect Türkiye to decisively resolve the Cyprus issue. He is also likely to make demands concerning Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Advantages: NATO membership ensures military security and defense cooperation. Trade and defense agreements with the U.S. and Israel could support economic growth. Strategic dialogue with Russia could be maintained.

Risks: Conflicts involving the U.S. with Iran and China could put Türkiye in a difficult position. The space for independent foreign policy may shrink. Deepening ties with Israel could provoke a domestic backlash.

EU and UK integration

Despite internal strife and economic challenges, the European Union remains a key economic and political partner for Türkiye. Closer integration with the EU and the U.K. could bring political and economic stability.

Modernizing the Customs Union and expanding access to European markets could accelerate Türkiye’s economic growth. Integration with the EU may strengthen democratic institutions and make Türkiye more attractive to foreign investors.

However, closer alignment with the EU may come with restrictions on foreign policy and defense. The EU’s demands—particularly regarding the Eastern Mediterranean, refugee policy and human rights—could present challenges for Türkiye.

The U.K., viewing the U.S. as its special ally, may be less optimistic about trans-Atlantic ties under a Trump administration, especially with a Labour government in power. Hence, it may lean more toward collaboration with the EU, particularly in shaping a new European security architecture. Post-Brexit, the U.K. has the potential for more flexible trade and defense cooperation with Türkiye. Acting jointly with both the EU and the U.K. presents an attractive option for Türkiye—but the expectations on both sides must be clearly defined through a mutually beneficial framework.

Advantages: Economic stability and increased foreign investment. Access to EU funds for infrastructure, energy, and technology projects. Boost in international prestige through improvements in democracy and rule of law.

Risks: Political reforms demanded by the EU could trigger internal tensions. Significant disagreements exist with the EU over the Eastern Mediterranean and migration policies. A limited integration model could constrain Türkiye’s maneuvering room.

Looking East

Disappointed by Western pressure and stalled integration processes, Türkiye could lean toward a new global power bloc centered on China. China’s rise in the global economy offers Türkiye alternative opportunities. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, Türkiye could further solidify its role as a logistical bridge between Asia and Europe. By deepening commercial and military cooperation with China, Russia, and Iran, Türkiye could reduce its dependency on the West.

Through the Belt and Road Initiative, Türkiye may benefit from Chinese infrastructure investments and trade corridors. Strategic cooperation with China and (assuming Russia is not lured by Trump) Russia could reduce Türkiye’s dependence on the West in trade, investment, technology, defense, and energy.

Naturally, closer ties with China could provoke harsher policies from the West and jeopardize Türkiye’s standing within NATO and other Western institutions.

Although this model might boost economic diversification, it risks subordinating Türkiye to the influence of a geographically distant China, with whom Türkiye does not share long-term strategic alignment.

Advantages: Chinese investments could provide financial resources. Stronger economic integration with BRICS. Alternative avenues against Western sanctions.

Risks: Closer ties with China may trigger a Western backlash. Türkiye risks becoming a secondary player under China’s economic hegemony. China’s unfamiliarity with Türkiye’s regional sensitivities could lead to strategic mismatches.

Strategic autonomy

Ankara may opt for an autonomous foreign policy based on national interests without fully aligning with any one bloc. This would involve developing partnerships with the EU, the U.S., China, and Russia simultaneously, thereby minimizing dependency. Strengthening domestic defense industries and energy investments would help bolster Türkiye’s resilience against external pressures. By expanding its influence in the Middle East, Africa, the Turkic World, and Asia, Türkiye could carve out a distinctive axis of its own.

This model would allow Türkiye greater independence in economic and military domains, enabling it to pursue a balancing strategy vis-a-vis global actors. However, its long-term viability would depend on political stability, economic strength, and a robust technological infrastructure at home.

Advantages: Enables Türkiye to develop a foreign policy aligned with its own interests. Allows for greater flexibility in economic and military spheres. Strengthens its claim to regional leadership.

Risks: Partial detachment from all blocs could lead to isolation. Türkiye may be more vulnerable during global economic crises. It may struggle to find support in times of regional tension.

Rational choice

Türkiye’s geopolitical preferences carry profound implications—not only for its foreign policy but also for its political and economic stability. The most rational path is for Türkiye to avoid confinement within a single global bloc and instead pursue a model of strategic autonomy, building multi-dimensional partnerships across the board.

For this model to succeed, Türkiye must secure economic independence, boost its domestic defense capabilities, preserve diplomatic flexibility, enhance multilateral relations, and maintain internal political stability.

In the unfolding global transformation, Türkiye must decide: will it be a game-changer at the table or a passive item on the menu? The resolution of this question will likely influence not only the nation’s strategic posture but also the broader geopolitical configuration of its surrounding region.