BirGün – 12/07/2026
The NATO summit held in Ankara on July 7-8 brought concrete steps to the agenda on many issues that have long been debated within the Atlantic Pact. The emphasis on Europe increasing its arms commitments, Russia being treated as the primary threat, and Türkiye becoming a more active actor, all raise geopolitical concerns for the coming period. We discussed the new imperialistic landscape we will face after the NATO Summit with Eva J. Koulouriotis.
How do you think the emphasis on weaponization in the latest NATO summit would affect world politics in general, should we worry about new wars in the globe?
Although the decision to increase defense spending among NATO countries, particularly the European members, was agreed upon at the request of the United States, especially during the first presidential term of the current US President, Donald Trump, the outcomes of the Ankara NATO summit confirmed that expanding military capabilities has now become a more realistic and practical objective. This approach, which has begun to take shape on the ground, will have repercussions for rival countries, most notably China and Russia. Moscow, which is still embroiled in the war in Ukraine, will consider this trend as a warning signal and a message directed at it, particularly given these countries’ allocation of substantial budgets to support the Ukrainian military. This will reinforce the Russian leadership’s determination to continue the war against Kyiv and reduce the prospects for diplomacy, which has remained frozen since the Putin-Witkoff talks. But will this arms race lead to new wars or even a third world war?
In my view, the decision to increase armament, defense spending, particularly by the European countries, stems from two main considerations: the first is the growing fear of America’s withdrawal from NATO under Trump’s leadership, and the second is Europe’s increasing concern over a Russian military action, especially in light of European security reports talking about a new Russian military move a year after the end of the war on Ukraine.
From an international perspective, yes, the arms race, which will accelerate after NATO’s latest decision, will pose a greater threat to global peace and increase the risks of new wars. However, in my opinion, its primary purpose is deterrence rather deterrence than aggression. That said, such escalation may increase the possibility of uncalculated mistakes that trigger wars. Even so, any such conflicts will be geographically limited, particularly because of the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.
What should we expect in the Middle East after the introduction of the NATO 3.0 concept? Do you think Türkiye would have a more direct-operative role in NATO in the future?
There is no doubt that NATO’s transition toward its 3.0 strategy, which involves distributing responsibilities more evenly among alliance members rather than placing the bulk of the burden on the United States, has elevated Turkey’s role within the alliance. Türkiye, which possesses NATO’s second-largest military, has developed its defense industry across all sectors, most notably in unmanned aerial systems (UAVs), where Ankara holds a leading position. This is in addition to the rapid development of Türkiye’s missile program, the latest example being the unveiling of a hypersonic missile featuring advanced capabilities. The Turkish leadership, which has been preparing for this new phase for some time, is now putting the final touches on its regional and alliance strategy. Türkiye intensified discussions with the Trump administration regarding the lifting of sanctions imposed under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which ultimately resulted in their removal during the Ankara NATO summit. There are also behind-the-scenes talks about Türkiye making concessions regarding the presence of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system currently in service with the Turkish military. According to several Western diplomats, Türkiye has agreed to transfer or sell the Russian system to another country in the region. These developments pave the way for a potential F-35 fighter jet deal which Ankara desires to acquire. As a result, Brussels’ gaze turns back towards Türkiye. Europe, which has always relied on the American umbrella and whose several governments have long played on marginalizing Ankara and reject its bid to join to the Union, and some of them have even moved to destabilize the Turkish interior, today finds itself compelled to deal with Türkiye as a reliable and indispensable ally for European national security in the face of the growing Russian threat and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
In the same context, the Middle East will deal with the new changes within NATO. Many countries in the region rely heavily on the American military presence, support, and protection. However, the US-Israeli war against Iran, and the significant damage that these countries suffered as a result of the presence of American bases on their territory, has led some of them to question the usefulness of that presence. Here, I see that Riyadh has already begun to deal with the reality of the American withdrawal from the region as something that could happen at any time. This is reflected in Riyadh’s growing rapprochement with Türkiye on one hand and with Pakistan on the other. Meanwhile, Qatar is moving towards adopting a clear rapprochement policy with both Ankara and Tehran. Even the United Arab Emirates, which built a strategy of rapprochement with Israel over the past five years as an alternative in case of the American withdrawal from the region while relations with Türkiye were strained, is now reassessing its regional policy and its relationship with Ankara.
How far do you think the US-Iran war would go as the US bombed Iran in the last day of the summit? Does Washington still aim for a regime change or create a constant destabilization till the whole country collapses?
At the present time, despite the intensive airstrikes carried out by the US Air Force against Iranian sites, which have expanded to include energy facilities, diplomacy remains the preferred option for both the US administration and Iranian politicians. This was confirmed over the past two days by several US officials who stated that technical discussions related to the memorandum of understanding signed in Switzerland, and based on the Islamabad talks, are continuing even after the recent round of retaliatory strikes. However, this reality does not negate the fact that the issue of the Strait of Hormuz remains a complex obstacle that could spark further military escalation. I believe that the future of war and diplomacy between Washington and Tehran has shifted away from the Iranian nuclear issue is now centered on the Strait of Hormuz. As for talk of regime change in Iran or pushing for internal instability within Iran, this has been removed from the agenda in Washington, at least in the near term, as long as the diplomatic option remains viable. Meanwhile, this objective will remain on the table in Israel, which considers the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding a greater threat to its security than even the October 7 attacks. The need to thwart this memorandum will remain among the top goals of the current Israeli administration and even the next one in the event that Netanyahu loses the upcoming Knesset elections. Israel will work to obstruct this memorandum through several files, the most important being the Lebanese file, where Israel refuses to withdraw from southern Lebanon, which is an Iranian demand to complete the agreement with Washington. The second is the Gaza file, through renewed military operations in the Strip. The third involves destabilizing the internal situation in Iran through security operations, and the fourth is intensifying the activities of the Israeli lobby in Washington to create obstacles to the successful implementation of the memorandum.