U.S. Signals Openness to Reviving F‑35 Path for Türkiye, Testing NATO’s Internal Balance
The U.S. ambassador to NATO says he believes an F‑35 deal with Türkiye is possible if legal conditions are met, while praising Ankara as a “very capable ally” that Washington should lean into. The comments hint at a potential thaw after years of tension over Russian air defenses, at a time when the alliance is relying heavily on Türkiye’s role in the Black Sea and the Middle East.
Washington is signaling that one of NATO’s most fraught defense disputes may not be permanent. The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, said on Sunday he thinks an F‑35 deal with Türkiye will happen if legal conditions are met, suggesting room for Ankara to edge back toward the alliance’s most advanced fighter program after being ejected over its purchase of Russian S‑400 air defenses.
Whitaker’s remarks went beyond legal caveats. He described Türkiye as “a very capable ally” that is integrated with the West, stressing that Ankara “again want[s] to be a key ally, especially in that region” and has been helpful in other regional conflicts. He added that the United States should “lean into that relationship,” a choice of words that reads as much like a policy recommendation as a diplomatic compliment.
For Turkish defense planners, the prospect of reentering the F‑35 ecosystem—or at least repairing ties damaged by their exclusion—is more than symbolic. Türkiye had been a partner in the program, investing in production and planning to field the stealth jets as the backbone of its future air force. Instead, it has been forced to extend the life of its F‑16 fleet, push indigenously developed fighters like the KAAN, and manage a patchwork of upgrades while facing growing Russian and regional airpower.
The human and operational stakes are felt by pilots and crews who train and fly in aging platforms while watching neighboring Greece receive new Rafales and upgrade its F‑16s, and by Turkish industry workers who saw F‑35 component contracts diverted elsewhere after Ankara’s S‑400 purchase. A path back—however conditional—would revive business for some Turkish firms and give the air force a clearer modernization roadmap, even if deliveries take years.
Strategically, Whitaker’s comments indicate that Washington sees renewed value in binding Türkiye more tightly into Western defense architectures at a time when war rages in Ukraine, instability spills from the Middle East, and shipping lanes through the Turkish Straits and eastern Mediterranean carry new weight. Ankara has played a pivotal and sometimes contradictory role: supplying drones to Ukraine, mediating grain export deals, yet also blocking and then green-lighting NATO enlargement, and maintaining energy and trade ties with Russia.
Reopening the F‑35 question tests NATO’s internal balance. Some allies remain wary of Türkiye’s domestic politics, its military operations in Syria and Iraq, and its purchase of Russian systems that NATO planners view as a security risk. Any path back into the F‑35 orbit would likely demand verifiable steps from Ankara on how it handles the S‑400s, assurances about technology protection, and a broader convergence on alliance priorities from the Black Sea to the Caucasus.
At the same time, pushing Türkiye too far toward the margins carries risks of its own. Ankara controls access to the Black Sea via the Montreux Convention, hosts critical NATO infrastructure, and influences migration flows into Europe. The ambassador’s emphasis on Türkiye as a “very capable ally” reflects a calculation that it is better to anchor Ankara firmly inside Western defense frameworks than to leave it searching for alternatives with Russia or other partners.
The key signals to watch next will be whether U.S. and Turkish officials move beyond rhetoric into concrete steps: talks on managing or sidelining the S‑400 systems, new packages to modernize Türkiye’s F‑16 fleet as an interim measure, and any formal discussion of re-integration into F‑35 production chains. How Congress reacts to any proposed deal—through support, conditions or resistance—will be as decisive as the ambassador’s optimism in determining whether Türkiye’s stealth fighter ambitions are revived within NATO or continue to drift toward alternative paths.
Sources
- OSINT