The 2024 U.S. election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presents not only a domestic political contest but also significant international implications, particularly for key U.S. allies such as Turkey. As both candidates position themselves on foreign policy issues, the potential impacts on U.S.-Turkey relations and Turkey’s strategy in the Middle East could differ substantially, depending on the outcome of the election.
Potential Results: A Harris or Trump Victory?
Kamala Harris Victory:
A Harris administration would likely adopt a more multilateral, diplomacy-focused foreign policy. Harris has emphasized global collaboration and conflict resolution through dialogue, which may lead to the U.S. taking a more measured approach in the Middle East. This could create opportunities for Turkey, especially in areas of humanitarian aid and diplomatic engagement, as Harris would likely support a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and work towards stabilizing Syria.
For Turkey, this presents a chance to bolster its role as a mediator in the region, particularly between conflicting parties in the Middle East. Under a Harris presidency, Turkey could leverage its position to play a more prominent role in peace processes, given the alignment of diplomatic objectives. Additionally, Harris’s support for renewable energy initiatives may lead to collaborative opportunities in clean energy sectors, areas where Turkey has been investing more recently .
However, Harris’s progressive policies may also lead to increased pressure on Turkey regarding human rights and democratic reforms, potentially straining relations if these issues come to the fore. The U.S. might also reintroduce sanctions or limitations related to Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems, a point of contention under both previous administrations.
Donald Trump Victory:
Trump’s foreign policy, by contrast, has historically been more transactional and unilateral. A second Trump term would likely focus on reinforcing U.S. military ties with Israel and other allies in the Middle East, while maintaining a strong military presence in the region. For Turkey, this could mean greater flexibility in pursuing its own regional goals, such as its influence in Syria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Trump’s pragmatism in foreign policy may allow Turkey to act with fewer constraints, as long as Turkish actions align with U.S. strategic interests, especially in countering Russian and Iranian influence.
Furthermore, Trump’s backing from the defense and energy sectors suggests that U.S.-Turkey military cooperation could see a revival, especially if Ankara continues to assert its role in NATO. Increased arms sales and defense collaboration might be on the table, as seen in Trump’s previous interactions with allies in the Gulf .
On the economic front, Trump’s pro-business stance and prioritization of deregulation may open doors for trade and investment cooperation between Turkey and the U.S., particularly in energy and infrastructure projects. However, Trump’s often unpredictable foreign policy could mean that Turkey would need to navigate a more uncertain geopolitical environment, especially if U.S. relations with NATO become strained again, as they did during his first term.
Impacts on Turkey’s Strategy
Security and Regional Power
Regardless of the election’s outcome, Turkey will remain a critical actor in the Middle East due to its geographical and strategic position between East and West. The outcome of the 2024 election will shape how Turkey maneuvers its influence:
- Under Harris, Turkey may need to align more with Western diplomatic efforts, presenting itself as a peace broker in conflict zones like Syria and Libya. There may be a renewed focus on Turkey’s humanitarian role, particularly concerning refugee management and reconstruction efforts in war-torn regions.
- Under Trump, Turkey might experience more flexibility in pursuing its own military ambitions in the region. This could include a more assertive role in controlling its southern borders and engaging in operations that counter Kurdish militias or ISIS remnants.
Economic Relations
From an economic standpoint, a Harris presidency would likely push for environmental reforms and renewable energy initiatives, which could lead to cooperation in sustainable energy projects. Turkey, with its growing renewable energy sector, could capitalize on this shift by positioning itself as a key partner in the region for clean energy solutions. On the other hand, Trump would likely prioritize energy independence and continue fostering relationships in the fossil fuel sector, opening opportunities for Turkey’s involvement in regional oil and gas development, particularly in the Mediterranean.
Turkey as a Diplomatic Bridge
Both candidates acknowledge Turkey’s unique role as a bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This provides Ankara with leverage to assert its strategic importance in NATO and beyond. While Harris may challenge Turkey on human rights and its democratic processes, Trump would likely take a more hands-off approach, focusing on mutual economic and security benefits. Either way, Turkey’s capacity to maintain balanced relations with both the U.S. and other regional powers like Russia and Iran will be crucial.
Conclusion: Navigating U.S.-Turkey Relations Post-Election
The 2024 U.S. election offers Turkey both challenges and opportunities, depending on the winner. A Harris administration may push Turkey towards a more cooperative, diplomatic role in the region, but could also impose constraints on domestic policies that do not align with progressive values. In contrast, a Trump administration might afford Turkey greater autonomy in pursuing its regional ambitions, albeit with less emphasis on diplomatic solutions and more on transactional alliances.
Turkey’s ability to adapt to either scenario and leverage its strategic autonomy will determine how successfully it navigates its relationship with the next U.S. administration. Whether through diplomacy or strategic opportunism, Turkey’s role as a key regional power will remain indispensable to U.S. Middle East policy.
COMMENTS