Washington Diplomacy Meets Ankara’s Calculus
When former President Donald Trump proclaims a “productive” phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it’s tempting to dismiss it as standard diplomatic fodder—politicians congratulating themselves for simply picking up the phone. Yet beneath the surface, conversations like these offer a window into the evolving dynamics compounding global instability, especially when key issues like the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and America’s shifting posture in the Middle East are at play.
With Turkey straddling the line between NATO member and would-be mediator, the stakes of Ankara’s maneuvering are anything but routine. According to Turkey’s presidency, Erdogan reiterated his readiness to “cooperate and provide all kinds of support to establish a ceasefire and ensure lasting peace” in Gaza. The Turkish president’s words came as Israel’s military campaign in Gaza continues to draw international condemnation for civilian casualties and the stalling of humanitarian relief, putting moral and political pressure on the White House.
For Trump, highlighting his “excellent” relationship with Erdogan seems an attempt to revive the transactional style of international engagement that defined his term—one marked by abrupt withdrawals, pressure campaigns, and a reliance on personal rapport over institutional partnership. Yet amid the global stakes, can cordiality alone fill the vacuum left by American disengagement?
A closer look reveals the limitations of Trump’s approach. Harvard’s Kennedy School expert on U.S.-Turkey relations, Dr. Amanda Sloat, notes, “Erdogan is adept at leveraging these headline-grabbing calls to enhance Turkey’s negotiating hand, simultaneously currying favor with both Washington and Moscow.” Indeed, Turkey has positioned itself—sometimes controversially—as a bridge between Kyiv and the Kremlin, playing host to negotiations and refusing to join Western sanctions on Russia.
Mediators, Military Aid, and the Mirage of Ceasefire
Turkey’s offer to mediate isn’t new. During the opening months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Erdogan convened early talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Antalya. While those talks yielded little substantive progress, they underscored Turkey’s unique geopolitical leverage—geographically, as the gatekeeper of the Bosporus Strait; diplomatically, as a NATO member unafraid to chart its own course. Yet, Turkey’s credibility as a neutral peacemaker is marred by its own regional ambitions, from military operations against Kurdish groups in Syria to weapons sales and natural gas brinkmanship in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Trump’s position—expressed publicly and reportedly in his Erdogan call—signals a desire to wind down U.S. military support for Kyiv. He’s branded the war in Ukraine as both “ridiculous” and “deadly,” raising doubts about U.S. commitment in the eyes of European allies. This stance stands in sharp contrast to the bipartisan consensus still prevailing in Congress, as well as NATO’s principle of collective security.
Beyond that, the Trump administration’s recent minerals deal with Ukraine—a move aimed at securing postwar reconstruction investment and shared access to Ukraine’s vast natural resources—has drawn scrutiny. According to Bloomberg’s coverage of the deal last week, critics warn that such economic entanglements can appear less like support for Ukrainian sovereignty and more like opportunistic resource extraction, with scant assurances for transparency or Ukrainian benefit.
On the Gaza front, Erdogan’s call to action—voiced during his exchange with Trump—was equal parts diplomatic overture and calculated self-interest. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly butted heads with Ankara over Gaza and regional alignment, Trump’s willingness to praise Erdogan only sharpens the animosity. “He is playing both sides for his own gain,” says former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. “Trump’s signals reinforce Erdogan’s self-image as a kingmaker, but they do nothing to stabilize the region or prioritize human rights.”
“When American leadership abdicates responsibility, authoritarians like Erdogan fill the void—not with democratic values, but with their own agendas.”
Beyond Optics: The Road to Real Peace
Valid questions remain about whether Trump-era diplomacy offers solutions or simply amplifies chaos. The persistent reliance on personality-driven outreach, rather than serious, multilateral negotiation, undermines the prospects for enduring peace. Consider the negotiations leading to the Iran nuclear deal in 2015: despite deep skepticism from conservatives, that multilateral, deeply technical process was hailed by nuclear nonproliferation experts as a major step in preventing a new arms race in the Middle East.
Contrast that with the style favored by Trump and, by extension, Erdogan. Both leaders seem to prefer closed-door deals or explosive public pronouncements—often leaving the details, and the people most affected by conflict, sidelined. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which Trump referenced via hostages and the return of Pastor Andrew Brunson during his presidency, requires action shaped not by headlines but by coordination among the U.N., EU, Red Crescent, and trusted NGOs on the ground.
“History teaches us that strongmen rarely dismantle the systems that empower them,” says Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official specializing in Russia and Turkey. “What’s needed are checks, balances, and the hard work of coalition-building.” Policymakers must ask whether discourse shaped by photo ops and fleeting ‘productive’ calls can deliver sustainable ceasefires, or whether such theater provides cover as conflicts fester and extremists capitalize on instability.
Spotlight on progressive values should guide U.S. engagement, especially when authoritarian leaders seek legitimacy from their contacts with former U.S. presidents. American values—justice, equality, peace—must be visible in every action, not just in ceremonial calls. As voters and citizens, the obligation to demand more from elected—and would-be elected—officials has never been clearer, nor more urgent. Who will fill the global leadership vacuum if we do not?
