The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stands at a critical juncture, confronting rising geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe, instability in the Middle East, and escalating global strategic competition.
Turkey’s recent use of its veto power against Israel’s participation in a crucial NATO exercise scheduled for September 2025 reveals a troubling internal vulnerability. Ankara’s decision not only harms Israel directly but also undermines the alliance’s broader collective defense framework, weakening its unity precisely when strength and cooperation are needed most.
Historically, Turkey has been an indispensable NATO member, safeguarding the alliance’s southeastern flank and significantly contributing to collective defense efforts. However, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it has increasingly diverged from NATO’s core strategic principles, compromising the trust essential for alliance cohesion.
A prominent example is Ankara’s controversial purchase of Russia’s sophisticated S-400 missile defense system – a direct breach of NATO’s integrated defense protocols. This decision resulted in Turkey’s exclusion from the F-35 advanced fighter jet program, due to intelligence-sharing concerns, risking exposure of sensitive NATO data to Russian technicians and undermining the alliance’s collective air defense capabilities.
Ankara’s deepening military cooperation with Moscow amplifies these risks. Turkey’s continued access to NATO’s most sensitive communication and command infrastructures, including the vital Link 16 tactical network, raises critical security concerns. Given NATO’s reliance on Link 16 for real-time intelligence and strategic coordination, Turkey’s ambiguous strategic alignment poses tangible operational and intelligence threats to the entire alliance.
Politically, Ankara has demonstrated a willingness to leverage NATO’s consensus-based decision-making process to extract unrelated concessions. Turkey’s delay of Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership bids – resolved only after lengthy negotiations – highlighted significant vulnerabilities within the alliance’s decision-making process, sending mixed signals to Moscow at a time when clarity and decisiveness were critical.
Turkey has consistently cited legitimate security concerns, particularly threats posed by Kurdish groups such as the PKK – recognized as a terrorist organization by NATO – as justification for its demands and military actions.Turkey vetoes Israel's participation in 2025 NATO exercise
Most recently, Turkey exploited the consensus principle again, vetoing Israel’s participation in the planned NATO exercise on resilience and emergency preparedness scheduled for September 2025 in Bulgaria. This move sidelined a key strategic partner and highlighted structural vulnerabilities within NATO, demonstrating how the national politics of a single member can directly weaken the operational effectiveness of the entire alliance.
Israel, though not a formal NATO member, remains a critical strategic partner through its Mediterranean Dialogue, significantly contributing to European and global defense capabilities.
The strategic benefits Israel provides NATO states have been extensively documented: Germany recently invested $3.5 billion in Israel’s advanced Arrow-3 missile defense system (developed by Israel Aerospace Industries, IAI) to strengthen Europe’s defenses against ballistic missile threats.
Similarly, the United States has procured Israel’s Iron Dome defense system (developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems), now operationally deployed within American forces, underscoring Israel’s unique value to Western defense strategies.
Moreover, Israeli firm Elbit Systems supplies advanced communications, electronic warfare, and drone technologies to various NATO countries, significantly enhancing their operational readiness. Israeli cybersecurity firms, such as CheckPoint and CyberArk, set global standards in cybersecurity, countering cyber threats and fortifying critical digital infrastructures. These examples represent just a fraction of Israel’s substantial contributions to the alliance’s collective defense initiatives, particularly vital given escalating threats from adversaries like Iran.
By obstructing Israel’s participation, Turkey not only undermines NATO’s operational readiness but directly compromises the national defense interests of member states. Ankara’s veto signals that its geopolitical priorities increasingly diverge from those of the alliance, providing NATO’s adversaries – particularly Russia and Iran – opportunities to exploit perceived divisions within the Western defense framework.
Additionally, Turkey’s military operations in Syria, often undertaken with tacit Russian consent, have significantly complicated NATO’s Middle Eastern strategic posture. While it justifies these actions as necessary to counter threats from PKK-linked Kurdish groups, Ankara’s repeated targeting of Kurdish forces allied with NATO states in the fight against ISIS has undermined coalition efforts, compromised anti-terror missions, and increased regional instability.
However, commentary by RAND Europe senior analyst Rebecca Lucas last Tuesday underscores Turkey’s strategic role – particularly highlighting Incirlik Air Base as a key NATO asset in the Middle East. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the urgent need to directly address Ankara’s obstructionism.
The consensus principle
The alliance's consensus principle, though foundational, should evolve to prevent single-state obstructionism on critical defense decisions. Introducing measures such as qualified majority voting or a “consensus-minus-one” mechanism in exceptional situations would ensure NATO’s strategic decisions cannot be indefinitely stalled by a single member.
In parallel, NATO should proactively deepen strategic partnerships with reliable, democratic, and militarily capable allies such as Israel, formalizing their role further through existing frameworks like the Mediterranean Dialogue. Expanding joint exercises, regularizing high-level intelligence sharing, and enhancing cooperation in missile defense and cybersecurity represent practical, achievable steps to significantly strengthen NATO’s collective defense capabilities – independent of Turkey’s political objections.
Recent reports (Fox News, March 22, 2025) indicate that the Trump administration is considering lifting sanctions imposed on Turkey under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), and may even resume sales of F-16 fighter jets and potentially the more advanced F-35s – contingent upon Turkey dismantling or relocating its Russian-made S-400 missile defense system.
This latest development underscores Ankara’s problematic behavior within NATO and highlights precisely the concerns raised throughout this article. By engaging with Turkey under such circumstances, the US risks sending a contradictory message regarding the alliance’s commitment to its foundational principles. Furthermore, negotiating these concessions at a moment when Ankara exercises its NATO veto power against key strategic partners such as Israel could further erode alliance unity and embolden adversaries like Russia and Iran.
Turkey’s actions necessitate serious reflection and recalibration within NATO. Alliance leaders must clearly communicate that its principles of collective defense and mutual trust cannot be compromised by any single nation’s political ambitions.
By addressing these challenges head-on, NATO can reaffirm its strategic credibility and bolster its deterrent posture. Unity and coherence remain its greatest strategic assets and must be vigilantly protected. Addressing Turkey’s troubling divergence openly and decisively is essential to preserving the alliance’s effectiveness in a rapidly evolving global defense landscape.
The writer is an expert in strategic communications and national security, specializing in crisis management and countering disinformation. He previously served as vice president of External Relations at Israel Aerospace Industries and has advised senior Israeli officials on defense and diplomatic strategy during national emergencies.