Donald Trump’s potential return to the U.S. presidency raises the possibility of Turkey’s reintegration into the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet program, a move that would require navigating intense opposition from the U.S. Congress and strategic concerns from Israel. The decision hinges on whether Turkey abandons the Russian S-400 missile system.
The F-35 program is a cornerstone of NATO’s aerial superiority. Turkey was once a partner in the program, contributing components and funding, before the U.S. government terminated its involvement. For Ankara, regaining access to these aircraft is a matter of national security and prestige; for Washington, it is a lever for geopolitical alignment.
The tension between Turkey and the U.S. centers on the S-400 system. According to reports from Deutsche Welle, the primary American concern is that the Russian radar systems could be used to “crack” the stealth capabilities of the F-35, compromising the aircraft’s invisibility to enemy radar. This technical vulnerability is the central argument used by U.S. defense officials and members of Congress to block any deal that does not involve the complete removal of the S-400s from Turkish soil.
The Role of Donald Trump and the ‘Personal Diplomacy’ Factor
Donald Trump has maintained a praising relationship with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Analysts suggest that Trump may be more inclined to prioritize a direct deal with Erdoğan.
Reports from Al Jazeera indicate that Trump is frustrated with NATO and Meloni, and is deciding on the sale of F-35s to Turkey. By potentially offering the F-35s as a reward for specific geopolitical concessions, Trump could use the aircraft as a tool for “deal-making.”
However, the executive branch does not have unilateral power over arms sales. The current climate in Congress remains hostile toward Turkey’s procurement of Russian hardware.
Israel’s Strategic Opposition to Turkish F-35s
Israel is one of the countries operating a customized version of the F-35 (the F-35I “Adir”). Israeli security officials view the prospect of Turkey—a country with a volatile relationship with Israel—possessing the same stealth technology as a significant strategic risk. According to Deutsche Welle, Israel’s opposition is rooted in the fear that Turkish aircraft could be used to challenge Israeli air superiority in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The strategic calculus is further complicated by Turkey’s shifting alliances. While Turkey remains a NATO member, its procurement of Russian weapons and its diplomatic ties with Iran create a perceived security gap. Israel argues that the “leakage” of stealth data to Russia via Turkey would not only harm the U.S. but would directly jeopardize the effectiveness of the Israeli Air Force’s most advanced assets.
The U.S. typically weighs the concerns of its closest allies when approving high-end military transfers. If Israel provides the U.S. government with classified evidence that Turkish F-35s would create an unacceptable risk, it could provide the necessary political cover for Congress to block the sale, regardless of Trump’s personal preferences.
The S-400 Dilemma: Technical Risk vs. Political Will
The core of the dispute is the S-400 Triumfat, a long-range surface-to-air missile system. The U.S. maintains that the S-400 and the F-35 cannot coexist in the same airspace because the Russian system is designed specifically to detect and track stealth aircraft. To the Pentagon, the risk is binary: either the S-400s go, or the F-35s cannot come.
Turkey has previously suggested that it could place the S-400s under joint U.S.-Russian-Turkish monitoring to mitigate these risks. This proposal was rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. The Turkish government, however, views the S-400 as a necessary hedge against its own perceived vulnerabilities, especially after the U.S. delayed the delivery of Patriot missile systems for years.
A potential Trump-era compromise might involve Turkey transferring the S-400s to a third party—such as Ukraine—in exchange for the F-35s. While this has been floated as a possibility in diplomatic circles, it would require a level of coordination between Ankara and Moscow that has not yet materialized.
Comparison of Strategic Positions
| Stakeholder | Primary Goal | Main Constraint/Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | Restore F-35 fleet for air superiority | Reluctance to discard S-400s |
| Donald Trump | Strengthen bilateral ties/Transactional deal | Congressional oversight and NATO cohesion |
| U.S. Congress | Punish Russian weapon procurement | Legislative mandates on arms exports |
| Israel | Maintain qualitative military edge (QME) | Regional instability and stealth compromise |
What Happens Next?
The possibility of Turkey’s return to the F-35 program depends on the outcome of the U.S. political cycle and the subsequent diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Ankara. The immediate checkpoint will be the formation of the next U.S. administration’s National Security Council and its stated policy on “legacy” defense disputes.
If a deal is pursued, the first step will likely be a formal agreement on the “disposition” of the S-400 systems. Any such agreement would then move to the U.S. Congress for review under the Arms Export Control Act. Until Turkey provides a verifiable plan to remove the Russian missiles, the technical and political barriers to the F-35 remain largely intact.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on whether military hardware should be used as a diplomatic tool in the comments below.