# Washington Still Hesitates to Sell F-35s to S-400 Turkey > Introduction: a letter that reopens an old, explosive file - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Reportage - Published: 2026-07-03 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/recit-washington-hesite-encore-a-vendre-des-f-35-a-la-turquie-de-s-400 ## Introduction: a letter that reopens an old, explosive file ### A bipartisan group that refuses to turn the page A bipartisan group of American lawmakers has sent an official letter warning the **Trump** administration against any resumption of **F-35** fighter jet sales to **Turkey**, citing persistent concerns tied to **Ankara's** possession of the Russian **S-400** air defense system, according to reporting by **The Jerusalem Post**. This letter does not appear out of nowhere: it fits within a long-standing parliamentary resistance to this deal, a resistance that refuses to fade despite repeated efforts by **Ankara** to convince **Washington** to reverse its exclusion from the **F-35** program since 2019. ### Why this story deserves to be told now This missive, signed by lawmakers from both major American parties, explicitly cites statements attributed to Israeli Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** regarding the alleged intentions of Turkish President **Recep Tayyip Erdogan**, a detail that adds a delicate diplomatic dimension to an already sensitive file. I am telling this story because it perfectly illustrates the permanent tension between commercial calculations, fragile military alliances, and legitimate strategic distrust that characterizes the complex relationship between **Washington** and a **NATO** partner as unpredictable as **Erdogan's** **Turkey**. *I will say it plainly: I fully understand the distrust of these American lawmakers. You do not gamble with the security of the West's most advanced military technology to satisfy the geopolitical whims of an ally as ambiguous as Erdogan.* *And I insist on this: trust between allies is built on verifiable actions, not on simple diplomatic promises. Ankara must act first before demanding a return to the F-35 program.* ## The S-400, a bone of contention since 2019 ### An acquisition that cost Ankara dearly Turkey's 2019 decision to acquire the Russian **S-400** system immediately triggered **Ankara's** exclusion from the **F-35** program, with **Washington** fearing that the simultaneous presence of this Russian system and the American stealth jet on Turkish soil would allow **Moscow** to gather sensitive data on the Western fighter's technological capabilities. This exclusion marked a significant rupture in military relations between the two countries, with **Turkey** having invested considerable sums in the **F-35** program before being cut out of it, a financial and strategic loss that **Ankara** has never fully accepted. ### A decision with deep geopolitical roots Turkey's choice of the **S-400** over equivalent Western air defense systems already reflected, at the time, a troubling strategic drift by **Erdogan** toward closer ties with **Moscow**, despite **Turkey's** formal membership in the **North Atlantic Treaty Organization**. This drift has never truly been corrected since, which explains why **Washington's** distrust of **Ankara's** real strategic intentions remains as sharp today, several years after the initial acquisition of the controversial Russian system. *Here is a perfect example of what I call Turkish strategic ambiguity: a NATO member on paper, yet close enough to Moscow to buy its most sensitive weapons systems. You cannot be halfway inside a collective security alliance.* ## The precise content of the bipartisan letter ### Concerns expressed with firmness According to **The Jerusalem Post**, the letter, jointly addressed to Secretary of State **Marco Rubio** and Secretary of Defense **Pete Hegseth**, expresses specific concerns about the risks that would come with resuming **F-35** sales to **Turkey** as long as the **S-400** system remains operational on Turkish territory. The signatories of this letter stress that Turkey's position has fundamentally not changed since 2019, and that no credible guarantee has been provided by **Ankara** regarding the disarmament or permanent neutralization of the controversial Russian system. ### An explicit reference to Netanyahu's remarks A notable feature of this letter: it cites statements attributed to Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** expressing reservations about President **Erdogan's** long-term strategic intentions, a reference that shows how far this file extends beyond the strictly bilateral US-Turkish framework to touch the broader regional geopolitical balance. This Israeli dimension adds an extra layer of complexity: **Israel** watches closely any evolution of Turkish military capabilities, given the recurring tensions between **Ankara** and **Jerusalem** on several sensitive regional issues. *I find it telling that even Netanyahu, usually cautious about publicly criticizing other regional leaders, voices such explicit reservations about Erdogan's intentions. That says a lot about the climate of distrust currently prevailing.* ## Turkey's Kaan ambitions and Trump's double game ### A national Turkish fighter jet seeking American engines Alongside this **F-35** file, the **Trump** administration has reportedly been considering supplying American engines for the development of the Turkish national fighter jet **Kaan**, an ambitious **Ankara** project aimed at reducing its dependence on foreign military technology. This decision appears contradictory to several American lawmakers, who struggle to understand why **Washington** would technically support the development of an autonomous Turkish fighter jet while maintaining a block on the direct sale of the **F-35** to the same country. ### An American strategy with multiple motivations This apparent contradiction probably reflects a more nuanced **Washington** strategy: maintaining technological and commercial ties with Turkey's defense industry, while avoiding the transfer of the most sensitive and advanced technology represented by the **F-35** as long as the **S-400** question remains unresolved. This two-speed approach illustrates how difficult it is for **Washington** to manage a relationship as ambivalent as the one with **Turkey**, a country strategically important to **NATO** but whose recent geopolitical choices inspire persistent distrust among many American lawmakers. *I see in this apparent contradiction further proof of the chronic unpredictability of the Trump administration on national security matters. A coherent line would nonetheless be necessary when facing a partner as slippery as Erdogan.* ## The congressional resolution to block the sale ### A concrete legislative initiative According to **Turkish Minute**, American lawmakers are preparing a formal resolution explicitly aimed at blocking any return of **Turkey** to the **F-35** program, directly invoking the persistent threat posed by the **S-400** system to the security of the West's most advanced military technology. This legislative initiative, if it succeeds, would legally compel the **Trump** administration to maintain Turkey's exclusion, thereby limiting the White House's diplomatic room to maneuver on this sensitive file, regardless of whatever commercial or strategic pressure **Ankara** might apply. ### A strong signal sent to Turkey This parliamentary move sends a clear signal to **Ankara**: American distrust of Turkish strategic choices is not limited to a single administration but reflects a deeper bipartisan consensus within **the US Congress** on the security risks posed by continued possession of the **S-400**. This rare bipartisan consensus, in today's polarized political climate in **Washington**, illustrates the scale of the security concerns shared by American lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation, on this specific strategic military file. *I welcome this rare bipartisan unity in Washington. When Democrats and Republicans agree on such a precise national security issue, it is generally the sign of a real danger rather than an artificial political quarrel.* ## Greece's position and regional tensions ### Athens watches this file with concern According to **Parapolitika**, American lawmakers of Greek origin have also voiced their opposition to any resumption of **F-35** sales to **Turkey**, citing persistent tensions in the **Aegean Sea** and Turkish territorial claims that regularly worry **Athens** and **Cyprus**. This Greek dimension of the file shows just how far the question of Turkish rearmament extends beyond the strictly bilateral US-Turkish issue to affect the broader strategic balance in the **Eastern Mediterranean**, a region where territorial tensions remain sharp among several **NATO** allies. ### A fragile regional balance to preserve Strengthening Turkish air capabilities without sufficient guarantees about its regional strategic intentions could destabilize an already precarious balance between **Ankara**, **Athens**, and **Nicosia**, three capitals whose relations remain marked by unresolved territorial disputes stretching back decades. This complex geopolitical reality explains why many American lawmakers, beyond the sole question of the **S-400**, hesitate to further strengthen Turkish military capabilities without a prior clarification of **Erdogan's** regional intentions. *I often think of our Greek and Cypriot allies in this file, too often forgotten in the strictly US-Turkish analysis. Their security deserves to be fully factored into any Western strategic calculation on this subject.* ## Trump's ambiguous role in this saga ### A personal relationship with Erdogan that complicates the calculus President **Trump** has maintained a distinctive personal relationship with **Erdogan** for several years, a dynamic that sometimes complicates his administration's broader strategic calculations on this **F-35** file, despite the reservations expressed by many members of **Congress**. This personal relationship, combined with the potential commercial interests of an **F-35** sale for the American defense industry, creates a constant tension between **Trump's** transactional impulses and the more structural security concerns raised by the American **Congress**. ### Necessary firmness despite presidential unpredictability I repeat here what I have said elsewhere: **Trump** remains an imperfect but broadly necessary ally for the **West**, on condition that his personal impulses never override the most fundamental national security imperatives, such as not transferring a technology as sensitive as the **F-35** to a country still hosting a Russian defense system. This bipartisan parliamentary resistance is precisely the kind of institutional safeguard needed to contain the riskiest impulses of the current administration on the most sensitive national security files. *Here I trust Congress more than the White House to maintain a coherent line of firmness toward Turkey. Democratic institutions must sometimes restrain a president's personal impulses, even a president I broadly support.* ## What Russia gains from this stalemate ### An S-400 system that keeps serving Moscow's interests Every day the **S-400** system remains operational on Turkish soil represents, indirectly, a strategic success for **Moscow**, which has managed to embed Russian military technology at the heart of a **NATO** member country, creating a lasting crack in Western security architecture. This situation perfectly illustrates Russia's long-term strategy of fragmenting Western unity through indirect means rather than direct military confrontation: selling weapons systems to **NATO** member countries to create dependencies and internal tensions within the alliance. ### A lesson for the entire Atlantic Alliance This Turkish file should serve as a lesson for all **NATO** member countries about the risks of dependence on Russian military technology, even for reasons initially presented as purely technical or budgetary by the governments involved. Western vigilance must extend beyond the Turkish case alone to identify and correct any other similar vulnerability within the alliance, before **Moscow** can further exploit these gaps to weaken collective cohesion against its own geopolitical ambitions. *This is exactly the kind of structural vulnerability Putin loves to exploit. Every crack in NATO unity, however small it may appear, serves his long-term strategic interests against the entire West.* ## The economic stakes for American industry ### A contract that would be worth billions Beyond strategic considerations, this potential **F-35** sale to **Turkey** would represent a substantial commercial contract for **Lockheed Martin** and the entire American industrial supply chain involved in producing this fifth-generation fighter jet. This commercial dimension partly explains why certain American economic and political actors continue pushing for a swift resolution of this file, despite the legitimate security reservations expressed by many members of **Congress**. ### A calculation that must never outweigh security I firmly maintain that these commercial considerations, however legitimate for the American defense industry, should never take priority over the fundamental national security imperatives that justify maintaining Turkey's exclusion from the **F-35** program. Sacrificing the technological security of the entire Western alliance to satisfy short-term commercial interests would be a major strategic mistake, one whose consequences would far outweigh the immediate economic benefits of such a contract. *I say it again, forcefully: no commercial contract, however lucrative for the American defense industry, justifies compromising the collective technological security of the entire Atlantic Alliance.* ## Possible scenarios for the coming months ### Between prolonged status quo and technical compromise Several scenarios remain conceivable for how this file will evolve in the coming months: a continuation of the current status quo, a formal legislative resolution permanently blocking any resumption of the sale, or a technical compromise allowing a partial lifting of restrictions under strict independent verification conditions. This last scenario, while theoretically possible, appears unlikely in the short term given the absence of clear signals from **Ankara** about its willingness to permanently neutralize the **S-400** system, a precondition deemed essential by the majority of American lawmakers involved. ### The importance of continued Western firmness Regardless of which scenario materializes, this file illustrates the importance of continued Western firmness in the face of attempts to circumvent collective security rules, even when those attempts come from a formal **NATO** ally like **Turkey**. This firmness must never be mistaken for hostility toward **Ankara**: it simply reflects a legitimate demand for strategic coherence necessary to preserve the technological and security integrity of the entire Atlantic alliance against Russian ambitions. *I close this section with a simple conviction: firmness toward Turkey on this specific file is not anti-Turkish sentiment, but a minimal requirement of security coherence within our Western alliance.* ## What this file reveals about NATO's internal fractures ### An alliance that is never fully united This **F-35** file reveals a broader reality that many prefer to ignore: **NATO** is never a perfectly united and homogeneous alliance, but rather a coalition of countries with sometimes divergent interests, some of whose members maintain ambiguous relations with shared strategic adversaries like **Russia**. This reality should not discourage us from recognizing the fundamental importance of the Atlantic alliance, but it should remind us of the need for constant vigilance to identify and correct internal weaknesses before they are exploited by determined external adversaries. ### An opportunity to strengthen collective verification mechanisms This Turkish file could serve as a catalyst for strengthening collective verification mechanisms within **NATO**, ensuring that any member country acquiring military technology potentially incompatible with Western security standards undergoes rigorous review before gaining any access to sensitive allied technologies. Such a mechanism, if implemented consistently, would prevent future diplomatic deadlocks as prolonged as the one currently observed between **Washington** and **Ankara** over the **F-35** and **S-400** question. *Here is a concrete proposal I would like to see adopted by NATO: a systematic verification mechanism before any transfer of sensitive technology between allies, to avoid repeating the Turkish mistake with another member country in the future.* ## The precedent of CAATSA sanctions against Turkey ### A historical reminder that still weighs today It is worth recalling that Turkey's exclusion from the **F-35** program in 2019 was accompanied by additional sanctions imposed under the **CAATSA** law, specifically targeting the **Presidency of Defense Industries** responsible for acquiring the **S-400** system from **Moscow**. These sanctions, among the harshest ever imposed on a **NATO** member, already demonstrated at the time the gravity with which **Washington** viewed this acquisition, a precedent that continues to weigh heavily on current negotiations over a possible resumption of **F-35** sales. ### A lesson Congress refuses to forget This precedent largely explains why current American lawmakers categorically refuse to consider this matter closed or negotiable without a clear and verifiable resolution of the **S-400** question by **Ankara**. **Congress's** institutional memory on this file remains sharp: agreeing to resume the sale without sufficient guarantees would amount to symbolically erasing the gravity of the sanctions imposed in 2019, a signal that many lawmakers refuse to send to **Ankara** or to other allies tempted by similar acquisitions from **Moscow**. *I believe this CAATSA precedent must remain an example for any other NATO country tempted to flirt with Russian arms suppliers. Yesterday's firmness must continue to guide today's firmness.* ## The human dimension behind this geopolitical file ### Turkish pilots deprived of a jet they had already come to know Behind the cold geopolitical calculations lies a human reality too often overlooked: Turkish pilots had already begun their **F-35** training before the 2019 exclusion, a human and professional investment brutally interrupted by **Ankara's** political decision to acquire the Russian system. This human dimension of the file shows just how much geopolitical decisions made at the top of the state have concrete consequences for career military personnel who themselves have no direct influence over the strategic choices of their political leaders. ### A Turkish defense industry also affected Turkey's own defense industry suffered direct economic consequences from this exclusion, with several Turkish companies losing subcontracting deals tied to the **F-35** program's supply chain after the 2019 American decision. This economic reality adds further pressure on **Ankara** to resolve this file, beyond purely military strategic considerations, a pressure the Turkish government never fails to quietly raise during its diplomatic discussions with **Washington**. *I never forget this human dimension in my geopolitical analyses: Turkish service members acting in good faith are today paying the price of political decisions made by their leaders, a reality worth naming even though it changes nothing about the need for Western firmness.* ## The limits of our knowledge about Ankara's real intentions ### An opacity that complicates any definitive analysis An important methodological limitation must be acknowledged in this analysis: President **Erdogan's** real long-term strategic intentions regarding the **S-400** system remain difficult to establish with absolute certainty, with **Ankara** alternating between contradictory signals depending on the interlocutor and diplomatic context. This Turkish strategic opacity does not make it easy for Western analysts trying to assess whether **Ankara's** position stems from a purely temporary tactical calculation or from a more lasting geopolitical repositioning toward a Eurasian axis that includes **Russia**. ### A necessary methodological caution I prefer to acknowledge this uncertainty rather than categorically assert Turkish intentions that I cannot verify with sufficient certainty, while recognizing that Western strategic caution remains justified in the face of this persistent ambiguity. This methodological caution changes nothing, however, about the documented factual reality: the **S-400** system remains operational on Turkish soil, and this fact alone amply justifies maintaining the current restrictions on **F-35** sales to **Turkey**. *I impose this rigor on myself deliberately, even though my personal convictions clearly lean toward distrust of Erdogan's long-term intentions on this specific file.* ## Conclusion: vigilance that must remain intact ### A file far from resolved This narrative of a bipartisan letter reviving American parliamentary opposition to the sale of **F-35s** to **Turkey** confirms that this file, open since 2019, remains far from resolved, and that distrust of **Ankara's** strategic intentions remains deeply rooted within the American **Congress**. This parliamentary vigilance deserves to be praised as a positive example of democratic oversight over the most sensitive national security decisions, capable of withstanding commercial pressures and presidential personal impulses when fundamental strategic interests are at stake. ### What to watch in the coming months I will remain attentive to how this legislative resolution evolves and to any reactions from **Ankara** to this fresh demonstration of bipartisan resistance in **Washington**, a file that will likely continue to fuel diplomatic tensions between the two countries in the months ahead. For the **West** as a whole, this Turkish file must serve as a constant reminder: the unity and strategic coherence of **NATO** demand unwavering vigilance against any attempt, even by an ally, to weaken the collective technological and security foundations of the Atlantic alliance. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Bipartisan letter warns Trump against F-35 sale to Turkey — The Jerusalem Post, June 28, 2026](https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-900742) - [US lawmakers raise concerns over Turkey F-35 deal — The Jerusalem Post, 2026](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-900492) ### Secondary sources - [Erdogan balances ties between Russia, Iran and the West — Newsmax, July 2, 2026](https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/erdogan-russia-iran/2026/07/02/id/1261645/) - [US lawmakers prepare resolution to block Turkey's F-35 return citing Russian S-400 system — Turkish Minute, June 29, 2026](https://www.turkishminute.com/2026/06/29/us-lawmakers-prepare-resolution-to-block-turkeys-f-35-return-citing-russian-s-400-system/) - [Why is Trump sending American engines for the Turkish Kaan fighters while lawmakers block F-35s — Protothema, June 29, 2026](https://en.protothema.gr/2026/06/29/why-is-trump-sending-american-engines-for-the-turkish-kaan-fighters-while-lawmakers-set-up-a-blockade-in-congress-against-the-f-35s/) - [Greek-American lawmakers oppose Turkey's F-35 reinstatement — Parapolitika, June 27, 2026](https://en.parapolitika.gr/world/239844/greek-american-lawmakers-oppose-turkeys-f-35-reinstatement-block-any-acquisition-uphold-the-rule-of-law/) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/recit-washington-hesite-encore-a-vendre-des-f-35-a-la-turquie-de-s-400