House subcommittee debates Turkey’s role in NATO, Black Sea security and strategic resources

The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe heard testimony Tuesday examining Turkey’s strategic position in NATO, its influence across the Black Sea and the risks and opportunities that position creates for the United States and its allies.

The subcommittee chair opened the hearing saying the panel would examine “Turkey’s roles in NATO and necessarily the Middle East,” and asked witnesses to address Turkey’s recent policy shifts and regional posture.

Turkey’s location and military capabilities make it central to NATO planning, witnesses said, but that centrality is complicated by divergent Turkish policies toward Russia, the Middle East and NATO partners. “Turkey now has the potential to emerge as the primary naval power in the Black Sea,” said Dr. Anna Borshchevskaya, Harold Greenspun senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, summarizing her written testimony and urging the United States to “take advantage of Turkey’s growing primacy in the Black Sea.”

Dr. Celeste Wallander, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, detailed NATO-related benefits from the U.S.-Turkey relationship, including basing and overflight access at Incirlik and Izmir and Turkish production of unmanned aerial vehicles that have proved consequential in Ukraine. “Hosting U.S. military forces at these bases has meant that Turkey has enabled and supported U.S. operations and NATO deterrence for decades,” Wallander said.

But witnesses and members also raised limits to Turkish cooperation. Panelists noted Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 air‑defense system and its delays in approving Finland and Sweden for NATO accession as actions that have strained relations. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, cautioned that Turkey’s deployment of assets and some unilateral actions “have been very aggressive of late,” citing clashes in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of Turkey’s decisions for Europe’s security. Wallander highlighted the Montreux Convention of 1936 — the treaty that governs passage through the Turkish Straits — and credited Turkish enforcement of the convention with helping limit Russian naval reinforcement to the Black Sea during the war in Ukraine. “Turkey’s decision to invoke the Montreux Convention… has affected Russia’s ability to repair or resupply the Russian Black Sea fleet,” Wallander said, describing how that constrained Russia’s operations.

Lawmakers also raised strategic economic considerations. The chair and other members noted reports that Turkey has claimed large rare‑earth deposits and asked whether that presents an opportunity to reduce Western dependence on China for critical minerals. Witnesses described the deposit as a potential opportunity but did not provide independently verified figures during the hearing; the size and commercial viability of the reported find were not specified in the transcript.

Why it matters: NATO cohesion, Black Sea access and control of strategic minerals affect U.S. defense planning and economic competition with strategic rivals. Witnesses urged a pragmatic, compartmentalized U.S. approach that preserves avenues for cooperation while retaining leverage.

The hearing record shows members and witnesses agreed on Turkey’s strategic value — bases, Black Sea access and defense‑industrial capacity — while expressing differing views about how to press Ankara on actions the United States finds objectionable. The subcommittee reserved additional questions for the record and invited written follow‑ups from the witnesses.