Stay connected with KayaToday, follow us on Instagram and Facebook for the latest news and reviews delivered straight to you.
When a sitting US president tells reporters aboard Air Force One that “nobody tells me what we should be selling,” the target of that remark matters as much as the words themselves. Donald Trump’s dismissal on Monday of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to a potential F-35 sale to Turkey was not a casual aside. It was a public rebuke of a close ally, delivered in the bluntest possible terms, and it signals a meaningful recalibration of how Washington intends to manage two of its most complicated relationships simultaneously.
The episode, reported by Anadolu Ajansi, confirms what earlier media reports had already suggested: that Trump was, in the words of those reports, “pissed off” by Netanyahu’s public criticism of the proposed jet sale. By responding openly and on the record, Trump has made the disagreement impossible to quietly walk back.
A Suspension That Has Lasted Six Years Too Long, in Ankara’s View
The backstory here is essential to understanding why this moment carries real weight. In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 programme after Ankara went ahead with its purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. The US position was that operating both systems simultaneously created an unacceptable intelligence risk, because the S-400’s sensors could potentially map the radar and performance signatures of the very stealth aircraft it was meant to coexist with.
Turkey has never accepted that reasoning. Ankara has consistently argued that the two systems do not conflict, has proposed a joint technical commission to study the question, and maintains that its suspension violated the contractual terms of the programme. Turkish officials also point out that Turkey fulfilled its own manufacturing obligations under the F-35 supply chain before being cut out of deliveries.
That grievance has sat unresolved across multiple US administrations. What has changed now is that Trump appears willing to treat it as a bilateral loyalty question rather than a technical security one. At the NATO summit held in Turkey in July, he said he would “certainly consider” restoring sales, describing Turkey as “much more loyal than other countries.” On Monday he went further, calling Turkey a “tremendous ally,” praising President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a “friend” who has done a “very good job” on regional matters including Syria, and volunteering that Turkey’s military is “very big” and the country “very powerful.”
Netanyahu’s Objection and Why Trump Is Ignoring It
Israel’s concern about F-35s reaching Turkey is not difficult to understand. The two countries have had deeply strained relations for years, and Israeli defence planners would be uncomfortable with a neighbour and regional rival operating the same advanced stealth platform that forms the backbone of Israel’s own air superiority. Netanyahu made those objections known publicly, which is precisely what appears to have irritated Trump.
Trump acknowledged the tension directly, noting that Ankara is “not a big fan” of Israel or Netanyahu, while simultaneously insisting that the Washington-Ankara partnership remains strong regardless. The framing is telling. Rather than treating the Israeli objection as a legitimate security concern to be weighed carefully, Trump positioned it as one ally attempting to constrain American commercial and strategic decisions, and rejected that framing outright.
Erdogan, for his part, has told interlocutors that Trump has taken a “positive approach” to the F-35 delivery question. Whether that translates into a formal resumption of the sale involves significant bureaucratic and congressional steps, but the political direction from the White House is now unambiguous.
What This Means Beyond the Aircraft Themselves
The F-35 dispute is, on one level, a technical and commercial argument about weapons exports. On another level it is a test of how Trump’s transactional foreign policy actually operates when two allies want incompatible things from Washington at the same time.
The answer emerging from this episode is that Trump will side with the ally he personally rates more highly at a given moment, and that public lobbying by the disfavoured party will accelerate rather than prevent that outcome. Netanyahu’s decision to criticise the sale openly appears to have hardened rather than softened Trump’s position.
For the broader NATO alliance, a Turkish air force equipped with F-35s would theoretically strengthen collective capability, which is the argument Ankara has always made. The counter-argument, that Turkey’s continued possession of the S-400 makes that integration strategically compromised, has not gone away simply because Trump is inclined to set it aside.
For Malaysia, Singapore, and the wider region, the immediate operational stakes are distant. But the episode illustrates something with direct relevance to any country navigating relationships with major powers: when Washington’s internal alliance politics shift, the rules that governed arms sales, technology transfers, and security commitments can shift with them, quickly and with little formal process. That is a lesson worth watching carefully, even from far away.
Read More: Best Friends at Work, Siblings by Blood: The Reunion 30 Years in the Making
