The United States' failure to manage the Arab Spring revolutions coupled with its failure to enforce its red line following the Ghouta chemical attack raises questions among Saudi Arabia's ruling elite about Washington's reliability as an ally

With 57 member states, the OIC, which is the second largest international organization, is extremely difficult to govern with diverse national interests and alliances

The anti-DAESH campaign conducted by the global community is far from well-coordination and only serves the terror organization's interests

Although both are NATO members in the international coalition against DAESH, the U.S.'s insistence on supporting the PYD and YPG, which Ankara deems terror organizations, instead of Turkey, harms the trust between the two countries

Bullying Turkey through the proxy of regime forces and PYD militants won't make Ankara adopt an isolationist stance either. Integrating 3 million Sunni Arabs, after all, will only strengthen Turkey's ties with the Middle East.

Currently, it is has started to be perceived that in the eastern part of the Syria, YPG operations are increasingly shaping U.S. policy.

Ankara, one of the most geopolitically significant players in the Middle East, is determined to take a neutral path on the Saudi-Iranian conflict, yet still, in the near future, a strategic alliance between Ankara and Riyadh rather than Tehran, seems more likely.

Iran's sectarian expansionist policy forces the Turkish government to back the Saudi government. However, Turkey, as the only country able to prevent the power struggle between the two countries, is aware of the dangers of a possible sectarian war and thus calls the two countries to reconcile.

The U.S.'s failed strategy to fight DAESH, which shares outrageous similarities with al-Qaeda, despite the differences between those times and today, showing the state is taking no lesson from former experiences.

Conventional European pragmatism to conceptualize Turkey as a buffer zone to keep the troubles of the Middle East away from civilized Europe are bound to fail, as shown by the dramatic unveiling of the Paris attacks.

American administration does not want a serious role in Iraq anymore, at least not under Obama's leadership. The next president should volunteer to make serious political investments and be a sponsor for the political rapprochement in Iraq. Without a rapprochement in Iraq and Syria, the chaos will continue and ISIS will make use of it to last longer.

It would be accurate to interpret the United States’ and the West’s increasing interest in Syria as a rush to secure a role in the scenario in which the Baath regime is nearing its end.

SETA PUBLIC LECTURE by Naser Elmanea, SRPR Date: February 28, 2011 Monday Time: 16.00 - 18.00 Venue: SETA, Ankara

On May 31, 2010, Israeli commandos stormed a passenger ship, the Mavi Marmara, the largest boat of a flotilla of six boats which were carrying 10000 tons of humanitarian aid to besieged Gaza, in international high waters. The operation left 9 activists dead and over 30 activists wounded. The flotilla attack started a new trend for Turkish-Israeli relations. For the first time in history, Turkish citizens were directly exposed to Israeli aggression. In this sense, the attack constitutes a break in Turkish-Israeli relations. It is now not only Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians that will shape the nature of Turkish-Israeli relations, more than anything else, but it is Israel’s steps towards salvaging bilateral relations by reassuring the Turkish nation and state.

Consider this wild scenario: After years of demonizing each other, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran put their differences behind them. They agree to be strategic partners and sign a document to seal it.

According to the US News & World Report (Sept. 27), President Bush uses the words “Islamic terrorist” with a clear agenda: the words “extremism,” “radical” and “Muslim” do not have the same dramatic tone as “Islamist terrorist.” The report says that while Bush has lightened up on using the word “Islamic” before terrorists, the advisers said in the background that the word should always be used because Americans believe that “Islamists” are those who act on terrorist threats. Words to avoid are “Muslim,” “extremist” and “radicals.”