Multilateralism, in the absence of a clearly articulated policy goal and willingness for international leadership, will not achieve results by itself.

It may be too late for this to succeed, but there does not seem to be a better option unless, of course, the international community is prepared to let the Syrian opposition fail.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, since his outburst at Davos, has been declared to be “totalitarian” in Western media organs, mostly by pro-Israel pundits.

Seymour Hersh's recent piece on the chemical attacks in Ghouta, Syria last August, has again sparked debates regarding his story and the problems with it.

These photographs are the best proof of why Assad is still standing. These massacres could not have been committed by the Baath regime alone. Just like Milosevic, the racist, Sisi the ouster, Israel the occupier, the Assad regime could inflict atrocities on two conditions.

In the last decade, after the tutelage regime was forced to retreat, Turkey embarked on a new era. It was easier then to determine the existence of the military tutelage through the crude and tangible interventions of the military bureaucracy into politics.

The Angola issue will pave the way for discussions over Islamophobia again as its profound impacts are becoming more visible in the third world countries lately.

The disagreement between Turkey and the US on the Syrian issue and the coup d’état in Egypt are contributing factors to increased criticism of Turkey in Washington.

A combination of obligations and concerns will determine the scope of the possible intervention in Syria.

Having silently stood by in the face of the Assad regime’s numerous atrocities over the past two years, all global actors reacted to Assad’s use of chemical weapons against the civilian population. In this sense, none but Assad himself will be responsible for a possible foreign intervention.

Since January 2011, Arab regimes have also employed the terrorism card to maintain their grip on government.

The United States (US) and the West wait to see clearly who will win and when in Syria. While waiting, however, they lose both in Syria and in the region.

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.

Another approach to the analysis of the Syrian crisis is to acknowledge the massacres committed by the Assad regime, but in the end, to own up the analyses mentioned above.

Turkey does not have an interest in positioning the AK Party government as a belligerent in the Syrian war just as it does not have an interest in putting the CHP in a Baathist position.

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