Even though the Syrian crisis continues to influence politics in the Middle East and the global balance, the European Union and major European powers, like the U.K., Germany and France, have continued to be the most reluctant and ineffective actors dealing with the crisis.

There is an ongoing debate on Turkey's foreign policy decisions vis-a-vis the brewing crisis in Idlib. A rhetorical whirlpool has emerged around tensions with Russia, the significance of U.S. and EU statements, and Turkey's homework for Idlib.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described last week's regime attack in Idlib that claimed eight Turkish lives, as a "turning point" in the Syrian civil war. In addition to giving Bashar Assad time to retreat beyond the Turkish military observation posts by the end of the month, Erdoğan pledged that Turkey would push the regime forces away on its own if necessary.

The recent escalation of tensions around Idlib which have developed in response to coordinated attacks by the Syrian regime and Russia have put the pledges of the Astana and Sochi peace processes under a heavy strain..

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on a diplomatic offensive since the Berlin conference, visited Istanbul on Friday. The wide range of topics on her agenda included bilateral trade, the European Union, the situation in Idlib, the proposed safe zone, the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya and refugees, all of which stressed the importance of strengthening German-Turkish cooperation.

Public scrutiny of foreign policy is the backbone of democracy. Criticism, when firmly rooted in a rational analysis of the balance of power and national interest, can be constructive. However, when critiques resort to populism, however, they become ideological.

Turkey is exerting a huge diplomatic effort to allow the fragile cease-fire in Libya to blossom into a lasting peace. Italian Prime Minister Conte visited the Turkish capital Monday, immediately following Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. At the same time, Turkey's foreign minister, defense minister and intelligence chief spent the day in Moscow to facilitate talks between Libya's various warring factions.

With tensions between Iran and the United States de-escalating for now, there is talk about cease-fire agreements in Libya and Idlib.

Some people believe that Tehran's response to the Qassem Soleimani assassination resulted in an easing of tensions between the United States and Iran. They argue that the Iranians, intimidated, landed on a symbolic act of retaliation – which they proceeded to portray as vengeance on the home front.

Since the killing of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week, there have been debates, questions and concerns about the potential implications of this attack on U.S. foreign policy and the international relations of the Middle East in general. The missile attacks of Iran on a base in Iraq and the debates about a Ukrainian airlines plane presumably shot down by a missile increased the level these discussions.

The targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the deputy chief of Hashd al-Shaabi forces in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandisi, is a game-changer for Middle Eastern politics. Immediately after the attack that killed Soleimani, Iranian leadership threatened the U.S. and its allies in the region. Iran fired missiles at two American bases in Iraq in retaliation to the assassination of Soleimani. No casualties were declared in Iran's retaliatory attacks. Leaders of both countries escalated the tension, but they were careful not to let the crisis get out of control.

Trump's Iran policy completely differs from the former U.S. administration's as it contains the possibility of both winning or losing in the region

Top US diplomat has inserted himself into US chain of command, independent analyst Mark Perry tells Anadolu Agency

Since the killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and senior Hashd al-Shaabi leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. strike at Baghdad airport, the power struggle between the United States and Iran in Iraq has transformed into a hot conflict. Washington's latest move has the potential to irreversibly up the ante in the long-standing hostilities between the two nations.

The killing of Qasem Soleimani and his close associates in an American airstrike in Baghdad Thursday night was without question one of the most significant developments in the Middle East over the last several years – significant in terms of the profile of its target as well as the unexpectedness of such an attack.

The year 2019, which set the stage for extraordinary developments, has now ended. Living the fast life must be the distinguishing feature of modern times. Over the last year, the world talked about Brexit, NATO's future, U.S. President Donald Trump's impeachment, Israeli expansionism, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, protests in Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, France and Bolivia, trade wars, the S-400 deal, Turkey's local elections, the Syrian civil war, Operation Peace Spring, the assassination of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Aramco attacks, Turkey's new indigenous car, Kanal Istanbul, U.S. sanctions, economic recovery, the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya.

There will be a lot of questions about the state of global politics in 2020. The unpredictability and uncertainty of superpower behavior and instability of the international system generate a lot of question marks about the potential developments set to take shape in the coming year. Here are some of the issues and areas that we will continue to watch during 2020.