The U.S. and European actors' indifference in Syria and pressure on Turkey weakens Ankara's position vis-a-vis Moscow in the political deal for Syria

A new conversation with strategic perspective, realistic goals and achievable outcomes needs to be restarted between Turkey and the U.S.

Considering the military capability of Russia and the U.S. and the game-changing capacity of Turkey, it will take time to reach a real solution in the Syrian crisis

Turkey and the United States are setting up a joint operations center at Şanlıurfa in Turkey under a recent agreement. That U.S. European Command (EUCOM), as opposed to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), commanders are involved in negotiations reflects both sides' commitment to the deal.

After weeks of difficult diplomatic consultations and negotiations between diplomats and military officials from both sides, Ankara and Washington managed to reach a breakthrough on the situation in northeastern Syria. Turkish and American officials agreed on three item protocols that satisfy the fundamental concerns of both parties. The agreement includes the following items: "Rapid implementation of initial measures to address Turkey's security concerns," "Starting up a joint operations center in Turkey as soon as possible" and the "Creation of a safe zone and 'peace corridor' for the return of displaced Syrians to their country."

Turkey is hell-bent on neutralizing the terrorist threat next door. Neither the threat of sanctions nor the endlessly reheated Daesh story will convince the Turks to abort this mission

As expected, the National Security Council's most recent statement reiterated Turkey's commitment to combating terrorism. The communiqué made references to Turkish military operations in northern Iraq and the assassination of a Turkish diplomat in Erbil, criticized Interpol over the cancellation of arrest warrants for PKK leaders, urged NATO to act in line with the spirit of alliance and stressed Turkey's commitment to protecting its interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.

When the discussion started between Turkey and the U.S. regarding a 'safe zone', many considered it a possible turning point in relations. The mutual mistrust in Syria and an escalating divergence of opinions between the two countries throughout the Syrian civil war had derailed relations more than any other issue in the last decade.

The status of more than 3.6 million temporary Syrian asylum seekers across Turkey has been one of the most controversial political issues being discussed by the Turkish people and politicians in the last few weeks..

There is a growing tendency among Western media outlets; they seek to answer what the West must do, given President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will remain in power for another four years. Believing that the risk of "losing Turkey" is higher than before, they advocate the "carrot and stick" approach. Let me say at the outset that this is a fruitless endeavor.

James Jeffrey, Washington's special representative for Syria, visited the Turkish capital Ankara last week to hold talks on the proposed safe zone in northern Syria..

The Istanbul rerun election fueled new developments in Turkish politics. There is an ongoing discussion on a range of issues including the presidential system and the prospect of new political parties. The newfound "self-confidence" of Kurdish nationalists deserves particular attention in this context. The Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) takes credit for the Republican People's Party's (CHP) success in the March 31 and June 23 elections. As a matter of fact, it dates its influence back to the June 2018 elections.

World leaders gathered in Osaka this week for the G20 summit. The summit will witness important side meetings between different heads of states on matters related to critical areas. One of those critical meetings will take place between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and U.S. President Donald Trump. Given the looming crisis in the relations between the two countries, various unresolved issues in bilateral relations will be discussed in this meeting.

A few weeks ago, this column detailed how, in the last two decades, U.S. administrations have periodically made war plans and debated conflict scenarios. Both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations did it, and now the Donald Trump administration has come to a similar point of deliberating a military response against Iran.

Moscow should turn the current situation in Idlib into an internationally recognized political deal rather than another brutal victory for the Assad regime

The growing tension between the U.S. and Iran is in the spotlight in our region. Washington is approaching Iran with a policy of "maximum pressure." They have not only strengthened the sanctions but also sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf.

Idlib province is the only region under the control of the Syrian opposition. More than 3 million people, most of whom migrated from other parts of the country, live there. The tension has increased following the Bashar Assad regime's ground forces' operations in the region over the last several weeks.