It is now almost a ritual of U.S. administrations to escalate tension with Iran. At least in the last three administrations we have seen similar forms of escalations between the two countries. During the Bush administration, Iran became part of the axis of evil and there were speculations and rumors that if things do not go so terribly in Iraq the next target will be Iran.

The U.S. is concentrating too much on the Middle East, which may cost it dearly; it has already issues such as the trade war with China, the Venezuelan crisis and Russia's increasing global effectiveness to handle

The crisis in NATO and a complicated U.S. foreign policy are shaping Ankara-Washington relations, making it hard to predict the future

The Donald Trump administration continues to use American power crudely every day. Washington not only continues to dismantle the post-World War II liberal order, an American creation, but has also imposed its unilateral national interest on the international arena and its actors.

New developments fuel tensions between Washington and Ankara. Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's promises to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over the phone, no problem has yet gone away. Quite the contrary, the foreign policy establishment and Congress continue to try and undermine bilateral relations.

For the last several years one of the most frequently written topics in regards to U.S. relations with its allies have been the future of its partnership with Turkey.

All eyes in Turkey are set on this month's municipal elections, yet a significant transformation is underway in the Middle East. U.S. President Donald Trump, whose Jerusalem move drew ire, recognized Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights in a radical overhaul of U.S. foreign policy.

The behavior of the great powers in the international system, emerging threats to international security, declining expectations from international organizations, surfacing nationalism and protectionism and arising trade wars all signal that something is approaching or the world is quickly approaching a point of total disarray.

The U.S. withdrawal from Syria is turning into a major debacle. Washington's superpower status enables it to exploit the disequilibrium in military might to invade other nations..

Each crisis with Ankara has more significant repercussions regarding the future of Washington's relations with its other allies. In other words, what happens between Turkey and the U.S. does not not stay between Turkey and the U.S.

In fact, potential cooperation between China and Russia is mentioned as one of the significant threats for U.S. foreign policy. Of course this is the perspective of the U.S. and it is possible to read most of the decisions given by the U.S. administrations in the last few years in accordance with this changing threat assessment and perception.

As the era of optimism for a liberal international order and responsible stakeholders looks like a thing of the past, U.S. policymakers are attempting to adapt their policies — but with little success so far

It was in October 2011 that then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote an op-ed in Foreign Policy Magazine describing the orientation of the new U.S. foreign policy..

As the international system changes and rising powers challenge U.S. predominance around the world, the direction of Washington's foreign policy will be extremely important in shaping future geopolitics

The Trump administration remains confused and divided over Washington's imminent withdrawal from Syria. Most recently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited the Middle East in an attempt to reassure U.S. allies, who are concerned that the U.S. withdrawal will serve Turkish and Iranian interests.

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton will visit Turkey today with the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, and the U.S. envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey. Late last week in a tweet, Bolton announced the purpose of the trip as "to discuss the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, how we will work with allies & partners to prevent the resurgence of [Daesh], stand fast with those who fought with us against [Daesh], & counter Iranian malign behavior in the region."

In 2005, during a visit to troops in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said, "We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy." The true meaning of this statement and its potential repercussions for the U.S. strategy in Iraq is a matter of debate among scholars.