The G-20 videoconference offers few concrete steps – despite saying big words like 'whatever it takes' to combat virus

As people across Turkey comply with the government’s call to stay home and declare their individual state of emergency, COVID-19 remains at the top of the nation’s agenda. Just as hygiene becomes an obsession, we cannot seem to stop talking about the virus outbreak.

The coronavirus pandemic marks the beginning of an extended period of recession. Communities around the world will have to learn to live with a crisis comparable only to the two world wars.

Turkey’s Health Minister Fahrettin Koca has become the embodiment of the country’s fight against the coronavirus. He urged everyone last week to “declare their own state of emergency” – possibly suggesting that the Turkish government was not prepared to impose an official curfew yet.

Since the spread of the coronavirus worldwide, many have argued that the response will influence various dimensions of the international system.

The coronavirus pandemic established, however, that we, as fellow humans, have a middle ground and certain shared responsibilities beyond self-interest and fear. No country can afford to isolate itself from the outside world. That path only leads to more poverty, conflict and bloodshed. What was simply a Chinese problem just weeks ago is now a truly global issue.

Since the emergence of the coronavirus epidemic in different parts of the world, many have argued that the response of this epidemic will influence various dimensions of the international system. There were debates about international actors and organizations and their potential role during this epidemic. In this column, for instance, the potential impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) will be discussed.

International focus has been on the Middle East for decades and particularly on Iran, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya over the past several years. However, whatever is written about the Middle East, Russia is always part of the equation.

Andrej Kreutz raised a poignant question in his book from 2007, "Russia in the Middle East: Friend or Foe," well before the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011. Even though Russia has been an important player in the Middle East since the Cold War era, its influence in the region has burgeoned since Syrian President Bashar Assad invited Moscow into the Syrian civil war in 2015.

The 'Deal of the Century' announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on Jan. 29 has been handled by the global media in a way that can be considered novel. That discourse, the like of which we have seldom ever encountered, was reflected both in written content and in photos. Images provided by global news agencies like Reuters and AP revealed content that can be viewed as "critical of Israel." Various mainstream media organizations ranging from The Guardian, Washington Post and BBC to The New York Times have published pieces and opinions criticizing the "Deal of the Century."

Hardly a day goes by without the Bashar Assad regime bombing hospitals, schools and bakeries in Idlib. Since the Jan. 12 cease-fire, more than 130 civilians have died in military operations that undermine both Astana and Sochi peace deals.

It has become almost customary for every U.S. administration to propose a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem in the Middle East. For some, like the Bill Clinton administration, it became almost a legacy issue. The administration and its president spent countless days and weeks on the process and the failure of the peace process, which they deemed the best possible deal, upset them deeply.

In our conflict resolution classes, we emphasize certain fundamental principles and norms. One such principle is that in protracted conflicts like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it would be impossible to reach a sustainable solution if a key human need of the conflicting party is ignored.

After U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he will release his long-awaited Middle East peace plan, known as the "Deal of the Century," Middle Eastern observers started to discuss the proposal. The plan, which reflects the vision of the Trump administration toward the Palestinian-Israeli question, was drafted by a commission established by President Trump. The team was led by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and his adviser for the Middle East. Trump has declared that he will reveal the plan on Jan. 29 after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz.

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.