At exactly this point of the film in Syria…

Even though the new squabble between America and Russia has pushed the expectation of war to its peak at any moment, from the style and course of the squabble it is understood that we are not watching a film different from earlier ones. At this very point of the film, a train will pass again, and at precisely that point the face of the actress who is about to turn around will once again not be seen by Temel in our joke. If the film is the same film even after watching it fifty times, there is no way he will see it.

The same thing had happened in earlier showings of the film. Obama, who had declared the use of chemical weapons his red line, pointed the muzzles of his weapons in 2013, based on a chemical massacre that again took place in Eastern Ghouta. In fact, the question asked that day, and the first one that comes to mind today, was why Assad used chemical weapons even though he knew it was America's red line.

After all, Assad has no great need for chemical weapons in order to kill his own people. With barrel bombs and conventional weapons he has so far killed hundreds of thousands of people from among his own people, from children to old, women and civilians. He burned and destroyed their homes, ravaged them. The bodies of children killed with ordinary weapons are torn to pieces. Seen from outside, the manner of death is in fact much more savage, much more brutal, much more heartbreaking. In the use of chemical weapons perhaps more people are affected over a wide area, but in terms of the manner of death the result is no more savage than the manner of death of the hundreds of thousands subjected to Assad's massacres.

As our President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan always says when this subject is raised, "it is not possible to understand and explain why so much importance is attached to whether it is done with chemical weapons or another weapon, when the result is death."

In fact, explaining why importance is attached may not be completely impossible. The explanation has to do with using the red line as a pretext because of reluctance to act.

Of course, another explanation concerns not so much the battlefield as America's own domestic agenda. Obama too, having declared the red line, cared to appear to be doing something in the face of such a blatant attack, and had thundered. Otherwise, up to that day and afterwards too, he had not the slightest interest in people dying in Syria.

The sustained chaos in Syria, the massacres, the deaths of children, the burning and destruction of people's homes and millions of people falling into the condition of refugees were simply part of the scenarios to be implemented in Syria. In order to cope with the bad image this produced, America needed to show once in a while that it was against what was happening. Yet America too does not at all refrain from carrying out massacres in Syria. Indeed its massacres at times are no less than Assad's or Russia's.

What is different, for example, in the development that today moved Trump to act on Syria? In addition to nearly a million people who earlier died by ordinary means or by chemical weapons, 75 more people have died, and more than a thousand people have been affected by these weapons. Would Assad, who knows America's sensitivity on this matter, not have known that he would be provoking Trump, or America in general, by using chemical weapons, as if mocking this sensitivity in the same way as the earlier ones?

Moreover, with the last use of chemical weapons in 2013, Syria had come under a binding commitment on this matter concretely. In this case Assad's act, not to mention the dimension of a base massacre against hundreds of children, constitutes a truly heavy provocation against America. In this context it is not possible for America to remain silent about this act. If it remained silent, it would on the spot strip itself of its claim to dominance in the world. In any case, a generally accepted perception is taking hold that the roles America has played in the region recently are not at all compatible with the quality of being the world's superpower.

Right at this point, the theses of those who say that all this movement by America is related to domestic politics are not at all to be dismissed. The allegations that Trump was able to be elected with help from Putin in fraud in the voting or counting process are bound to gradually turn into an investigation and then a trial. It is known that these allegations and investigations disturb Trump greatly. The only thing that could save this situation would have been to start, if not a hot, then a harsh cold war with Russia by doing more than previous American presidents did even in the Cold War years. According to the strong rumor, what Trump has done is precisely this move to save the situation.

Of course, even if this is the real reason for the move, this does not completely eliminate the possibility of the move getting out of control, and therefore, somehow, the possibility of war breaking out. In any case, decisions for war are not always reached as a result of countries thinking things through very sensibly. Sometimes everything can develop very suddenly. However, as far as we can see, in the Syrian case this brinkmanship has not yet gone out of control enough to lead to a war.

Let no one expect Turkey to be egged on by one side in this brinkmanship and adopt a pro-war attitude. Turkey of course continues to insist on the departure of Assad, the chief person responsible for all the crimes and massacres.

We of course do not find it credible that he is subjected to these threats from the US because of one of his latest crimes. Therefore the appearance of a picture defending Assad between the US and the Assad regime, or the Russia and Iran brinkmanship, should never mislead. All that matters is that a truly honest and manly farewell ceremony is organized for Assad.