When Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek emphasized that “Hillary Clinton built an impossible all-inclusive coalition”, he focused in particular on the media, think tanks and election polls. However, this could be seen in all three presidential debates too: after each debate, most mainstream media outlets announced Clinton as the winner, which was endorsed by the polls. Trump claimed this was proof his opponent was “Crooked Hillary”, a term he coined for emphasizing her ties to the so-called “establishment” as negative, referencing traditional politics, moneyed interests and mainstream media.

Whereas Clinton’s “deep state relations” undoubtedly affected public opinion, Trump’s inappropriate comments against women, immigrants, Muslims and disabled people had a crucial impact, which further increased the polarization of society in the US. In addition, his attacks on journalists and media outlets were important factors never before witnessed in any presidential race in the US. This populism had an encouraging impact on the “silent majority”: the “white working class”. Americans felt able to raise their voices after a long period under the Obama administration. People who were not happy for the last eight years knew that electing Clinton would mean the continuation of the previous terms. Therefore, the success of the Republicans was not only due to their political proposals, but also the failed policies of the Obama administration, such as ObamaCare, drone wars, weapon exports to controversial regimes, and a string of unfulfilled vows to defeat DAESH.

Clinton’s popularity began to shift two weeks prior to the election, when details of the email scandal was released to the press. She was depicted in the headlines alongside words such as: Wikileaks, email, FBI, investigation, scandal. However, it was more difficult for Trump, who appeared in the press alongside the words: women, immigration, tax, sexual assault and rigged, and suffered a far longer period of attack than his rival. Despite the mainstream media’s anti-Trump coverage, his use of direct communication through social media was hugely successful. He utilized Twitter and Facebook effectively, bypassing the traditional media by releasing immediate video responses that reached his sympathizers directly, making him appear more accessible than any other candidate. He rarely organized press conferences and press releases. Instead, he tweeted at 3am, for example, which increased the impact of his messages when mainstream media took his tweets and covered them in the news. Thus emerged a new mode of political communication, which was crucial to the campaign agenda.

In particular, after his infamous bus conversation about women, Trump immediately apologized via social media, without losing any time, and admitted that he had mis-spoken. This incident marked the beginning of more intensive women-focused campaigning for Trump. Part of the strategy was his daughter, Ivanka. She and her family appeared more at the forefront of the campaign, as a way of focusing on her successful career as an “independent American woman.” As a result, Trump received the support of 53% of white female voters.

Symbols and messages are the key tools of political communication. With regard to Bernie Sanders’ political communication, his political ideology should also be considered within the context of the silent majority. He challenged the status quo by criticizing the liberal capitalist order, proposing a strengthening of the education system instead of funding the military, and advocating free education. His absence from the AIPAC conference was equally important. Although he expressed his support for Israel, he also criticized Israeli settlements, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s actions in Gaza. Considering this approach alongside polls conducted by Pew Research showing that support for Palestine had increased among the younger generation; Sanders’ strategy was another way of raising the voice of the silent majority within the context of the oppressed and voiceless.

Yet Trumps success story must be analyzed within the context of the decline of the elite. Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, Brexit in the United Kingdom, the anti-migration policies of the Alternative für Deutschland can all be perceived as a new wave of mobilization of the silent majority. Of course, all these examples have different dimensions and cannot be confused; nevertheless, the common trend seems to be about challenging the establishment, and a greater focus on domestic problems. Consequently, in these circumstances, the meaning of polling, marketing, image management and spin-doctors, as in the usual “Americanization” of elections, received no response. Whether the realization of politics is possible or not, the latest US election and the far-right’s discourse in Europe make clear that especially during the election period, populist discourse is the most effective way of political communication, which is the cornerstone of the success story.

The rise of the far right has grown on the back of highly divisive, identity-based rhetoric. It emphasizes the growth of fear, anger, Islamophobic discourse and anti-migration policies. How this new wave will impact realpolitik going forward will be watched by many with great concern and unease. Yet it is clear that this new paradigm is a revolt against the postmodern period, which has been increasingly candidate-centered at the expense of any party or social movement.

The continued geopolitical negligence of the U.S. in the Middle East during the Obama administration has resulted in several missed opportunities to stabilize the chaotic situation on the ground in Syria.

Since Turkey’s warnings about the Syrian crisis were disregarded by Washington, so far the Syrian issue has continued to be one of the contentious issues between the two sides until now. The reason behind this situation has stemmed from the way American foreign policy has been conducted by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama – along the contours of the Obama Doctrine over the past five years. As a result, the Middle East’s regional problems have become more complex and intractable.

Washington’s insistence on no boots on the ground and leading behind a strategy that relied on some state and non-state actors’ cooperation on the ground has so far failed to be successful in bringing a solution to the problems of the fractured states of both Iraq and Syria.

Unfortunately, the net result of Obama’s strategy of non-strategy in the Middle East has worked at the expense of Turkey’s security interests – hence Ankara has left alone in assuming and overcoming most of the soft and hard security problems emanating from the on-going civil war in Syria. Thus, this situation has become the main source of a real problem that has badly hurt the two sides’ relations.

The continued geopolitical negligence of the U.S. in the Middle East during the Obama administration has resulted in several missed opportunities to stabilize the chaotic situation on the ground in Syria. Unlike the U.S., Russia witnessed the halfhearted support given by the U.S. to moderate forces in Syria from the inception of the crisis and did not abstain from providing support to both the Syrian regime and to its main supporters on the ground such as Iran and their non-state proxies including Hezbollah and others.

Obama’s inattention toward the brutality of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the inception of the Syrian crisis has first resulted in the failure of the central government in Syria that gave rise to a significant power vacuum. This power vacuum was soon filled by both radical groups like DAESH and others as well as by regional powers that are essentially waging proxy wars in Syria. This spill in nature of Syrian civil war has propelled Iran and Saudi Arabia as the main regional contenders in Syria, which has made the situation in the country more chaotic.

Later, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement was signed as the result of Washington’s implementation of a new political engagement policy with Iran, the confrontation between Riyadh and Tehran naturally increased. This competitive situation between the main contenders of the Syrian crisis remained unchanged until the moderate opposition forces in summer 2015 achieved success on the ground with the renewed support of some Gulf States.

However, during this time span when DAESH also gained more territory in Syria due to the retreat of the Assad regime, the Obama administration decided to prioritize the fight against this radical group rather than focus on the root causes of the problem. With this mindset, the U.S. preferred to establish the anti-DAESH coalition of nearly 60 countries, which Turkey also joined. Yet, Ankara has constantly warned the U.S. and its allies that DAESH is not the cause of problems related to security in Syria, and a comprehensive approach to Syria’s problems should be pursued.

Turkey has continued to be part of the anti-DAESH coalition by both opening up its bases for coalition use and becoming part of the air operations launched in Iraq. It has also supported the Geneva peace talks and the Vienna ceasefire that was encouraged by the Obama administration. At the same time, however, Ankara has continued to stress the necessity of creating a DAESH-free safe zone in northern Syria even just before the Russian air assault began in Syria on September 30, 2015.

Unfortunately, though, Turkey was not successful in persuading Washington to this effect. Hence, the situation in Syria in the aftermath of Russian intervention has become even more intricate than before, both for Turkey as well as for others that are already involved in this humanitarian crisis.

For Turkey, the avoidance or deference of the main source of the problem of the Syrian crisis – the Assad regime – will continue to feed the eruption of both old and new security threats that are emanating from Syria. It is no surprise then that the risk of flow of refugees that are heading to Europe via Turkey along with risk of terrorism stemming from radical foreign fighters who are extending beyond Syria’s borders to reach European cities becomes an observable reality.

For Turkey, the avoidance or deference of the main source of the problem of the Syrian crisis – the Assad regime – will continue to feed the eruption of both old and new security threats that are emanating from Syria. It is no surprise then that the risk of flow of refugees that are heading to Europe via Turkey along with risk of terrorism stemming from radical foreign fighters who are extending beyond Syria’s borders to reach European cities becomes an observable reality.

Furthermore, Washington’s current preferred alliance with the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is closely cooperating with the PKK in Syria in the fight against DAESH remains another serious point of friction between the two sides where Ankara rightfully rejects all kinds of terrorism and naturally expects its NATO ally to show respect and understanding in this regard. The details of this cooperation and ties between PYD and PKK is very well explained at one of SETA’s latest report.

What is more serious today is that, especially after its intervention in Syria to bolster the Assad regime, Russia has become more concerning for several reasons. First, after seizing the territories belonging to the moderate opposition with the help of Iranian ground forces and Assad regime forces, Russia has now created a new flow of refugees headed to Turkey and beyond. Thus, Moscow has come to a position that it can divide the West and European Union by using the refugee issue that is directly resulting from the chaotic situation present in Syria.

Also, by bolstering its military presence there, Russia is now becoming another military factor that should be taken seriously into account especially from the perspective of NATO’s southern flank, as it may influence the future military balance of the eastern Mediterranean. Another reality concerns Russia’s support to the PYD. In the face of this complex Syrian picture, the newest and latest ceasefire-based approach of Washington’s Syrian initiative, which aims to create a transitional government in Syria, is doom to fail unless it is simultaneously supported by the creation of a safe zone in Syria since the current military imbalance on the ground now has the capacity to stall the political negotiation process due to the radically changed position of some of the warring sides. For instance, whereas the moderate opposition has simultaneously lost their previous power and their influence in affecting the future of the Syrian political negotiations in Geneva, the Assad regime has almost lost is apathy for further negotiations due to its recent territorial gains. That is why Turkey continues to firmly support the idea of a safe zone. This time, the Obama administration should not miss its last chance to take action.

It is time to take the initiative back from Russia and operate for the stabilization of war-torn Syria. For this reason and while continuing the political transition negotiations, the international community led by the U.S. and other Western powers should be accompanied by the parallel process of the creation of a safe zone in Syria to bring the Assad regime and others to the table to launch the creation of a transitional government in Syria.

If the U.S. inspired some kind of a NATO-based deterrence mission – similar to the coalition of the willing that existed in Kosovo – it could provide air-cover for this safe zone mission on the ground, which would surely help deter the newly built and fortified Russian capabilities in Syria that can be a real concern both to Turkey’s as well as NATO’s southern flank’s future operational plans in the Mediterranean. This Western/NATO support for a safe zone in Syria is also expected to pressure Russia to take action to assure the Assad regime is present at the negotiation table.

With the international community having assured the stabilization of Syrian-based problems via establishing a safe zone, it can then concentrate on an all-out war against DAESH to finalize the job of eradicating this radical group both in Syria and Iraq. Certainly, this would be a win-win situation not only for Turkey and other regional powers but also for the entire international community that is currently suffering from the devastating side effects of the Syrian civil war.