Everything happened so rapidly. Iraq's invasion by Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) militants, the fall of Mosul and ISIS's march upon Baghdad by defeating Iraqi army stunned everyone and the defeat of the Iraqi army by ISIS militants marching on Baghdad. Due to the sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Sunni groups in Mosul sided with ISIS. Sunni groups used ISIS to take up a position against Maliki. The barbarism of ISIS militants brought the country to the brink of a sectarian conflict within a few days and the Iraqi army could not show any resistance; the state authority collapsed.Everything that has happened in Iraq has a direct influence on Turkey's security, economy and domestic policies. So, the reflections of the incidents in Iraq are felt more deeply in Turkey in many ways. The expansion of instability from the Syrian border to Iraq has created an unpredictable atmosphere for Turkey in terms of the economy, politics and security. A possible war between the sects might divide Iraq into three and remove the border between Syria and Iraq. This possibility means the destruction of the status-quo and remapping the countries' borders. Ankara must be prepared for that. The incidents also have the potential to threaten the oil collaboration Turkey made with Northern Iraq, and Turkish investments in North Iraq. It is another matter of debate how the ongoing resolution process for the outlawed PKK laying down arms would be influenced by that unstable regional atmosphere. The answers to these questions are being searched for in the security meetings held in Ankara. However, the matter of priority in those meetings is the release of about 120,000 Turkish citizens in Iraq and how safety can be provided to them. Another issue that is currently being negotiated is how the Iraqi Turkmen, a part of who are Shiite, and the North Iraq Kurds, with whom relations were redefined, could come out of this conflict with minimal damage. This issue also interests Turkey's domestic politics. It suddenly turned into a debate of domestic politics when ISIS seized Turkey's Mosul consulate and abducted 49 Turkish citizens. Because of that, the questions asking whether our foreign policies were unsuccessful were being asked. As part of it, the criticisms targeted the notions of "strategic depth" and "zero problem policy," and consequently the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. To regard Turkish diplomacy as unsuccessful on the issues of Syria and Iraq, some other group must have success in the region. But who is successful? Is it Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki? Maliki is the prime minister of a country where the state authority has collapsed. He got stuck in Baghdad, and could not reach a considerable part of his country. He has problems with almost all the actors in the country. Lately, he has been on the brink of a war with the Kurds in Northern Iraq and now he is trying to struggle against a terrorist organization which is supported by Sunnis who were repressed for years. When I was a correspondent for the Prime Ministry, I witnessed so many examples of it. Ankara always tried to indoctrinate Maliki, not to exclude anyone, not to ignore Sunnis and integrate everyone in the administration. During those days, Maliki was too exhausted to heed these words because he thought he drew his strength from Iran and the U.S. Then, everyone who had a problem with Maliki came to Ankara, asking for help. The leading names of Iraqi Shiites were also among those visitors. After that, Maliki banned Shiite political figures from visiting Turkey. Due to the pressures of Maliki, Iraq's Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi had to resort to Turkey. Maliki regarded the warnings made to him as an intervention in the country's inner affairs. So, no results could be obtained from these attempts, evidence of Iraq's current situation.What about Iran? It supported the oppressor Bashar Assad for its strategic interests in the region. It became a part of the approach which suggests that Assad must stay in his office at all costs and because of Iran's role, Syria turned into a complete mess. The fire started in Syria and spread to its neighbor Iraq, in other words, it spread to its own borders. Since the sectarian conflict was triggered, it will not be easy to control this fire. The fire might burn both Iran and its interests. The only consolation for Tehran is that it has come to the same camp as the U.S. in terms of opposing ISIS. The EU excludes itself from this equation since it does not have consistent foreign policies and as such, I do not want to take it into consideration. On the other hand, I would like to especially mention the role of the U.S. since Iraq is now mostly paying the price of the decisions taken by the U.S. The conflict in Iraq is the result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, something which becomes more evident each day. The invasion was a mistake; and the policies implemented after the invasion turned into a chain of mistakes. The U.S. supported Maliki at all costs and could not see that the country was being dragged into an abyss. It decided to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion. It was said "the discharged soldiers would create instability." And now it is evident that Saddam's discharged soldiers have filled the gap ISIS created, especially in Mosul. Maybe the most critical mistake was made in Syria. Since the U.S. did not support the reasonable opposition in Syria, organizations such as ISIS found the opportunity to act in the region. This caused both a prolonged civil war in Syria and the extension of this war to a wider area.More actors could be added to the "success list" such as Saudi Arabia, which consumed its credit; or Russia, which paid for the account of Syria in Ukraine. However, I do not want to extend the list as my intention is not to search for a scapegoat. I only would like to show to those saying "Turkish foreign policies are unsuccessful" that there are complicated developments in the region, there is more than one actor behind the developments, and each actor reacts to them in light of their own interests, and how they fail at the end. The mistakes of other actors should not be attributed to Ankara.