A significant change in Turkey-Israel relations after the Israeli elections should not be expected.The instability caused by the Syrian civil war has brought the world face to face with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). While there are reports regarding the retreat of ISIS from Iraq and Syria, the terrorist organization still maintains its power. Middle East is witnessing many developments - the change of administration in Saudi Arabia, events taking place in Yemen and Israeli elections around the corner. Daily Sabah spoke with Ufuk Ulutaş, foreign policy coordinator at the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA), which is one of the leading think tanks in Turkey, about the latest developments in the Middle East.Daily Sabah: Will last week's Süleyman Shah operation cause new conflicts?Ufuk Ulutaş: Actually, this operation was executed to diminish the risk of conflict. Turkey felt that the risk of being dragged into an open and armed conflict in which it could not set the conditions was increasing especially due to estimated clashes between ISIS and the People's Protection Units (YPG) around the tomb. Therefore, Turkey tackled this risk with a proactive move. Turkey also assessed the possibility of the Syrian regime or affiliated groups' provocations and therefore moved the tomb and its soldiers to safety.With the Operation Shah Euphrates, this risk of conflict was diminished. If this operation was done through an armed clash between Turkish troops and ISIS, it would have the risk to escalate. Since not a single bullet was fired, it would be safe to argue that the operation itself would not cause new conflicts. DS: In the last few days, we observed ISIS's retreat from both Syria and Iraq. Do you think that ISIS is on its way to dissolution?UU: Strategically speaking, Kobani was one of ISIS's greatest mistakes. It was an insignificant spot for ISIS and others except the YPG. Even the U.S. administration admitted this insignificance. However, ISIS insisted on capturing this spot and it turned out to be a grave mistake. It brought together an international coalition who were otherwise passive observers to the Syrian conflict. The ensuing airstrikes partially worked and damaged ISIS both physically and psychologically. Losing Kobani after spending so much energy on it created disappointment among ISIS's ranks, and some within ISIS criticized the leadership for wasting men, power and prestige.However, I still don't think that ISIS is going to dissolve easily under these conditions. The conditions that created a monstrous organization like ISIS still remain in both Iraq and Syria. Iraq has taken some political steps to negate former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's sectarian policies. However, the fragility of state institutions and ethnic and sectarian mistrust among Iraqis still remains. ISIS has been exploiting this mistrust to its benefit and for recruitment purposes. As for Syria, President Bashar Assad's massacres are continuing in full force and state authority is non-existent in a big swath of land. ISIS-type actors are nourished in chaos and benefit from lack of state authority. It is not a coincidence that two of ISIS's bastions, Syria and Iraq, are characterized by weak state authority. Without putting these two countries in order and addressing people's demands, it would be quite premature to argue that ISIS is on its way to dissolution. We should not forget one point, and that is that ISIS is not the cause of chaos in the region, rather it is a symptom of it. Hence treatment must address the cause. DS: What should be done to remove the ISIS threat?UU: For this to happen, several steps must be taken simultaneously. Firstly, the causes that paved the way for the creation of ISIS should be eliminated. In Iraq, ISIS has sociological roots and tribal links, but in Syria it does not. In Iraq, Sunnis must be brought into the political picture and assured that they won't be excluded once again as done by Maliki. Meanwhile, the current fight against ISIS must not be turned into yet another Sunni-Shiite fight. Regarding Syria, the Assad regime and the chaos it created are the greatest factors in the creation and spread of ISIS. As long as Assad fights against his own people and insists on staying in power in a country of which he doesn't control most of, it is not possible to get rid of ISIS in Syria. Thus, the removal of ISIS and Assad will have to be a simultaneous effort. Secondly, the groups fighting ISIS and Assad should be supported internationally. If ISIS is to be removed, this can only be achieved by Syrians and Iraqis. Therefore, those who have fought and will fight against ISIS on the ground will have to be supported. The West always supported groups that were close to them, but they were not efficient in fighting. This support did not yield anything in the fight against Assad or ISIS. The international community should stop creating ideological fragmentations among Syrian rebels and support those who have proven to be efficient in fighting and inclusive of other groups. If there is to be a political agreement, this will only happen when the current military equation is tipped off to the benefit of one of the sides. Both of the groups are currently thinking that they can continue fighting each other for a while yet. This war has turned into a war of attrition. When one of the sides realizes that they cannot win this war they will have to compromise and this will lead to the political solution of the war. The international community must make sure that it is Assad who will have to compromise and be dictated a just and sustainable political solution in Syria.DS: How do you evaluate the train-and-equip agreement signed with the U.S. in regard to the international community's support?UU: It is definitely a step forward, but it is a little too late. If this was done in 2012 or 2013, it could have yielded direct results. However, with the number of soldiers being trained and the stage of the conflict that we are in, it is almost impossible to change the rules of the game on the ground. Also, The U.S. wants to train them for the purpose of fighting against ISIS, while Turkey wants them to be trained to fight against both ISIS and Syrian government forces. As I have mentioned before, ISIS's existence is related directly to Assad. If anyone entertains the idea of eradicating ISIS without targeting Assad, they are in an illusion. Therefore, to be more efficient and save more Syrian lives, the number of trained soldiers must be increased and similar support should be given to the groups that are already on the ground fighting both Assad and ISIS on the front.DS: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's visit to Saudi Arabia coincided with the discourse that there is a new era in relations. Do you think that a new era has dawned with the new Saudi king? If this is true, how would the possible close relations affect the regional equation?UU: There is a new era, but it will take time for this new era to shape the current landscape. Also, we should be more modest when talking about our expectations. We cannot talk about a scenario in which Saudi Arabia withdraws all its support from Egypt and designates President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi as an enemy. Having said this, Saudi Arabia noticed that some of its allies, especially the United Arab Emirates (UAE), were dragging them toward a strategically dangerous path in the region. When we say the UAE, we may also mean Israel indirectly. Israel is known to express its regional strategy through the UAE. This alliance later included Egypt and Jordan. The common feature of this alliance is that they are all against regional change and all of them possess a strong anti-Islamist position. With the possibility of regional change as indicated by the Arab Spring and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood-related groups to power through democratic elections, some Arab countries and Israel acted in harmony to curb the demands of change. They supported the coup in Egypt, attempted a coup in Libya through General Khalifa Haftar and started a campaign against al-Nahda movement in Tunisia. They have worked laboriously to preserve the current military balance in Syria and prevent the opposition forces from gaining power. They even played a covert role in Turkey's Gezi Park protests.Saudi Arabia is the country that arguably suffered the most from this alliance. Saudi Arabia's most powerful rival in the region, Iran, increased its area of influence greatly to Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sana. What happened in Yemen opened the Saudis' eyes. In the immediate south Houthis captured the capital of Yemen. It is interesting that Saudi Arabia overlooked Houthi expansion in Yemen to be used against al-Qaida and Ikhwan. It sought the weakening of both of the parties through conflict. However, as Ikhwan avoided this conflict, their plan was foiled. This cost Saudi Arabia dearly. Because, what happens in the region may resonate strongly in Saudi heartlands, especially in the eastern part of the Arabian peninsula where a considerable number of Shiites live. With the accession to the Saudi throne of King Salman and the dismissal of several key officials from strategic posts such as the former secretary general, Khaled al-Tuwaijri, we can say that a new era has started in Saudi Arabia. In this line, they have contacted both Yemeni and Syrian Ikhwan, and sent positive messages to the Syrian opposition forces, voiced reservations about Sissi in Egypt and indicated that they may work closer with Turkey.President Erdoğan's visit is significant in this manner. Any positive development in bilateral relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia will have a positive impact on the region. Turkey is aware of this new era and I can see both the motivation and effort to act together to address regional problems in a coordinated way.DS: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity is in decline in Israel. If Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni's Zionist Union coalition comes to power or Netanyahu is re-elected in the March elections, what may change in its attitude of Turkey?UU: Under current conditions, it seems Netanyahu will remain as the prime minister of Israel. The main reason for this is the fragmented nature of Israeli politics. The opposition parties are not estimated to win adequate seats in the Knesset to lead a coalition government. Israeli politics has a fragmented structure, and in this structure, even though Netanyahu loses power, his party, Likud, will most probably maintain its status as the largest party. For a meaningful change in Turkey-Israel relations there are steps to be taken. I do not see any motivation on either side. Thus, relations will remain as they are with few ups and downs. It should also be noted that Turkey-Israel relations not always refer to bilateral relations between the two countries. There is always a Palestine factor and Israeli policies toward Palestine have always affected this relation. Therefore, unless Israel changes its attitude toward Palestinians, Turkish-Israeli relations will be fragile and stay prone to conflict. I should end by saying that I do not foresee a meaningful and positive change in Israel's attitude toward Palestinians.Profile: Who is Ufuk UlutaşUfuk Ulutaş is the director of the foreign policy studies at the SETA Foundation. He received his bachelor's degree in political science from Bilkent University, his master's degree in Middle Eastern history at Ohio State University (OSU) and he is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the same university. He studied Hebrew and Middle Eastern politics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and lectured at OSU between 2004 and 2009. He worked as a research assistant at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and served as the Samuel M. Melton and George M. & Renée K. Levine fellow at the Melton Center for Jewish Studies. He also worked as the Middle East Program coordinator at SETA in Washington and is a columnist at Akşam daily and currently hosts a foreign policy TV program on TRT Türk. He also serves on the executive board of a Somalia-based think tank, the Heritage Institute for Policy Studies.