There is also talk of an Iranian-sponsored plan for a peaceful transition of power in Damascus. Zvi Bar’el, the veteran reporter and commentator for the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote on Monday [Sept. 9], “The proposal includes plans for a ‘democratic transfer’ of power in stages.” Citing reports in the Arab and Iranian media, Bar’el said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem was expected to present the proposal to Russian President Vladimir Putin when the two met on Monday.

Kerry also underlined during last week’s congressional hearing on Syria that their aim in any military strike would not be to oust Assad. He said they only wanted to punish him and degrade his chemical weapons capabilities, and made it clear that they wanted to shore up the secular elements in Syria against a possible takeover by Islamists.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry is suggesting that Washington could give up on plans to strike Syria — for which the Obama administration has little public support anyway — if the Assad regime agrees to a Russian proposal to hand over its chemical weapons.

The Erdogan government is expressing dissatisfaction over efforts to bring around a negotiated compromise with the Assad regime. It's also dissatisfied to see the Egyptian military strengthens its grip on power, while increasing the pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood with support from regional Arab powers.

All of this goes against the grain for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who are loath to see a negotiated settlement in Syria that would have Assad or his representative as an interlocutor. Talking on the HaberTurk channel on Monday [Sept. 9], Davutoglu scorned the Russian proposal for Syria’s chemical weapons as “cosmetic,” and said this would only buy time for Assad and “give the green light for his subsequent massacres.”

Erdogan and Davutoglu's position, however, appears increasingly unrealistic given that there is a world — including Islamic countries — that is not prepared to bloody its hands over Syria. Meanwhile, Erdogan’s demand for the reinstatement of President Mohammed Morsi in Egypt appears equally unrealistic at this stage. Much to his annoyance, the prospect of a return to power by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood is looked on more unfavorably in the Middle East than in the West.

This poses a dilemma for the Erdogan government, which has started to criticize the Arab countries supporting the Egyptian military. The contradiction, however, is that while they criticize these powers over Egypt in the name of democracy, Ankara continues to rely on the support of the same powers for bringing down the Assad regime in the name of democracy.

Whatever the contradiction, Erdogan continues to believe that once Assad is gone, democracy is imminent in Syria. Many of his critics suspect, though, that he's relying on the ballot box in a country with an overwhelming Sunni majority to politically elevate his Islamist allies in the region. They argue that his domestic policies show he has a “majoritarian” and not “pluralistic” understanding of democracy.

Some foreign ministry officials in Ankara sounded out by Al-Monitor also believe that Erdogan’s line on Syria and Egypt is not sustainable diplomatically. The risk, they argued is that this single-minded insistence will merely lead Turkey into more diplomatic dead-ends. It was telling, therefore, that Turkey decided last week to send its ambassador back to Cairo after having recalled him in August.

Ambassador Huseyin Avni Botsali was officially recalled for consultations on developments in Egypt. But government circles did not shy from presenting this as a move designed to end the last link with the military regime in order to protest the killing of Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Turkey’s traditional diplomacy that Erdogan has shunned in the past, however, prevailed once again.

By sending back the ambassador, Ankara showed it can not afford to burn all its bridges with Cairo, regardless of who may be in power there. The refusal by Egypt, on the other hand, to send its ambassador back to Ankara did not look good for the Erdogan government. Responding to the Turkish move, Egypt had also recalled its envoy in August.

A spokesman for the Egyptian foreign ministry was quoted in the Egyptian media last week saying the envoy would not return to Ankara until Turkey stopped its "hostile stance and interference in Egyptian affairs."

While this confusion reigned in Turkey’s ties with a key Arab country, eyes also remained on Erdogan to see if and when he would act to normalize ties with Israel, now that months have elapsed since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Turkey over the Mavi Marmara incident. The raid by Israeli commandoes on the aid ship Mavi Marmara in May 2010, when it tried to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, left nine Turks dead. Israel says it will pay compensation and negotiations are still ongoing having produced little till now.

Erdogan’s recent claim that Israel was behind the Egyptian coup was taken as a sign by Western diplomats in Ankara that he has no interest in normalizing ties with Israel, not only because of his personal dislike of that country, but also because of the likelihood that this would be shunned by his Islamist supporters. Foreign Ministry officials, however, say talks are still underway with Israel, and add that a surprise breakthrough could be arrived at.

Seeing that Erdogan’s recent anti-Israeli rhetoric has brought him little but international derision and ridicule, Turkish diplomats may have started getting it through to his foreign close policy advisors that normalized ties with Israel are important at a time like this. Developments in the Middle East are unfolding rapidly for both countries and involving them directly or indirectly, as in the case of Syria, where both face the threat of chemical weapons, in a degree of cooperation anyway.

“It is all a question of whether you want to control events or be driven by them. To control events you have to be on the right track,” one Foreign Ministry source told Al-Monitor in confidence. He added that Ankara has strayed in unfamiliar directions, particularly after the Arab Spring, and said it was time to return to familiar tracks in order to be able to move on.

Whether he likes it or not, events also appear to be forcing Erdogan’s hand in that direction. But it's not clear if he is willing to act accordingly. Both he and Davutoglu are still sailing against the current, unable to change tack. What is clear, however, is that developments in the Middle East are not unfolding according to their desires.

Semih Idiz is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse. A journalist who has been covering diplomacy and foreign policy issues for major Turkish newspapers for 30 years, his opinion pieces can be followed in the English-language Hurriyet Daily News. His articles have also been published in The Financial Times, The Times of London, Mediterranean Quarterly and Foreign Policy magazine.