Israel attacked the flagship of a flotilla bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza in international waters and killed nine pro-Palestinian activists on May 31st. Since most of the passengers on the ship Mavi Marmara were Turkish, this meant that the Israeli army killed Turkish civilians. To be fair, the Israelis warned repeatedly before the flotilla took off and during its journey that they would not allow the ship to sail to Gaza. But probably even the most pessimistic observers would not have expected the attack, worthy of a rogue state, with no concern for either international law, human life, or for Israel’s own image in the international arena. Upon the return of passengers, Turkish papers published harrowing accounts of the raid and what happened inside the ship.

The Turkish foreign minister spent about two and a half hours briefing editors and columnists last Tuesday on the joint declaration signed in Tehran between Iran, Brazil, and Turkey. The deal, reached after eighteen hours of negotiations, resembled a similar agreement from last October that the Iranians first accepted and then rejected.

The foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, presented his case in detail and reiterated that his government kept in touch with the US, as did the Brazilians, whom the Iranians said they would consider to be a mediator. Referring to a letter that President Obama sent to the Brazilian president and the Turkish prime minister, Davutoğlu argued that the deal satisfied all of the United States’ conditions: that 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium be transferred out of Iran (in this case, to Turkey), that this transfer be done all at once, and that the fuel rods would be given to Iran within a year.

In the upcoming weeks and months, all observers of the Turkish political scene will have a lot to get used to: Fitful though it may be, the country’s political modernization is running apace and a new political architecture is being formed.

The recent television images of 49 retired and active duty officers (two force commanders and a deputy chief of staff among them) being removed from their homes by the police and taken into custody were quite a shock. Many of the detainees were arrested and will await trial possibly on charges of conspiring to overthrow the Turkish government in 2003 as part of an alleged plan named “Sledgehammer.”

The immediate reaction abroad was one of apprehension about the military’s possible retaliation. When all the generals and admirals of the Turkish military met the evening of the arrests, the level of anxiety only escalated. In the end, nothing much happened—a different story from other times, when the military called all the shots.

There is one thing that is uplifting about the debate on Iran. Military action is no longer seen as a viable, let alone desirable option, by straight-thinking people, Sarah Palin notwithstanding.

Even the unfolding debate on containment and whether this would work puts less emphasis on the threat of force than on the country’s political isolation in the region, and the regime’s new elites within Iran. For such a shift in approach to be consequential, two things are necessary: Delicate diplomatic coalition building, and persistence. Coalition building must start in the region. Many observers seek a tacit alliance between Israel and some Arab states on this issue—alliances that had actually been in place since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. This is a fine idea, but even monarchies need some degree of legitimacy when they pursue a particular foreign policy.

It was at once both intriguing and infuriating to watch Tony Blair before the Chilcot Inquiry panel. Part of the frustration was generated by the docility of the board in questioning Mr. Blair. But much of it stemmed from the fact that Blair remained unrepentant and ever self-righteous about a war that had gone tragically wrong and to which he committed his country long before the matter came to a head in 2003.

Blair even lied about the fact that already a year before the war he was in favor of “regime change.” Documents released in Britain show that before 9/11, he offered his support for removing Saddam Hussein “when the circumstances were right.” He remained defiant about his decision to go to war and argued that Saddam, intent on carrying on with his WMD programs, “was a monster who threatened the region and the world. I do genuinely believe the world is safer as a result.”

President Obama will give his first State of the Union speech tonight. A lot of hope was invested in him, and no doubt the year took its toll on his image, credibility, and appeal, notwithstanding his Nobel Peace Prize speech, as well as other speeches that truly moved his listeners. The cynics, therefore, have a lot to feel good about.

One year on, the administration does not have much to show that is tangible in terms of success in either domestic or foreign policy. The wake-up call in Massachusetts may yet lead to a different presidential style and may let Obama recover lost ground. One can reasonably argue that the groundwork had been laid for results on many issues—but for an impatient world and an aching domestic public, that does not count for much.