Presence of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia with discrepant views and different international standings in Syria is not only evidence to complexity of the crisis in this country, but also a proof to the fact that any solution to this crisis would take a lot of time to be found. It also shows that no unilateral solution in favor of any of these “involved parties” could be possibly successful.
Which
Strategy, Which Outcome in Syria?
Hossein
Malaek
Iran’s Former Ambassador to China and Foreign Policy Analyst
Image Attribute: Freedom House, under Creative Commons Licenses
Image Attribute: Freedom House, under Creative Commons Licenses
Presence of
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia with discrepant views and different
international standings in Syria is not only evidence to complexity of the
crisis in this country, but also a proof to the fact that any solution to this
crisis would take a lot of time to be found. It also shows that no unilateral
solution in favor of any of these “involved parties” could be possibly
successful.
On February
27, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2268 through
consensus to put into gear the contents of a joint statement released by the
foreign ministers of the United States and Russia for the cessation of
hostilities in Syria. The statement had been issued on February 24, asking the
belligerent sides to observe its provisions from the midnight of February 27,
thus allowing for a ceasefire to take effect along the lines of contact between
all groups covered by the truce deal.
Since the
outset of the truce, American officials, including President Barack Obama,
appeared doubtful about its outcome and implementation, and since Russians have
made their entire credit in Syria conditional on the implementation of this
“ceasefire,” Americans have been willing for Russia to accept responsibility
for any mediation to this effect.
This stage,
according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a turning point in Syria’s
crisis. Americans, however, have not agreed to this position, at least, in
their rhetoric. At any rate, 97 groups, in addition to Syrian army and the
Russian air force, have vowed to remain committed to the aforesaid statement.
Russia has also established a truce monitoring center at a location close to
Bassel Al-Assad International Airport near the city of Latakia, and has
deployed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to the region to show that it is
serious in this regard.
The first
result of these developments is to create two responsible and negotiating
groups, who at least agree on many international concepts. One group is led by
the United States while the other group, which includes the government of
President Bashar Assad in Syria, is led by Russia.
The following
notes explain a large-scale and preliminary approach to this process and
possibilities that Iran may have to face.
Assumptions:
1. It
can be almost certainly said that the governance in Syria will be taken out of
the hands of the government in Damascus and will be taken over by the Security
Council, especially by the United States and Moscow. This means that it would
be very unlikely for the “national government” in Syria to be able or willing
to prevent Russia from taking additional measures in that country.
2. It
seems that if Russia and the United States do not come to blows over the
outcome, they would be unlikely to have significant differences over the method
and mechanism of advancing negotiations.
3. When
truce starts between Russia and Syria, on the one hand, and “moderate
opposition” groups, on the other hand, as a result of commitment to contents of
the Security Council resolution, those groups will firstly, have time to
strengthen their organization and will finally gain political legitimacy in the
face of the government.
4. Russia
will have more motivation and commitment to finding a solution to this conflict
compared to the United States in order to prove its sense of responsibility and
play a stronger international role in a bid to regulate its relations with
Europe and the United States at global level. It was Mr. Putin, who interrupted
normal program of the Russian television, to declare that he has reached an
agreement with the US president over the ceasefire in Syria.
5. Direct
role of countries like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia in Syria will gradually
decrease and they will be contained and act within a set framework.
6. Since
in terms of area, territories under control of Daesh and al-Nusra Front are
bigger than areas controlled by other groups and they are also supported by
their forces in Iraq as well as governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the
fate of a political entity like Syria will not be determined in a medium-term
period of 5-10 years.
In line with
the above assumptions, a few possibilities can be taken into account:
1. Cease
fire will continue in those regions, where areas of conflict are relatively
very small and limited, in which case:
a. Syrian
government will no longer have access to the country’s borders with Turkey.
b. Syria’s
sovereign measures, including holding elections, would become conditional on
accepting considerations of the United Nations Security Council.
c. In
view of the presence of Russia at Qamishli air base and the United States’
presence in another rural airport 45 km from Qamishli toward Iraq, the two
Kurdish regions of Hasakah and Kobani will practically turn into a safe zone
protected by these two powers. This region will probably form a free Kurdistan
region in the future.
d. Political
negotiations will start and continue under the UN special envoy to Syria.
e. The
Security Council will probably give the go-ahead to deployment of UN
peacekeeping forces along some lines of contact.
f. Joint
management of Syria crisis by the United States and Russia will prove effective
and turn into a model for more cooperation between the two sides.
2. The
ceasefire region will expand to more areas after withdrawal from those areas of
Daesh and al-Nusra Front:
a. Role
and the necessity for presence of peacekeeping forces will increase.
3. Daesh
and al-Nusra Front will resist pressures:
a. Washington’s
policy is based on eliminating leaders and key elements of Daesh and al-Nusra
Front in order to render this group leaderless and finally push it into a
position of passivity. However, it is unlikely that the ideology and members of
these two groups would fail in provided necessary high cadres for the
leadership of the groups. Therefore, similar to the Taliban group in
Afghanistan, which has imposed itself on the government through political
means, these groups and their way of thinking, will turn into part of the
future solution in this region.
b. There
is high possibility of conflict among militant groups and formation of new
coalitions among them.
4.
Ceasefire will practically fail due to frequent breaches by belligerent sides:
a. Under
these conditions and in view of the weakness of operational forces affiliated
to various groups present in Syria to push for their goals, direct presence of
forces from Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Syria would seem inevitable. Under these
circumstances, the possibility of the presence of American forces in future
should be also taken into consideration.
b. The
possibility of the Security Council adopting more serious decisions to dispatch
troops to Syria is also predictable.
Whatever the
final outcome of this crisis, it will set the main future direction for Iran’s
foreign policy. The outcome of this crisis will determine the quality of
political relations that Iran will have with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and
Lebanon. The outcome of this crisis will also shed light on the balance of
understanding of politics in the Middle East between Iran and the United States
and ultimately Israel. The outcome of this crisis will influence Iran’s
relations with Iraq as well.
None of the
involved countries have a clear image of what they want on the basis of the
realities on the ground. The United States and Russia have only agreed on
mechanisms for reaching a solution, but the outcome for them will be as diverse
as it is for other players. More serious discussion of these issues by experts
may finally offer decision-making officials with better solutions.
Key Words: Syria
Crisis, Balance of Powers, Middle East, Strategy, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Russia, United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2268, The United
States, Hostilities, Belligerent Sides, Ceasefire, President Barack Obama,
President Vladimir Putin, Daesh, Al-Nusra Front, Malaek
Source:
Iranian Diplomacy (IRD)
Translated By: Iran
Review.Org
