Syria’s Future Is In Doubt (II)

Syria-war-future

Part I

Ultimately, Syria’s future rests with its people; no external power can claim decisive influence over its direction. However, the nation has long been a battleground for international rivalries, with foreign powers entrenched behind different Syrian factions. Therefore, outside actors will have considerable influence during this post-Assad political transition, necessitating careful navigation by Kremlin policymakers amidst increasing complexity.

With neighboring countries, positions seem clearer. None possess sufficient resources or commitment to ensure the future stability of Syria independently. Consequently, their actions will be driven by current interests and subject to rapid shifts based on developments in Syria. While they will likely form temporary coalitions to handle specific issues, their divergent interests hinder the establishment of enduring partnerships.

For Turkey, it is crucial to maintain influence over the upcoming leadership in Damascus and facilitate the return of the millions of Syrian refugees currently residing in Turkey. Additionally, Ankara aims to thwart the rise of a radical Islamist state on its border, likely preferring Syrian National Army governance over HTS rule, which currently occupies a stronger position.

Israel’s priority is to dismantle Syria’s military capacity, a goal the Israeli air force actively pursues through strikes aimed at Syrian military assets. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s agenda further involves the complete expulsion of Iranian forces from Syria and solidifying Israeli control over the Golan Heights.

Iran’s strategy focuses on minimizing damage to its positions and the Syrian Shiite community, which could face new threats from prevailing Sunni factions. The future of Iranian investments in Syria remains ambiguous, as Tehran struggles to maintain support for Hezbollah amid the deterioration of its ground route to Lebanon, increasingly targeted by Israeli operations.

Iraq must remain vigilant for the destabilizing effects of Syrian turmoil on its eastern regions, as the lengthy border serves as a transit for refugees and former Syrian soldiers. Moreover, Lebanese and Jordanian leaders are similarly apprehensive about spillover instability, and Egyptians are concerned about the potential resurgence of radical groups in the wake of any regime shift.

The roles of regional participants in Syria’s political transition are paramount. These actors are likely to engage in dynamic alliances around shared security and development priorities. Yet, their conflicting interests and trust deficits will impede sustainable solutions to the country’s core issues. Consequently, engagement from global powers appears increasingly critical.

Great powers cannot indulge in opportunism; they must act strategically, considering both immediate consequences and long-term effects. It’s essential for them to address not only their interests but also broader global and regional public goods, especially in Syria’s ongoing crisis.

Despite the ongoing geopolitical confrontations, the interests of great powers in post-Assad Syria align substantially. For one, none wishes to see Syria fragment into unstable mini-states, as such outcomes could trigger a chain reaction across the region, leading to unpredictable consequences. Secondly, the transformation of Syria into a breeding ground for political extremism and terrorism would pose risks not only to its immediate neighbors but to the international community at large. The dire aftermath of Iraq’s instability following the fall of Saddam Hussein should serve as a cautionary tale.

Preventing the resurgence of chemical weapons capability in Syria remains a common objective, ensuring that arsenals of conventional arms do not fall into extremist hands is equally vital. Israel is currently addressing some of these issues through military action; nevertheless, the challenge of securing portable weapons remains unresolved.

In light of the looming humanitarian crisis in Syria, characterized by shortages of food, fuel, and medicine, and compounded by armed violence and criminal activity, alleviating unilateral sanctions imposed by the West is imperative. An inclusive political regime, modernizing the constitution and representing Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious groups, is vital to avoid regressions to medieval gender discrimination. Efforts must be made to prevent a new migration wave from Syria, facilitating the return of the millions displaced during the war to aid in reconstruction. Moreover, fostering Syria’s reintegration into the Arab community is essential, steering the nation toward constructive participation in regional security and development efforts rather than remaining a lingering problem.

However, can these shared interests navigate Syria’s case away from a negative geopolitical landscape? Skeptics argue that true progress is unlikely, given that developments in Syria will be framed as a zero-sum game in international politics. This makes the adoption of long-term reconstruction programs or the establishment of a solid roadmap for state-building by the UN Security Council seem far-fetched. In the past, the Quartet on the Middle East (comprising Russia, the U.S., the EU, and the UN) failed to deliver viable solutions to pressing issues, and a similar collective endeavor regarding Syria appears unrealistic.

Still, it is premature to reach definitive conclusions. The closed-door UN Security Council meeting on Syria held recently showcased an unusual unity among great powers concerning Syria’s territorial integrity, civilian protection, and humanitarian aid delivery.

While this unity could be fragile, the historical grievances and disputes among major players often hinder coherent leadership in reconciliation efforts. A withdrawal from active engagement, as noted by past leaders, only delegitimizes them in global affairs. What credibility do major powers have if they turn away from situations where they share fundamental concerns?

Given these dynamics, nations that have avoided direct military entanglement in Syria could emerge as constructive intermediaries. Countries like China or India could propose a multilateral cooperation framework for post-conflict reconstruction in Syria, with UN Security Council backing enhancing its efficacy. Ideally, a summit of major powers concerning Syria would occur, promoting economic assistance and inviting private investment for reconstruction efforts.

The situation in Syria is unstable and evolving. The balance among moderates, radicals, pragmatists, and ideologues can shift unexpectedly, with the upcoming weeks and months likely crucial for defining Syria’s course for years ahead. In such pivotal moments, the efficacy of great powers in global politics is tested. Historical precedents reveal numerous failures; hence, the hope remains that they will respond effectively to the challenges ahead.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*