Baladi News – (Turki Mostafa)
Forward:
None of the conflicting parties have won the six-year Syrian war that almost destroyed the whole country. As planned by regional states, Assad’s regime and the opposition have become so exhausted that they are currently considering the acceptance of a political settlement in line with their conflicting interests despite the regime allegations of attempting to capture Syria as a whole or the insistence of the rebel factions to topple the regime by force.
Introduction:
Since the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement in Ankara, the following understandings in Astana have referred to the adoption of an “inclusion” policy of both conflicting parties synchronize with granting Iran the green light to target the liberated areas as an alternative policy in case negotiations fails or if the interests of Tehran and Ankara contradicts, where Iran seeks to destabilize security in the area because its war is an ideological war.
However, the Iranian trend encounters several obstacles; the Turks interfered militarily on the rebels’ side based on an agreement with Russia. They are also working on the establishment of a Syrian national army and the foundation of sage zones.
So far, both parties cling on the military power option, although they do not have the requirement for ending the war, which is related to international and internal circumstances. Each of them wants the negotiations to be tuned to be compatible with its interests after Trump took over, which could change the relative positions of both sides according to trump’s policies in the region.
The political interactions among the parties relevant to the Syrian case have revealed a multifaceted disagreement regarding their tools on the ground; Iranian militias and the Russians on one hand and Turkey and the FSA on the other.
Turkey and its Strategic Options
The unification of the Syrian revolution factions in northern Syria under the name “National Army” started virtually with direct Turkish support, pursuant to statements by of the Turkish president one week ago.
Indeed, a national army has become an international demand, which led the rebels’ factions to build military coalitions under increasing international pressures synchronized with the movement toward a new phase in the Syrian revolution, amid the fragile ceasefire agreement and the launch of Astana and Geneva negotiations.
Realizing this importance, Turkey launched “Euphrates Shield” operation in the vicinity of its borders from Jarabulus to Azaz in the west and to the south of Aleppo city, which is the most critical area in the natural borders of Turkey.
Euphrates shield was a very clever military step as it prevented the attempts of the Kurdish Saleh Muslim forces to connect between Ayn al-Arab canton and Afrin, which finished the Iranian dream before it was born. It also deprived ISIS from any border ports and thwarted the endeavors of Iran and its militia to capture additional Syrian territories.
Euphrates Shield completed the liberation of northern Syria, so that it could be the base of a safe zone that Turkey has sought to establish for two years.
Whereas the Turkish cooperation with the FSA is progressing, the gap with the other factions is expanding, either in Hama or in Idlib, where various coalitions are taking place among factions not in line with the Turkish vision. Turkey seems to focus on Ahrar al-Sham, the important and essential group whether in peace or in war circumstances.
In this respect, the Turkish diplomatic activity is in progress with Erdogan’s visits in Saudi, Qatar, and Bahrain to gain the support of the Gulf states, especially in relation to the safe zone, the establishment of a national Syrian army, and the deterrence of the Iranian influence.
The Iranian Weakness between the Iranian Resentment and the American Threatening
The most dangerous of the Iranian aspirations is the exploitation of international issues to push for an open war in Syria under the banner of fighting terrorism by begging the west that realizes the Iranian hegemony scheme.
More than three years after its intervention in Syria, Iran had not been able to advance on the ground until the Russian air forces started their intense airstrikes using a scorched land war against civilians in order to achieve a victory that has important international considerations. Therefore, while Russia stopped its aggression on Aleppo with the first settlement, Iran was committing horrific massacres against civilians for sectarian reasons, which clarified the difference between the Russian interests and the Iranian ideological goals.
On the other hand, Russia is aware of the compatibility of the Iranian and United States policies, especially that both parties have a long history of cooperation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Palestine, and Syria, despite the exchanged insults that are a mere propaganda.
Political understandings on Syria and Prospects of confrontation
After the restoration of the Russian-Turkish relations, Russia seemed obsessed over the Turkish expansion from al-Bab to Raqqa and Manbij that would establish the safe zones where flights will be band, which Russia opposes.
Russian efforts are currently focused on not allowing the FSA and the Turkish Special Forces to implement the post-al-Bab phase by supporting the Iranian militias and Assad’s regime to expand towards al-Jarrah airport and Maskanah town to block the way for FSA, which could enable Moscow to impose its conditions in the ambiguous political settlement.
As a new administration came to power in the United States, amid promises of Trump to uproot ISIS, Ankara was granted a new chance to play the main role in fighting terrorism, which could cause the Russian role in the Syrian settlement to decline, which would not be accepted by Putin who sought to restore an old glory with a different ideology in full coordination with the U.S administration during Obama’s term.
Actually, the U.S-Russian coordination did not stop, and the current heated media arguments are merely a propaganda. The recent U.S-Russian understandings stated that the political settlement is purely a Syrian affair, which means eliminating any regional role in deciding the future in Syria with a focus on maintaining the Israeli national security by federalizing or splitting Syria in half, so that Russia would reinforce its bases on the Syrian coast and the United States would control the eastern area.
On the other hand, Russia would spare no effort in preventing a possible clash between the Turkey-backed FSA and the Iranian militias in Aleppo eastern countryside, which could hinder such a strategy.
Conclusion:
In the political horizon, the following question arises: Is it possible, based on the aforementioned, for Tehran and Ankara to reach an agreed upon compromise to find a settlement that could end the Syrian war?
Theoretically, the Russian context of change seems to be inclined to finding a political settlement despite the Iranian minefield hindering any ceasefire agreement as Tehran insists on the military solution all around Syria and due to the ambiguity of the stance of Trump’s administration as well as the rise of the Turkish role, the biggest competitor of Iran in the region.
Such rapid development requires the Syrian opposition to monitor the events on the ground very carefully and try to understand the change in the Russian strategy, the stance of the U.S republicans, and the Russian discontent with the Russian behaviors.