Pragmatic solutions for Syria's crisis were hindered due to ethical considerations
In the heart of the Middle East, the conflict in Syria has been a battleground for local, regional, and great power interests since 2011. Originating as a civil war, Syria, an artificial state created after World War I by the United Kingdom and France, has been a mosaic of communities, each with their own aspirations and struggles.
The Syrian conflict, marked by the displacement of a third of the country's population and resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, began amidst a complex geopolitical landscape. The presence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria was met with a response that was quietly welcomed in many Western and Arab capitals due to the resistance provided by Damascus, supported by Iran and Russia. However, this resistance was often counterproductive, cornering the Damascus regime and leaving it with nothing to lose, especially with the involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The United Nations, alongside the governments in Washington and Paris, played a significant role in Syrian peace negotiations from 2011. They facilitated international dialogue and supported diplomatic efforts, but their impact was limited due to the complexities of the conflict and the influence of other regional actors, such as Russia and Iran, which often hindered effective resolution efforts. The West excluded the Assad regime from peace negotiations in 2011-2012.
The current government in Syria cannot be considered impartial, and the conflict has involved various phases, with internal factions and foreign actors participating. One such faction was the al-Nusra Front, a radical Islamist group with roots in al-Qaeda. Idlib, a region in Syria, was held by the al-Nusra Front, with Ahmed al-Sharaa, the group's founder, pledging to show tolerance toward Syria's many religious and ethnic communities.
However, the war has not been without its surprises. In late 2024, to the surprise of many, al-Nusra, in coalition with other opposition groups and backed by Turkiye, managed to rout the Assad army within days. This was made easier by Moscow and Tehran shifting their attention to other priorities.
The deposed Syrian president fled to Moscow, and by 2023, President Assad, backed by Moscow and Tehran, appeared to have reestablished control over most of Syria, with some regions, such as Idlib, remaining outside regime control. Violence is flaring in the northwest, where many Alawites still loyal to former President Assad reside.
The conflict has had far-reaching consequences, with millions of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries and some reaching Europe. The war has also strained relations between regional powers, such as Turkiye and the U.S., due to the support of Kurdish forces in Syria by Washington, which has created further friction.
Washington is in a position to exert influence, and Riyadh may be able to play a moderating role. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government remain opposed to President Assad, primarily due to concerns about Kurdish militancy in northern Syria. The West bears some responsibility for the conflict due to their actions, such as calling for negotiations that excluded the Assad government.
As the conflict continues, the hope for a peaceful resolution remains elusive, with the complex web of interests and the ongoing violence creating a challenging landscape for diplomatic efforts. The future of Syria and its people hangs in the balance, with the hope that a lasting peace can be achieved.
Read also:
- Lu Shiow-yen's Challenging Position as Chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Under Scrutiny in Donovan's Analysis
- Charity Golf Tournament Star-Studded Event: Lush greens, charitable giving, and a legendary castle setting
- Leading Africans Shaping Worldwide Positions by 2025
- Federalist Society Deserves Appreciation from Trump for Influence on Judiciary
