The Role of Iran and Global Powers in the Future of Syria

The coordinates of the Syrian crisis, according to some political observers, are gradually changing. The reason for this, according to these analysts, is the resilience of Bashar al-Assad's government on one hand and the threat of the Islamic State's potential strengthening on the other. As a result, among the leaders of global powers and in the Middle East, the emphasis on the immediate resignation of Bashar al-Assad or the overthrow of the Syrian government is believed to be decreasing. Consequently, according to these analysts, the West is now viewing Russia and Iran as part of the solution to the Syrian crisis. On Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after a conversation with his British counterpart Philip Hammond, spoke of the necessity of entering negotiations and added that the U.S. hopes that Russia and Iran, or any other influential country, will assist in holding negotiations. On Friday, the defense ministers of the U.S. and Russia, after more than a year without contact between the two military leaders, attempted to discuss the Syrian crisis and find common ground. Over the four years since the Arab Spring began, the casualties of the Syrian crisis are estimated to be over 210,000. Reports indicate an expansion of Russian military presence in Syria. Moscow states that to destroy the Islamic State, it must enter into a coalition with Bashar al-Assad's government. Simultaneously, reports from Tehran indicate coordination between Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah in providing military advice to the Syrian government. To what extent do these events indicate a convergence of positions among different countries regarding the fact that, at least for now, the Islamic State, rather than Bashar al-Assad's government, is the main obstacle to resolving the political crisis in Syria? What is the role of the Islamic Republic in this context? Three guests this week on the program 'Views' will address these questions: Mohsen Milani, a professor of international relations and director of the Strategic and Diplomatic Research Center at the University of South Florida, residing in Tampa, USA; Alireza Haghighi, a political analyst and history lecturer at the University of Toronto; and Ali Afshari, a political analyst based in Washington. Mr. Milani, let's start with the fifty-minute phone conversation between Ashton Carter and Sergei Shoigu, the defense ministers of the U.S. and Russia, after more than a year without contact between the two military leaders. The main focus of this conversation was reported to be coordinating the actions of both sides in addressing the Syrian crisis. Russia is trying to counter the Islamic State in alliance with Bashar al-Assad. However, the U.S. has stated that it is attempting to weaken the Islamic State without entering into an alliance with Bashar al-Assad. What is the outcome of this conversation? Mohsen Milani: It is unclear where these negotiations between the U.S. and Russia will lead. Because similar discussions have occurred before and led nowhere. The main issue is the significant disagreement over the future of Assad and the Assad regime. Because the Americans believe that (at least until a few days ago they stated) Assad must go. But Mr. Kerry has mentioned that the U.S. believes Assad must go, but his departure should not happen immediately, which I think is a very important point that the U.S. is making both to Assad and to the Islamic Republic and to Russia. The issue regarding Syria is that without the agreement of the U.S. and Russia and without the agreement of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the civil war in Syria will not end. Their positions differ so much that both sides must be willing to no longer raise certain issues that they had previously discussed. This is the reality of the Syrian civil war. However, since Russia has strengthened its presence, especially in the port city of Latakia, and is prepared to send troops and has been sending a lot of weapons, it seems that Russia has decided to use Syria to increase its influence in the Middle East and also, if Syria collapses, to establish a government with Latakia as its capital, where many Alawite Shiites reside. This is historically significant because after World War I, France created a new Syria with Latakia as its capital, where many Alawite Shiites lived. Therefore, this is Russia's plan in Syria. Mr. Haghighi, on the eve of the phone conversation between the defense ministers of the U.S. and Russia after more than a year without contact, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the goal is to destroy the Islamic State and achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which he said cannot be achieved with Bashar al-Assad's long-term presence in the Syrian political scene. He also stated that the U.S. is trying to find common ground with Russia. Despite this disagreement, what kind of common ground could the U.S. be seeking with Russia? Alireza Haghighi: In the past, the U.S. and Russia had a sort of consensus in supporting secular regimes, which were also very dictatorial regimes. If you pay attention, the Americans, the British, and even countries like Saudi Arabia supported the massacre of Syrians in 1984 when Hafez al-Assad killed nearly 30,000 people in Hama in about a week to ten days, most of whom were supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The West and Britain, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia believed that such policies in the chaotic Middle East served Western interests and needed to continue, especially in dealing with Islamist groups. In any case, changes occurred in this policy, especially as Arab countries began to support the uprising against Bashar al-Assad. Notably, compared to other uprisings in the region, the initial Syrian uprising had a more Islamic symbol and character. It began mainly with protests during Friday prayers, which was not the case in Tunisia, Egypt, or even Libya. Therefore, in this Islamic uprising, Saudi Arabia from the very beginning brought some Syrian leaders from that region to Saudi Arabia and provided financial and promotional support, which influenced the emergence of a new movement in the region that later became the military base for the new terrorism we are witnessing today. In such an environment, the miscalculations that the West had regarding Syria, thinking that these regimes could be easily replaced and a new environment and a new card could be used against Iran, failed. Iran also made a miscalculation, thinking that Bashar al-Assad could easily control this situation, and of course, Iran offered the Muslim Brotherhood a compromise six or seven months after the uprising to share power. All these factors indicate that the U.S. and Russia have now come to the conclusion that this crisis must be stopped. Russia, like the U.S., believes that if Syria remains a failing state, it will become a paradise for terrorism and a place for Chechens and Islamist groups within Russia to come, be trained in Syria, and return to fight against the Russian government. Mr. Afshari, Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, announced on Friday that Iran and Russia are coordinating with each other and, along with Hezbollah, are providing military advice to the Syrian government. There are also reports, as Mr. Milani pointed out, that Russia's recent military presence in Syria is prominent. Alongside the lack of consensus among European countries to weaken Assad's government, could this indicate that a convergence is forming among these countries, with the main goal being not the immediate overthrow of Bashar al-Assad's government but the destruction of the Islamic State? Or, despite appearances, is divergence between the positions of Russia and Iran on one side and the U.S. and Europe on the other side continuing? Ali Afshari: To better analyze the Syrian civil war, which has lasted four and a half years, we must pay attention to the origins of this largest humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. It has created a humanitarian disaster. However, contrary to my friends who focus heavily on external dimensions and speculate about the developments in Syria from that perspective, I believe that internal groups and internal factors play a significant role, and without considering them, the issues in Syria will not be resolved, even if there is consensus among all foreign parties involved in Syria. The Syrian crisis began after the Arab Spring and initially started in Damascus without any Islamist appearance. What changed the situation was the very violent response of Bashar al-Assad's government to some teenagers and children who had taken down pictures of Bashar al-Assad from a school wall, saying he would go after Ben Ali's departure. The brutal torture of these individuals began, and naturally, in the religious city of Daraa, protests started from mosques. In any case, this civil war was imposed on Syria by Bashar al-Assad with the view of preserving power at any cost, and subsequently, other factors came into play, leading us to a multi-faceted crisis today. Currently, in response to your question, yes, there is an unwritten consensus that the instability in Syria should be reduced as soon as possible, and if stability cannot be achieved, the issue of terrorism, especially ISIS, should be resolved. There has been a consensus among all Arabs on this. However, for such a thing to take shape, a transitional government must be established. Here, there is a disagreement between the bloc that includes Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, which is somewhat supported by the Iraqi government, and the other side, which includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, European countries, and the U.S. The first side says that Bashar al-Assad should remain, or at least the Russians believe that he should remain for a specified period in a transitional government with the participation of the opposition. The other side, however, has retreated and says that there should be no Bashar al-Assad. However, the recent negotiations between the defense ministers of Russia and the U.S. seem to have little connection to the broader negotiations between the two governments, which have always been ongoing. There is concern that based on credible reports, the Russian government is preparing to conduct airstrikes against ISIS through a new military base it has established in Latakia. On the other hand, the U.S. is also taking similar actions. There is concern that their forces may clash and create a conflict. These discussions are more about coordinating military forces to prevent accidental incidents. However, this could help reduce tensions between the two governments. Iran and Russia do not have divergence. They have a strategic unity there. But if the new policy of the Russian government to increase military presence leads to the deployment of troops and if Putin's policy aims to demonstrate power in Syria after Ukraine, this could create divergence between Iran and Russia. The Islamic Republic may oppose the Russian government's attempts to engage in field activities in the Middle East and try to expand its influence in the region directly, which conflicts with the policies of the Islamic Republic and could have an impact. However, the internal factor must also be considered; even if all these parties agree tomorrow, the likelihood that the armed forces within will accept this is low, and on the other hand, ISIS has shown that it cannot be easily eliminated or dealt with. Even if an agreement is reached, it will take a relatively long time to resolve the ISIS issue in Syria. Mr. Milani, considering the increasing prominence of Russia's role in Syria, is it possible that Iran's ability to show initiative to influence the formation of a transitional government will be weakened, or can it provide a formula that plays a significant role in this emerging convergence? Mohsen Milani: The issue of Assad's opponents that has been discussed in the last five or six minutes is that these opponents do not have independence of their own. All the major opponents of Assad receive their funding and weapons from other countries. This is why if we look at the external issue of the Syrian civil war, we cannot analyze its internal issue correctly. The main problem of the West regarding Syria is that those who are advancing well on the battlefield are terrorist organizations. Al-Nusra and ISIS. Other organizations are marginal and will not determine the Syrian civil war, at least not until today. What happens in the future, I do not know. The number of those whom the West trusts is small, and they cannot do much. The democratic forces currently in Syria, in my opinion, are marginal. Their numbers are very few. More importantly, the issue that the West does not want to accept, and there are statistics showing that Assad still has support in Syria. This support is not because people like Assad's appearance. It is because they have looked at what has happened in Iraq. They have seen that three to four million innocent people have fled. They do not want the current situation to worsen. In my opinion, the point I was trying to make is that the Americans and the West are gradually realizing that a transition period without Assad could lead to an escalation of the civil war and the collapse of the state and the foundation of the state in Syria, turning Syria into something like Libya. However, regarding Iran and Russia and the issue of Syria, I believe that from the beginning of the Arab Spring and even before that, Iran and Russia had a clear position and still have the same position. I believe they are working well together, and I have no doubt that the Russians have told the Iranians that they want to maintain their military presence.