Moralism prevented pragmatic solutions for Syria

The tragedy of the Syrian people, which began in 2011, continues in horrifying ways. The war, which displaced a third of the country’s population and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, has evolved through various phases involving internal factions and foreign actors. Syria became a battlefield for local, regional and great power interests.

Western governments and the United Nations also bear part of the blame. It began with student protests during the Arab Spring. President Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime brutally crushed the demonstrations, prompting further resistance. Regional powers took sides: Saudi Arabia backed the opposition while Iran and Russia supported the regime. The West aligned itself with the opposition, despite lacking a clear understanding of the various factions and their aims.

The response from the UN, and especially from Washington and Paris, was to call for negotiations that excluded the Assad government. This was a moralistic but critical error. How can a political solution be found when a key player is not at the table? At the same time, there were demands to refer former President Assad and his top officials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) – hardly an incentive for a negotiated peace.

The war dragged on. Millions of refugees fled to neighboring countries, with many eventually reaching Europe.

Diplomatic efforts disconnected from reality

When ISIS swept through Iraq and parts of Syria, engaging in mass murder and torture, the resistance mounted by Damascus, supported by Iran and Russia, was quietly welcomed in many Western and Arab capitals.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government remained firmly opposed to President Assad, largely due to concerns about Kurdish militancy in northern Syria. As Kurdish forces in Syria fought ISIS, they received support from Washington, creating further friction between Turkiye and the U.S.

At times, it may be wiser to set aside moralizing justice to prevent further bloodshed

 

By 2023, President Assad, still backed by Moscow and Tehran, appeared to have reestablished control over most of Syria. Some regions, such as Idlib, remained outside regime control. Idlib was held by the al-Nusra Front, a radical Islamist group with roots in al-Qaeda. Its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, founded al-Nusra in 2012 but later broke ties with al-Qaeda.

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 in late 2024. This was made easier by Moscow and Tehran shifting their attention to other priorities.

The deposed Syrian president fled to Moscow. Mr. Sharaa assumed the role of interim president, pledging, despite his background, to show tolerance toward the country’s many religious and ethnic communities. It must not be forgotten that Syria is an artificial state, created after World War I by the United Kingdom and France, and home to a mosaic of communities.

Recent attacks on the Druze have prompted an Israeli intervention. Violence is also flaring in the northwest, where many Alawites still loyal to former President Assad reside.

When the West excluded the Assad regime from peace negotiations in 2011-2012, it missed a major opportunity. In that context, the ICC’s involvement was especially counterproductive, cornering the Damascus regime and leaving it with nothing to lose. At times, it may be wiser to set aside moralizing justice to prevent further bloodshed.

Sadly, it is becoming increasingly clear – though unsurprising – that the ICC has little to no preventive effect. What matters now is that the violence ends. The current government cannot be considered impartial. What is needed is a pragmatic, political, but firm approach that balances the interests of internal communities and regional powers like Turkiye and Israel.

It is certainly helpful that the Iranian regime is now much weaker. Washington is in a position to exert influence. Riyadh, especially, may be able to play a moderating role. There may still be space for meaningful diplomacy.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/syria-diplomacy/