Large scale Russian military intervention in Syria has caused new complexities in an already complicated conflict, such as that witnessed by Moscow’s relations with Turkey following the latter’s shooting down of a Russian fighter aircraft in November. There are still no signs on the horizon to indicate that this issue has been resolved, neither militarily nor politically, which some capitals are currently working towards.
The downing of the Russian jet has revealed, among other things, that the nature of the conflict is as much about economics and control of territory as about politics; this is obvious. Ankara’s decision to shoot down the Russian fighter, claimed Vladimir Putin, “falls within the framework of Turkey’s will to protect oil imports emanating from territories controlled by ISIS [Daesh] in the direction of Turkish territories.”
Daesh oil is now uniting a number of parties, which benefit from the presence of the group and its destructive role which has not been curbed, despite coalition air strikes. Not only is the Syrian regime benefitting from the low price of oil sold to it by Daesh on the black market, but so too is Turkey and even Israel, so why not Russia and the US and some European countries? It is as if the oil chaos can establish a bridgehead to reach the dream of a political settlement, although that is moving ever further away despite intensive efforts.
In the midst of emerging complexities and after the Russian military intervention, Iran now seems to be competing with Russia in order to keep Bashar Al-Assad in power in Damascus. This started with details being released of the Iranians who have fallen in battle in Syria, including their often senior ranks, as if Tehran wants to make it clear to Moscow that it is involved in an ongoing war to keep Assad and maintain its interests in the region. It’s happening despite what is being said about a US-Russia deal for a multi-stage political solution that must end with the ousting of the Syrian president.
In an unprecedented move in the Iranian media, Bahar criticised the Iranian leadership for holding onto Assad and the justifications it comes up with to keep him and his regime. The newspaper condemned the fact that the Iranian regime has put down red lines to keep the Syrian leader. “Putting [down] red lines for the Syrian crisis,” said Bahar, “can block the road for finding any political solution and this makes the Syrian crisis more complicated.”
In the context of its criticism, the newspaper mentioned the rising numbers of Iranians getting killed in Syria: “Officials said that the Iranian military presence is to provide consultations, but the majority of Iranian leaders who were killed in Syria, were killed in battles in Aleppo.”
Before and after the Vienna “peace talks” meeting, it’s been noticed that diplomacy and facts on the ground are intended to reformulate geopolitical facts in the region as a prelude for looking into the core of the Syrian issue. This has been deferred due to the emerging circumstances that would allow for announcing publicly that the leader of the Syrian regime is to be abandoned by his old and new allies, including the United States, which is no longer in a hurry to formulate its new strategy in the Middle East. It appears that it has delegated Moscow to carry out these duties, in Syria specifically.
However, Washington does not seem to need to develop a clearer policy towards the leader of the regime in Damascus. It has been working for more than three years to maintain a more ambiguous policy with the Russian military intervention adding more secrecy and confusion to it, despite understandings with Moscow and those between Moscow and Netanyahu’s government in Israel which seem to be biased towards keeping Assad in post for as long as possible. This is not out of any fear of extremists, but is part of the plan to perpetuate the status of the conflict within the regional context, as it drains the potential capabilities of militias affiliated with Tehran, especially Hezbollah.
In confirmation of the absence of a clear US strategy, Republican US presidential candidates accuse President Barack Obama of showing weakness towards Syria. They are sceptical that sending a small number of Special Forces will make any difference without a broader coherent strategy.
US indecisiveness and Russia’s military intervention demonstrate the failure to find a solution, either politically or militarily, despite the involvement of Iran in the Vienna talks. Given that neither the Syrian opposition nor even the regime in the initial stages were involved in Vienna, it is obvious that those who want to impose a political solution are the regional and international powers combined, despite their differences. The issue now is to find a solution for the whole region, not just Syria, which means that everything is put on hold until all of the circumstances are right for moving forward.
What stands in the way is the nature of the implicit US-Russia dispute over Syria, and the fate of the regime and its leader, although it looks as if the gap has narrowed in the wake of the Russian intervention. There is clearly some coordination so that US-Russian and Russian-Israeli aircraft do not clash in the skies above Syria, even though there is no political harmony on the ground. It is said that US diplomatic statements about the need for Assad to go are agreed with the Russians, as the talks in Vienna and elsewhere seem to be an American approach, not Russia’s, to adapt the regional positions.
Hence, it seems that the involvement of the Iranians in the negotiations is an implicit attempt to tame their position and role and employ them along with what is supposed to be the Russian-American efforts to find an appropriate framework for a comprehensive regional settlement. However, the timing does not seem to be viable given the embarrassing absence of clear strategies and critical references in Washington. If America stays away, though, there is a threat that the situation will explode and any possibility of a deal in Syria will be replaced by far more dangerous outcomes, including Turkish military involvement in Iraq and a prolonging of the conflict between Ankara and Moscow.
Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadid, 22 December, 2015
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.