Heartbreak and loveless marriages

Wedenesday morning’s event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was yet another panel focused on Syria, focused on the interests and perspectives of the domestic and international parties currently involved in the crisis.  Moderated by Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment, the discussion included Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Arab League Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Andrew Weiss also of the Carnegie Endowment.

Ambassador al-Kidwa focused his remarks on the future of negotiations in Syria. He believes the Geneva Communiqué drafted last June is still relevant today and provides practical solutions for Syria. The US decision not to strike on Syria but rather focus on placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control shows its commitment to the Geneva Communiqué. The framework agreement on chemical weapons between the US and Russia is a positive development.

The UN is currently working on a resolution that will mostly likely incorporate much of the strong language used in the US-Russia agreement. Al-Kidwa believes that it will be adopted under Chapter 7 with some language regarding using necessary force if there is no compliance from the Assad regime. He sees a real possibility for negotiations between the opposition and the Assad government.  He argues that regional players and the international community have an unusually important role.

Salem discussed the short-term and long-term effects of the US back down from military force on the regime, opposition and Syria’s neighbors. In the short-term, the back down legitimates Assad by making him a part of the negotiation process. In the long-term, Assad will lose his chemical weapons as a strategic asset used to deter Israel.  Giving up chemical weapons is by no means an assurance that he will stay in power for long. Salem pointed to leaders such as Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein who gave up chemical weapons and were ultimately deposed.

The Free Syrian Army feels betrayed without the US strike.  Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council also wanted a strike. They believe that even if Assad gives up chemical weapons that would not solve the issue. Other regional powers like Lebanon and Jordan are glad that there won’t be more refugees, who have placed a huge burden on the economy and infrastructure of their host countries and generated instability, particularly in Lebanon. The international community needs to push for de-escalation of the violence.

Salem argues that the US back down was a diplomatic win for Russia, which is not as strong as the US in the region. Weiss sees a clear shift in the way the Obama administration is viewing Russia’s role in the conflict. During the 2012 campaign, it portrayed Russia (and China) as hindrances to US intervention in Syria.  More recently, Secretary Kerry has avoided trash talking and has been able to better engage Russia. Weiss warns however that there are real limits to Russia’s influence over Assad. Russia’s actual power may not be proportional to the confidence that is being put in it. The negotiation process will be “filled with heartbreak” and not an easy path moving forward.

Sadjadpour does not see signs of Iran abandoning Assad anytime soon. President Rouhani blames the chemical weapons attack on the rebels, not the regime. The Syrian alliance is important to Iran because it is one of its few allies in the region and it needs Syria as its corridor to Hezbollah. However, Sadjadpour equates this alliance to a loveless marriage. It is a strategic alliance that neither of the two societies accepts. Nevertheless, Iran has doubled down on Syria and will be an important player in the negotiations.

There is fear that US inaction against Syria might give Iran reason to bolster its nuclear capabilities. Sadjadpour sees no real impact.  Tehran will continue to pursue nuclear capabilities, but it is also preparing its public for nuclear compromise, particularly with Khamenei saying, “Be ready for heroic flexibility”.

The consensus: there is no easy solution. There are many players involved, each with a different interests at stake.  Alliances will be based on strategic interests.  Heartbreak and loveless marriages will be the rule rather than the exception.