Amjad Ismail Al , Agha
With a lot of realism, the Syrian crisis, in its regional and international dimensions, has entered a new phase entitled proving political, military and economic influence, but there are many challenges related to the nature of the next phase, in terms of military or diplomatic scenes. This is related to the ability of regional and international powers to resolve their differences and share political interests within Syrian geography, particularly as the entire region is undergoing a process of reshaping maps of political and military influence. As one of the arenas where regional and international interests meet, Syria will lead to new conflicts and alliances, based on the proving of positions of influence and the liquidation of outstanding files. As a result, the distribution of the interests of the actors to Syrian geography, dividing the Syrian map into virtually static areas, but carrying the potential for explosion at any time, depending on the ability of players in each region to reach understandings.
In the Syrian crisis, the situation of regional and international investment, directly led to conflicting investment plans within the Syrian geography, which exacerbated the problem of understanding about the determination of quotas between influential players in the Syrian scene, as well as the remarkable shift in the positions of Arab capitals on the crisis, and its openness to “conditional” settlements with the Syrian state, which found some regional and international powers conflicting in the approach of their interests, and may have an impact at a later stage, on the context of the agendas adopted by those forces in Syria, and to be a starting point towards an equation that brings together political and security titles.
Moscow does not hide its concern about the Syrian file, and in the same context, the Russian position in support of the Syrian state, is now framed within the headings imposed by international developments, particularly the Russian war in Ukraine, as well as Moscow’s realization that the Syrian file now has to dismantle its complexities and solve its equations. Russia is seeking to reap what it has planted in Syria, and to be the prelude to a broader regional expansion in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. In connection with this, Russia has always called for an end to the status of Caesar’s law, especially since Moscow has concerns about the continuing decline in Syrian reality; the Russian position corresponds to a clear U.S. position translated by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, saying that “systematic corruption and economic mismanagement in the Syrian state have exacerbated the terrible humanitarian crisis.” In the same vein, the EU’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security, Joseph Burrell, also declares that “the Syrian state and its actions are primarily responsible for the outbreak of the humanitarian crisis, not sanctions.”
As a result, the Russian position can be placed in the frameworks of strategic concerns, which relate to the disintegration of the Syrian state, as a result of U.S. and European policies in Syria, specifically Washington’s policies in support of separatist conflicts, and the U.S. administration refuses to recognize the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and sees Russian attempts to impose a political solution, an attempt to impose it on the Syrian people, as part of a Russian decision and plan, which, according to the U.S. administration, seeks to reintroduce Bashar al-Assad to the international community.
It is clear from the above that the position of the entrenchment related to the Syrian file, is based between two teams, one of which is supportive of the Syrian state, and its highlight as an indispensable player in any political context leading to the resolution of the crisis in Syria, and the other team rejects the continuation of the political system in Syria, considering that it bears full responsibility, in terms
of destroying the country, and inflicting humanitarian and economic disaster on the Syrians. Between this and that, a new position has emerged expressed itself through the statements of the Arab League, to put forward new settlements and solutions, restore hope to solve the Syrian file, and look for meaningful solutions, avoiding all the consequences and repercussions of the continuation of the Syrian crisis regionally and internationally.
Given the multiplicity of actors in the Syrian file, each party has priorities to engineer its policies and strategies. Thus, Moscow’s priorities in Syria today are based on the consolidation of long-term military and commercial contracts signed with the Syrian state, as well as securing the upcoming presidential elections, and ending the work of the Constitutional Committee as soon as possible, in addition to crossings and reconstruction, but what Washington adheres to, based on caesar’s law and the accountability of Syrian state symbols for their actions according to the American expression, in addition to establishing clear descriptions of the transition, as well as the Kurdish paper.
Within this, Moscow is trying to impose what it wants, taking advantage of its military and political extension and its relations with Tehran and Ankara. However, Washington and its policies in Syria in terms of implementing its strategy are supported by many European capitals, in addition to Tel Aviv’s position, which is reflected in confronting Astana’s allies in Syria, specifically Iran. The priority in this context should be to weaken Damascus’s allies. This means weakening them in other regional files.
In fact, the failure of the recent Tehran summit to overcome many barriers and obstacles to progress towards a possible tripartite settlement between Moscow, Tehran and Ankara has enhanced the chances of the American and Israeli players to recover the weight and role they have lost in the last three years to influence the Syrian file. Evidence of this is the new American position, especially as America – Biden says that withdrawal and handing over the file to Moscow are not among the options today. Defeating the Russians in Syria will mean their retreat in the region, the Balkans, Crimea and the Caucasus.
What is remarkable among the previous policies is that only the Syrian people are most affected in everything that happens, who have the right to intervene to propose a solution formula. However, a group of Arab capitals are seeking to record a breakthrough in front of the Syrian table and try to recover the regional weight they have lost. In addition, many capitals active in the Syrian file have changed their policy in Syria after the scene has been complicated and calculations have been mixed. Europe, for example, wants to protect itself from new waves of asylum. As a result, Europe tried to negotiate Turkey five years ago, but today it wants Washington to manage the file on its behalf. Russia, Turkey and Iran are on the other side. Ankara is committed to rejecting any separatist project on its southern border and insists on safe zone guarantees to keep SDF influence away from the region and facilitate the return of hundreds of thousands of Syrians to their lands. Tehran is in the position of “father of the groom” with his first hand in his pocket and the second on his heart. Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are waiting for their release. Israel focuses on protecting its northern borders and is concerned with confronting the Iranian threat, rather than trying to find out what will happen to the Syrian file.
In all of the above, there is an undeniable fact of the suffering of Syrians, their loss between supporters and opponents of the Syrian state, as well as different regional and international trends regarding the vision of the Syrian scene and the actual start of a political solution.
All this has led to further complications in the Syrian scene, so that the title of this scene is “political conflicts” and the search for solutions that suit the size of the interests that the active and influential forces aspire to in Syrian affairs.
English
Español
Deutsch
Français
العربية