Syrian crisis in its fifth year .. reasons for continuing and future possibilities

Syrian crisis in its fifth year .. reasons for continuing and future possibilities

- in Releases
Comments Off on Syrian crisis in its fifth year .. reasons for continuing and future possibilities

Since the Syrian uprising erupted on 15th of march 2011, against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad, and as a result of the very different positions of international and regional powers on them, and no level of levels of violence was left with out being applied on it starting from the political dispute through political crisis, then political conflict, then the revolution, then civil war and finally started talking about the division of Syria .
Since the uprising broken out and to the present day, it was dominated by two visions of the solution only two, and this may be the direct cause of the prolongation of it .The former is represented by the Syrian opposition, which sees the attitude of Russia and Iran opposed the Syrian uprising as part of the problem, not the solution, and in a different way , the ruling authority in Syria, represented by President Bashar al-Assad that see both the United States and some Western countries position such as France and some Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia Qatar and in addition to Turkey that is supporting the Syrian uprising as apart of the problem to it as well.

From the point of view of the Syrian opposition to Russia and Iran to be part of the solution, they see they have to accept the departure of Bashar al-Assad from power and this is what they refused so far.
• Perhaps their refusal to his departure and support him to stay in power is justified in terms of the national . interests for both of them. Russia believes in the rule of President Bashar al-Assad as another strategic extension of it in the Arab world .
So it was not surprising to give him a diplomatic support both in the frequent use of the veto in Security Council of the United Nations on any draft of resolution that refers to his departure from power, and give him military support.
They stick to Bashar al-Assad is really that it defends about the cohesion of their internal environment noting that they were afraid of the hypothesis that the change in the Arab scene of political parties with an Islamic resources can to find the way of access to power , and that these parties will work later on to the help of Chechnya to secede from the State of Fedral Russia .
Russia is trying through Syria to emphasize the elements of physical and moral strength by sending a message to the international community in general and the West as the United States of America in particular, that Russia, which has been in the position of silence about NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, and helpless position during American aggression on Iraq and its occupation in 2003 and the position of the spectator on the fall of the former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 , is quite different in the diplomatic and military dealing with the Syrian uprising.
Also, stick to Bashar al-Assad as President of Syria, guarantees for Russia in maintaining its military bases in the city of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea, and also ensures its monopoly on natural gas export market to Europe , so it is a political weapon that Russia could blackmail Europe if visions and interests are varied or contrasted between them.
. So the departure of Bashar Al-Assad is a very important geopolitical loss for it , because in the event of his departure, the Russian natural gas monopoly will end up, through the export of Qatari natural gas to Europe via Turkey, as Russia is trying to disrupt this project by all possible means .
As for Iran, there is a strategic relationship with Syria, Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad which extends to more than three decades , that relationship has contributed to extend the power and influence of Iran to Lebanon via Hizbollah and to occupied Palestine through Islamic movements as a movement of Islamic Jihad, and Yemen through the Houthis, Iraq , occupied by the United States on 9th of April 2003, and then dominated by its allies of the Shiite parties as the Daawa party , is a strategic gain for Iran, as the “East Gate” which has become a new vital sphere for it .
So you see any change in the ruling authority in Syria affects Bashar al-Assad means hindering of the national project and probably end it in the case of Iraq’s recovery from the political diseases “tyranny” , and economic “corruption” , and social “sectarianism and exclusion” , and security , “arrests”against members of the Sunni component,” and “the control of militias on the Iraqi political scene ” , and the military” the Iraqi government does not control over the whole Iraqi soil ” which was taken place after 2003.
In this analysis of the position of the two countries, “Russian and Iranian” to the Syrian uprising, we can realize in accordance with the national interest approach in international relations , Why Russia and Iran part of the problem and not the solution?

But from the standpoint of the ruling authority in Syria is that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United States and some Western countries like France in order to be part of the solution, they have to agree to the continuation of President Bashar al-Assad in power as a mechanism to resolve it.
This refusal by those countries has also justified on the basis of self-interest motivations of each country.
No one denies the moral position of Turkey in the support to the Syrian uprising, as no one also deny its interest in the departure of Bashar al-Assad from power, especially after humanitarian violations committed against his people, and despite the progress of the Iranian-Turkish relations in light of the Justice and Development government, but that does not hide the intensity of Regional rivalry between them.

From the Turkish point of view on Syria “Bashar al-Assad” that it is one of the pillars of regional foreign force to Iran, and his departure or fall or change means weakening the Iranian power noting any change in the Syrian scene is to strengthen the Turkish power gains.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seeks to ensure the Arabian peninsula’s security and reduce the growing Iranian influence in the Arab environment noting that the kingdom aware of Iran’s serious attempts to destabilize the Arabian Peninsula through the dormant cells in some north Arabian Peninsula as a state of the Kingdom of Bahrain for example, while in the south of the island , Saudi Arabia has overturned , by a Deisive storm against the group of Houthis Iran’s allies in Yemen , the expansion of its influence to it.
According to the current data, Saudi Arabia is well aware that the termination of Iranian influence in the Levant starts over the departure of Bashar al-Assad from the rule of Syria, so the separation of Syria from Iran, is the strengthening of the Saudi position, undoubtedly, that any Syrian political system in post-Bashar al-Assad means a break with Iran not only as an ally, but also for its effective participation in finishing the Syrian uprising by providing all forms of military support to President Bashar al-Assad, and the introduction of Shiite militias from various Arab and Islamic countries to fight with him .
As for Qatar, which its relations had seen carefull progress with Syria at some point after the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, but it dropped significantly with the start of the Syrian uprising and

support it. Qatar is such as Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states except Oman, which had good relations with Assad’s Syria and Iran, they dislike the strategic relationship between Iran and Syria, that relationship which its sectarian dimension forms one of its major dimensions which would threaten the security of the Gulf, not to mention the nature of excellent relations linking Qatar with Western countries and on the forefront with the United states of America.
so the Syrian uprising came as a historical event and must be a strategic use of it to break the bonds of the relationship between Iran and Syria.
The Western countries, led by the United States of America, logically what is happening in Syria is in the supreme interests of it, it is sufficient that the departure of President Bashar al-Assad is a painful blow to Iran, which its relations with the United States since the Iranian revolution are linked with a history of hostility as advertised .
But its position as the spectator on his massacres puts many question marks ? Do really the lack of international

consensus in the Security Council is the reason for the lack of action?

the answer is no, because it has already moved outside the framework of the United Nations, whether in the case of Kosovo in 1999, and the case of Iraq in 2003 . it did not take action may goes back to the premise of the “Year of the American presidency” that year in which the US administration was restricted to its the internal affairs. But the question that arises in this context, if Syria were and what is happening in it for more than five years interfere within the vital interests of the United States of America , do they leave it in this way ?
The fact that the ruling authority in Syria turned into a wide sphere for the US policy to bargain those who are important for it to remain in power, or let them fall gradually to be exhausted with its allies and Syrian people and so that the United States would have achieved its objectives in Syria without direct intervention.
From the above, it can be to say that the situation on the ground in Syria of the direct Russian military intervention and assassination of leaders of the moderate Syrian military opposition as the Kzahran Alloush have exceeded all diplomatic solution initiatives, which was the most recent UN Securty Council resolution, which was issued on 20th of December last year, and numbered “2254 “It’s about a road map to resolve the Syrian crisis noting that the decision did not come from near or far for the fate of Bashar al-Assad, who is from the point of view of the Syrian opposition and regional powers such as Turkey , Saudi Arabia the essence of the problem.
To be in front of three possibilities :

First, either to crush the uprising by the ruling power in Syria in cooperation with it allies , the Russians and the Iranians and Hezbollah and Shiite militias , and the best evidence of this possibility is, Russian direct military intervention in the Syrian crisis on 30th of September last year, under the pretext of fighting the ISIS “Daash” and the transfer of some of the quality of its missiles as missiles “S 400”, and it did not target the organization so far, and to target only moderate opposition, which is fighting its ally Bashar al-Assad.
Second, to overthrow the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a result of military support to the Syrian opposition from regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps the establishment of strategic cooperation Council between them built upon this possibility.
The third possibility is to divide Syria into a sectarian districts such as the Sunni district in central Syria and the Alawi district on the Mediterranean coast and the Druze district in southern Syria, and an ethnic Kurdish district in northeastern Syria

. This is illustrated by the map below:


And enhances the relevance of this possibility is the attack waged by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces ,it is a violent and sustained attack three months ago on the Rif Latakia western Syria-backed by militias from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, aerial cover of the Russian Aviation which used the most destroyed types of missiles , and did not hesitate to bomb the area with cluster rockets . And this attack succeeded so far in the displacement of all civilians from the mountain of Kurds and Turkmen, leaving the only opposition forces facing the attack . Bashar al-Assad’s forces and his allies managed to control of many opposition websites of the Rif Latakia, most notably the Zahia tower and villages Azwaik and Aldghamhleyh and monastery Hanna and ghama in Jebel Turkmen, and Tower Akasab and the Nuba Mountain and Mount Ghazaleh and villages Doreen and Kafr d’Alba and aljub alahmar and Abu Risha and Accho and bshrfa and Aravi in Mount of Kurds.
Aim for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russia from subjecting Reeve Latakia is the foundation for the establishment of Alawya state in the coast of Syria, and the geography of planned Alwya State include every coastal mountains and down to the outskirts of the plain of the jungle and the bridge of shafor in the east. And that Russia is working on the implementation of the plan “b” of the situation in Syria and the planned to establish “ useful Syria “and stretching from Damascus to Homs, Hama, up to the Turkish border, and be under the direct supervision and full protection from Russia, which until today has established three military bases in each of Tartous and Humaimam and Slenfeh.
In the face of what is being said of reshaping the Middle East and according to the scissors of interests, the division option strongly arise.

Rawabet Center for  Research and Strategic Studies