The complexity of the Syrian situation can be traced back to its very beginnings, particularly following the Syrian opposition’s control of Aleppo and its attempts to expand into other Syrian cities. Debate and analysis among researchers and observers have intensified, often influenced by pre-existing biases and preconceived notions.
Despite the meetings of the committee formed under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, as well as the Astana talks, the goal of achieving peace and restoring Syria’s full sovereignty has remained elusive. Multiple interventions have played a role in this stalemate, including those by Iran and its regional proxies—most notably Hezbollah and certain Iraqi factions—as well as Russia with its military bases in Hmeimim and Tartus, and Turkey in northern Syria. In addition, the Democratic Union Party’s (PYD) control and its alliance with the United States have effectively cut off vital oil and wheat resources from the rest of the country. This has led to the displacement of many of the region’s Arab residents to other parts of Syria and into Turkey.
Renewing efforts to find a solution to the Syrian dilemma is closely tied to international dynamics. Ideally, the UN Security Council nations would achieve a global understanding that transcends the narrow interests each country holds in its relations with Syria and the broader Middle East.
Ending the war may follow a pattern similar to the agreement reached regarding Lebanon and the implementation of Resolution 1701, which helped pave the way for an international approach to the Syrian crisis. It seems imperative to accelerate support for the international committee tasked with forging a consensus on the Syrian situation.
The Syrian-Lebanese relationship is particularly complex, be it at the border, social, or political levels. This complexity has its roots in the U.S.-Syrian agreement of the past century, which allowed the Syrian army to enter Lebanon under specific conditions aimed at achieving internal stability. However, this stability was undermined by the assassination of Rafik Hariri, leading to ongoing problems until the recent agreement to implement Resolution 1701.
Current events, which spread rapidly from Aleppo—a key city once considered Syria’s second capital—to other southern areas and around Damascus, resulted in the Syrian regular army’s defeat in numerous locations such as Horan, Hama, and As-Suwayda. This was followed by contentious remarks from the Syrian Minister of Defense, describing the withdrawal as a “tactical operation to save lives”—a puzzling and unusual justification in wartime history. These developments opened the way for opposition factions to advance toward Homs and eventually Damascus, raising the possibility of regime collapse and ushering in a new phase in which a reunited Syria emerges under a progressive, civilian system aligned with the political factions’ previously stated goals.
International positions have remained ambiguous and swayed by unfolding events. While numerous statements from the United States and the European Union signal interest in Syrian affairs, Russian support—via its air force and military bases like Hmeimim—continues unabated. Still, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks during his visit to Doha suggest Russia’s willingness to seek an understanding on Syria, potentially indicating a shift in Moscow’s stance.
Amid these developments, several nations made their views clear at a meeting in Baghdad attended by the foreign ministers of Syria, Iraq, and Iran—all supporters of the Damascus regime. Concurrently, efforts by Egypt and Jordan underscored the need for President Assad to step down, paving the way for a transitional president selected from among current Syrian national officials. Such a move would facilitate a transitional period to restore stability, while also addressing the situation in the Jazira region, where the PYD—backed by the United States—holds sway. Addressing this issue must be part of a comprehensive national solution that avoids racial bias or unilateral authority. Control over these territories should be incorporated into a joint agreement with a transitional government, coordinated with Turkey. After all, Arab-Kurdish relations have long been a cornerstone of Syria’s history, and many Kurdish leaders have played major roles in building the Syrian state since its independence. This legacy should serve as a foundation for reaching a consensus that restores national unity and prevents future conflicts detrimental to the Syrian people’s cohesion.
In the face of these challenges and complexities, hope remains vested in a balanced international role and a rational, nationally driven popular spirit—both of which are capable of imposing a fair, sustainable solution that ends the suffering of the Syrian people and restores stability to the entire region.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق