Pragmatic solutions for Syria hindered by moral considerations

The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011, remains unresolved, displacing a third of the country's population and resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. This long-running conflict has its roots in the artificial state of Syria, created after World War I by the United Kingdom and France, and the mosaic of communities it houses.

The conflict has been marked by the involvement of various factions, regional actors, and great powers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and the West. Western governments, including the United States and France, initially aligned themselves with the opposition, but their lack of a clear understanding of the various factions and their aims proved counterproductive.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has had little to no preventive effect on the Syrian conflict. In fact, the ICC's involvement was especially counterproductive, cornering the Damascus regime and leaving it with nothing to lose. This, coupled with the fact that the current government in Syria cannot be considered impartial, has complicated diplomatic efforts.

By 2023, President Assad, with support from Moscow and Tehran, appeared to have reestablished control over most of Syria, but some regions, such as Idlib, remained outside regime control. Idlib, held by the al-Nusra Front, a radical Islamist group with roots in al-Qaeda, managed to rout the Assad army within days in late 2024, with Moscow and Tehran shifting their attention to other priorities.

The violence in Syria has led to millions of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries and Europe. The conflict has also created friction between countries, such as Turkiye and the U.S., due to the support of Kurdish forces in Syria by Washington.

Recent attacks on the Druze have prompted an Israeli intervention, while violence is flaring in the northwest, where many Alawites still loyal to former President Assad reside. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government remain opposed to President Assad due to concerns about Kurdish militancy in northern Syria.

Despite these complexities, there may still be space for meaningful diplomacy in the Syrian conflict. Potential for influence from Washington and Riyadh exists, especially in playing a moderating role. The UN and Western governments, notably the United States and France, have made errors in their diplomatic efforts, such as excluding the Assad government from negotiations and demanding the referral of President Assad and his officials to the International Criminal Court.

However, it may be wiser to set aside moralizing justice to prevent further bloodshed in the Syrian conflict. Mr. Sharaa, who pledged tolerance toward Syria's many religious and ethnic communities, assumed the role of interim president, offering a glimmer of hope for a more peaceful future in this war-torn nation.