Pragmatic solutions for Syria's crisis have been hindered by moralism

The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011, continues to be a major source of global concern. This prolonged struggle has resulted in the displacement of a third of the country's population and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The conflict is a battlefield for local, regional, and great power interests. Regional powers such as Turkey and entities linked to the Syrian government, including figures like Ahmad al-Sharaa, have inadvertently established themselves as mediators between conflicting parties. However, their positions have shifted; for example, al-Sharaa initially engaged in negotiations with Kurdish groups (SDF) but later canceled talks, aligning his stance closer to Turkey and escalating tensions between the Kurdish forces and the Syrian central government.

The Syrian conflict is rooted in the initial crushing of student protests during the Arab Spring by President Bashar al-Assad's Baathist regime, prompting further resistance. By 2023, President Assad, still backed by Moscow and Tehran, appeared to have reestablished control over most of Syria, but some regions, such as Idlib, remained outside regime control. In late 2024, al-Nusra, in coalition with other opposition groups and backed by Turkiye, managed to rout the Assad army within days, possibly due to Moscow and Tehran shifting their attention to other priorities.

Regional powers took sides, with Saudi Arabia backing the opposition, while Iran and Russia supported the regime. The West aligned itself with the opposition, but lacked a clear understanding of the various factions and their aims. This lack of clarity has been a significant hurdle in finding a political solution. Negotiations called for by the UN, and especially from Western and French governments, excluded the Assad government, which was a critical error in finding a political solution.

The current government in Syria cannot be considered impartial. Demands to refer former President Assad and his top officials to the International Criminal Court were made, which was not an incentive for a negotiated peace. The ICC's involvement in the Syrian conflict was especially counterproductive in 2011-2012, as it cornered the Damascus regime and left it with nothing to lose.

Syria, an artificial state created after World War I by the United Kingdom and France, is home to a mosaic of communities. Recent attacks on the Druze have prompted an Israeli intervention, highlighting the need for a pragmatic, political, but firm approach that balances the interests of internal communities and regional powers like Turkiye and Israel.

Riyadh, especially, may be able to play a moderating role in the Syrian conflict. The Iranian regime's current weakness provides an opportunity for Washington and Riyadh to exert influence. Mr. Sharaa, the interim president, pledged to show tolerance toward Syria's many religious and ethnic communities. However, the ongoing violence in the northwest, where many Alawites still loyal to former President Assad reside, indicates that a lasting peace is still elusive.

In conclusion, the Syrian conflict remains a complex web of interests and power plays. A comprehensive solution requires a deep understanding of the various factions and their aims, as well as a balanced approach that considers the interests of internal communities and regional powers.