There is a solution to the current situation in Syria. In fact, such a solution is not too late, neither is it impossible to achieve. Yet finding a way out for Syria would depend to a great extent on the parties involved and more importantly on those that should be entirely excluded from the process.
The UN peace envoy Kofi Annan’s initial peace plan had started with many mistakes and eventually ended up turning into a disaster. There was no clarity to its agenda to begin with, ambiguity with the goals it was supposed to achieve and a complete disregard to what was actually taking place on the ground in Syria. The entire mission had underestimated the extent of the division in the country — between the regime and the armed opposition — as much as the scale of devastation and violence used by both sides.
This very fact has shown the limitations of the mission as well as its inability to deal with the crisis. As a matter of fact, the entire idea and approach of the peace plan had complicated matters further with regards to the conflict. Instead of stopping the violence and saving innocent lives, time was wasted in the pursuit of unachievable goals.
Once again Annan is committing the same mistake — if not on a larger magnitude — of underestimating a grave situation as he announced the importance of involving Iran in efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria. “Iran has a role to play. And my presence [in Iran] explains that I believe in that. I have received encouragement and cooperation with the [Iranian] government,” Annan said during his visit to Iran.
First of all, Iran is part of the problem and not the solution. As a matter of fact, if Iran has not been so directly involved in abetting the Syrian regime in various forms and means, the crisis would not have escalated to what it is today. Secondly, Iran has its own agenda and interest in extending an arm of support to the regime. Such an agenda goes beyond Syria and fits into the country’s grand scheme of wanting to be a regional power.
Thirdly, Annan should not have called on Iran’s participation simply because the country should not be given a scope bigger than what it actually is. Iran is neither a regional power nor the sole authority in the region. And hence, it should be addressed and dealt with accordingly. In fact, Annan’s approach will offer a window of opportunity for Iran to extend an approach of belligerence and arrogance when it comes to regional issues.
It is therefore necessary and urgent for the idea of Iranian involvement in the Syrian crisis to be reviewed. In fact, Iran’s insistence on being part of the process should be questioned and examined. Its entry to the fore of matters will ensure that the conflict spills over into neighbouring countries. It will also legitimatise its presence in Arab affairs — something that is understandably not welcomed by a number of countries.
If Annan wants to see a resolution to the Syrian crisis, his plan has to address the core of the problem. An end to the 16-month conflict is indeed possible, if the right parties are involved and the appropriate solutions are sought after. There is no scope for immature decisions or grave risks to be adopted. And this, Annan has to appreciate and accommodate.
As the region experiences the many manifestations of tremendous changes, the road to peaceful change or towards a destructive civil war is very fine. The region is in no need of heightening tensions. Iran’s involvement in Syria is strategic — albeit one that will bring about further divisions and clashes. Syria cannot afford a complete disintegration or a full scale civil war, and neither can the region. And this should be avoided at all costs.
