What are the scenarios for Syria?

Beirut: Everybody will be in the conference room in Vienna on Friday to discuss a political outcome for Syria—everybody that is, but the Syrians themselves.

Neither Syria’s main political opposition body nor representatives of the armed opposition have been invited. George Sabra, a member of the Syrian National Coalition has said the failure to invite Syrians showed a “lack of seriousness”.

Top diplomats from the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, all long-time supporters of the Syrian opposition, will sit face-to-face with their Russian and Iranian counterparts, who have invested plenty of money, arms, and troops in bolstering the Syrian government since 2011. Previously Iran had been excluded from any serious talks over Syria but its powerful Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif will now attend talks with the blessing of both the Americans and the Russians. The coalition’s Sabra reiterated his objection to Iran’s participation, saying it could not play a mediation role. “It’s officers are fighting every day on Syrian fronts,” he said.

The UK, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, and Iraq will also attend.

The Russians, Iranians, Lebanese and Egyptians all echo a policy similar to that of Damascus, prioritising a war on terror with support of the Syrian Army over toppling President Bashar Al Assad. Although Syrian officialdom would have wanted to attend the talks, they feel somewhat at ease being represented by their allies, in whom they have full faith.

Riyadh and Ankara will maintain the Syrian government is the source of all ills that have swept the country since 2011, and therefore, must be changed before the war comes to a close.

Plenty of bargaining will be on the table in Vienna where for the first time in almost five years, regional and international players are bent on coming out with something tangible and doable to silence the guns—or at least, control them and direct them against Daesh terrorists. The different scenarios are as follows:

1. Russia and Iran get their way and reach a deal that calls for a political process that ends with early presidential elections, monitored by the international community. Meanwhile, all small fires would be extinguished on the Syrian battlefield and full focus would be placed on combating Daesh. In this scenario, a cabinet of national unity will be formed where ten portfolios would be handed ‘patriotic’ opposition, who attended previous talks that Moscow sponsored.

The major Syrian opposition groups such as the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Syrian National Coalition will be sidelined. Gulf countries and Egypt meanwhile will work hard to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from having any part in Syria’s future.

The new government will work with Al Assad, not above him or independent of him, in supervising parliamentary elections and drafting a new charter, which tackles the wider powers of the presidency. If Moscow and Tehran get their way, ten seats would go to the opposition, and twenty would be equally divided among the regime and independents. The cabinet would be responsible also for phased ceasefires, confiscation of arms, and overseeing the war on terror. The transition period would end with ‘free and democratic’ presidential elections where anyone could run for office, including Al Assad.

2. If the Saudis and Turks over-muscle the Iranians and Russians, they would get a transition period that preserves entire chunks of the regime but excludes its top figures including Al Assad himself.

For now, they insist that no transition would pass if Al Assad is allowed to run in early elections. They have provided no roadmap as to how Al Assad would leave and what they would do if he refuses to step down. They also have made no mention as to who would replace him if such a scenario takes place.

Al Assad’s removal is their primary concern, as Syria has been a loyal ally to Iran. Riyadh and Ankara say that 6-18 months are more than enough time for the government transition to occur and to assure minorities that their rights will be preserved in a post-Al Assad Syria.

Al Assad can stay for a defined period of time, their top diplomats have said repeatedly, but he would have to step down next year. Turkey would love to see a pro-Muslim Brotherhood government as Saudi Arabia is adamant on secular government.

3. Apart from rhetoric, the Obama administration has shown little interest in getting further entangled in the Syrian crisis. President Obama’s main focus is Daesh and what it takes to eradicate it from the Middle East. The US-led coalition that started bombing Daesh in September 2014 has thus far failed to achieve tangible results. They are open to creating a fresh alliance to fight Daesh which includes Iran, Russia, and the Syrian army. The US would also look the other way if Al Assad were to stay in power as they prefer to let Russia handle Syria as long as they preserve US and Israeli interests.

4. In a win-win scenario, the new government would divide powers among all players, similar to what happened after the Lebanese Civil War. Some suggest Al Assad could stay on as president, but with only ceremonial powers and an opposition member could be come Prime Minister. This scenario would look very much like the government in Palestine during the final years of Yasser Arafat’s life. While the Americans wanted him gone, they felt he was needed for a period of time to preserve what remained of the Palestinian Authority. The premiership under Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat was virtually ignored on important matters. Iran would most definitely torpedo this scenario.

5. Talks collapse. This would bring all players back to square one. Russia and Iran would continue to bankroll their proxies and the Russian army would continue to back the Syrian government against all rebel groups. Meanwhile, armed opposition groups would receive more weapons from their backers and the situation would continue to spiral downwards, further aggravating the refugee crisis and plunging the country into further abyss. This scenario can very likely see the de facto partition of territory between regime-held parts of the Syrian coast, midlands and Damascus. Rebels would control territory in the north along its border with Turkey. Syria would be split into small states undefined by marked borders.

-Sami Moubayed is a Gulf News columnist and Syria expert