Syria: combination of war and peace is not a solution

This article is not about the the epic Russian novel, War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, rather it is a sum up of the main talk at present concerning the Syrian crisis. With naval manoeuvres in the Gulf incorporating the military of more than 40 countries and escalating fighting in different parts of Syria along with rising tension between Israel and Hezbollah, the talk about war - probably regional - is gaining momentum.

Yet, the diplomatic road to Syria continues to witness heavy traffic of visiting international officials’, meetings and conferences, discussions of peace plans and even a UN resolution. The latter could of course be put to dual use, either for peace or war.

What looks like a growing international interest in putting an end to the Syrian civil war is not because of the rising death toll or to stop Syria from falling apart into fragmented and restive parts.

That is merely the rhetorical official line you hear from all parties concerned – including those providing assistance to the regime and opposition and arming them to kill more of each other and the innocent and impartial ordinary Syrians.Those arguing for war would say that the time now is ripe for the United States, France and UK to redraw the region’s map.

Military action in Syria will remove the last obstacle to the ‘New Middle East’ and force Iran into either accepting the new arrangement or become the regional North Korea. The main focus here is on China and not Russia, as it is felt that Beijing is not capable of maintaining two toxic proxies on its flanks.

Those arguing for peace look at regional factors and conclude that the military struggle in Syria is difficult – almost impossible – to be won by any party and a political deal is the only way out. Washington is reluctant to go into another war in the region after its experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq while the UK and France are facing serious enough economic troubles to commit themselves to spend even a penny more on regional engagement.

Wealthy financers of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not ready to empty their purses to paythe costs of another war. Except for Qatar, no other regional power has the heart to venture into procuring military action – as in Libya (by contracting Nato to oust the Gaddafi regime). Deterrence balance between Israel and Lebanese fighter group Hezbollah (now fighting alongside the Syrian regime with both being backed by Iran) means that only a political deal could end the Syrian crisis.

So, the argument for war is a straightforward one: all indications are that foreign military intervention is needed to oust the Al Assad regime and to eliminate Hezbollah’s threat to Israel and ultimately force Iran into compromise. While the argument for peace is mainly based on negating the possibility of war for various reasons, neither of the two options – if they’re options in the first place – is truly feasible after what one hears and reads from the politicians’ side, i.e ‘stopping the bloodshed in Syria and ensuring better life for Syrian people’.

This is actually the least concern for anybody involved, including the warring parties in Syria itself. Millions of ordinary Syrians are in fact wary, dreading a bleak future, as they see the results of the ‘liberation and democratisation’ brought on their Iraqi neighbours. If you ask the many Syrians fleeing their country now – away from TV cameras and foreign reporters – about what they want they’d tell you they want all warring parties out: the regime, the opposition and foreign Jihadists.

Most likely, regional balances of power are going to decide the next step in Syria regardless, but without exclusion, of all above mentioned arguments. Turkey and Israel will play a pivotal part in shaping future steps and those for the West will help in squeezing Iran – the third pillar of regional significance. A possible no-fly zone in the north and south of Syria could be enforced (with an international resolution, one with an explicit Nato role and with an implicit execution by Turkey and Israel).

Alongside, an opposition government accepted by all parties and backed by regional and international support would supervise the internal fighting to oust the regime. While the secnario denotes a combination of of war and peace it’s not a solution and will probably lead to the completion of the ‘arc of fire’ from Pakistan to Lebanon via Afghanistan and Iraq.