In the social media age, the constant stream of information often focuses on individual, trending events, potentially overshadowing other significant occurrences. With the United States announcing tariffs on virtually every country on the globe, and the affected states going into a spin, as to what to do, who would have the temerity to count the lives being lost in the carnage taking place in the ongoing civil wars and conflicts, including Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar, and parts of the Sahel region. Additionally, instability in Afghanistan, conflicts in Sudan, Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and within countries like Haiti pose a significant humanitarian crisis. Sudan now represents the largest and fastest displacement crisis in the world. It is also the largest humanitarian crisis on record. The situation in Gaza has also escalated into a new chapter of the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Suddenly, the breaking news of a significant development taking place in some part of the globe, where a long-awaited but forgotten conflict had ended, jolts the ‘global Rip Van Winkle’ from its deep slumber. Donald Trump’s election in 2024 as U.S President coincided with breaking news of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad having taken his last flight to Russia, and the arrival of a new player in Damascus.
Tyranny of Geography
Based on the ‘tyranny of geography’, nations have pursued a wide variety of policies and adopted a wide range of strategies. Contemporary global realities reflect the return of geopolitics as the most vital factor influencing foreign policy. Syria is a small state surrounded by several stronger powers that, at one time or another, have been rivals. Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east and southeast, Jordan to the south, and Lebanon and Israel to the southwest are Syria's neighboring countries, and also bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the west. Since the Syrian Republic gained independence from the French Mandate in 1945, it has made efforts to balance its relations but has experienced tension with its neighbours. Ensuring national security, increasing influence among its Arab neighbours, and securing the return of the Golan Heights had been for long the primary goals of Syria's foreign policy. Equally important for understanding Syria is its pervasive sense of insecurity. Syria continues to perceive a threat from what it takes to be Western imperialism, a view that has been repeatedly reinforced, with double standards and where international law is selectively enforced; Syria’s chemical deterrent force has been targeted by the West, while Israel’s nuclear one is accepted.
Augmenting Security
Syria could not do without alliances, and with great care (it thought so) diversified them, relying for a period on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, later Iran, while balancing close alignment with the USSR, crucial for protection in a predatory world, with a readiness to engage with American diplomacy over a peace settlement. Syria’s slim economic base could not sustain its enormous military burden, and it thus used external alliances to access enormous levels of external aid and loans, by Syria’s front-line status against Israel, largely from the USSR and Arab oil-producing states.
Russia's interests in Syria continue to attract the concern of the U.S., Israel, and the West. Russia’s interests in Syria are multifaceted. Primarily, Russia aims to maintain its strategic influence in the region by supporting the Syrian Government economically and militarily and challenging U.S. dominance in this part of the Middle East. Despite its efforts, Russia has not fully achieved all its goals in Syria, though it has preserved the Syrian regime.
Saudi Arabia is reportedly contemplating repaying Syria’s $15 million debt to the World Bank, potentially positioning itself as a benefactor in Syria’s reconstruction efforts
The Multilateral Negligence:
UN-backed attempts to mediate a conflict-ending political transition in Syria were obstructed by differences among veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council and other powers. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey aligned with the United States against the Assad regime, while Iran joined Russia in backing it. Russia and China cast multiple vetoes on Syria-related Security Council resolutions, and the threat of veto deterred or watered-down humanitarian and human rights measures, reinforcing a view of the council as toothless.
On the other hand, the Arab League's efforts to resolve the Syrian conflict, including suspending Syria's membership and imposing sanctions, ultimately failed to prevent the crisis. This failure mirrors the League's historical inability to effectively coordinate policies on major conflicts like the Arab Israeli conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also did not effectively resolve the conflict. These failures highlight the limitations of these organisations in addressing complex geopolitical issues due to internal divisions and competing interests among member states, which caused the loss of human lives, which could have been prevented, and also dented the image globally of these multilateral institutions.
Post-Assad Scenario:
The ouster of the Assad regime significantly diminishes Iran's influence in the region. This outcome dismantles substantial Iranian investments in Syria, estimated to be in billions of Dollars over a decade. The collapse undermines Iran's ability to project power and unravels its established network of influence within the country. In Iraq, despite a Shia-majority population, a resurgence of Arab nationalism, encouraged by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, has gradually eroded Iranian influence. Adding to Iran’s regional challenges, Saudi Arabia is reportedly contemplating repaying Syria’s $15 million debt to the World Bank, potentially positioning itself as a benefactor in Syria’s reconstruction efforts. This move may further isolate Iran diplomatically and economically. The removal of the Assad regime thus reverses a strategic advantage for Russia, too. Russia established air and naval bases in Latakia and Tartus, Syria, whose continued presence in the long term is in doubt. The new Syrian authorities do not see Russia as a hostile country, but Russia will have to do something favourable for the Syrian government in return for these bases. Russian soldiers hardly venture outside the bases.
Course Correction:
The fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria and the transition regime led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa represent a significant geopolitical shift in the Middle East. Violence persists mainly in border areas, over which regional and international actors have sway; any resolution of the Syrian crisis internally must address this reality. However, the domestic correction would take precedence without ignoring this regional reality. The way out of the current situation would not be to return Syria to its prewar state, but to revive a Syrian-Syrian framework. This would address the form of a future state, governance, the role of institutions, and governmental mechanisms. In other words, it would aim to reach an inter-Syrian agreement. The motivation for outside powers to endorse such a dialogue, apart from the misery the Syrian people have suffered for long, but also a recognition that no single outside party can win in Syria, while all sides would gain by returning to relative stability. The experience of ‘boots on the ground’ by outside powers has been a dismal failure, ranging from what happened in Syria and the Russian and U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.
The Pahalgam attack has drawn renewed attention to a region that India has tried to silence. It presents an opportunity to confront the realities on the ground and recognise that the problem in Kashmir is not the people, but the policies imposed upon them
Following the internal consensus, the focus shall then shift to long-term resolution of the Syrian crisis which takes into account an understanding of the main regional and international powers with influence in Syria, particularly in the border areas. While today, there are no indications that these powers favour a resolution over a status quo that allows them to pursue their interests independently, this approach has brought the situation in Syria to an impasse. Regardless of the goals set by each of these countries, whether the demographic security belt that Türkiye has sought to establish in its conflict with the PKK or Iran’s strategic influence beyond its borders in its battle with Israel, all have largely reached a dead end, with few achievements in the past few years. The fragmentation of the Arab world made it harder to mobilise Pan-Arab political support or financing for Syria’s policies.
This regional impasse needs a bitter but realistic pill which must to be swallowed, more by Israel and less by Syria. Israel faces both challenges and opportunities in the wake of the situation in Syria and must recognise the hard realities that it cannot continue to fight on all fronts, a time for a fresh approach and come to an understanding with the Syrian Government and that shall give the much-desired security to Israel and Syria. Israel must stop its settlement expansion efforts in the Golan Heights and plans to further develop settlements in territories it occupies, indicating a push for increased territorial control over areas previously held by Syria. Israel shall also stop its air raids on Syria under the guise of protecting the Druze minority from government violence, a stance the Syrian Druze community itself rejects. Syria, too, shall have to be more flexible than it was to any peace initiative by Israel, provided it stops its aggressive posture.
The United States and Russia, who even though do not see eye to eye on many issues, but having cooperated in the past to end conflicts now have a very important role to play in giving confidence to both Syria in its neighboring countries in the post Assad era who have suffered on account of the collateral damage. The U.S and USSR cooperated to end the Afghan war in 1988 and the signing of the 1988 Geneva Accords. The US and USSR acted as guarantors.
The geopolitical construct also has significant implications for Pakistan, which is strategically located at the crossroads of Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia. As the global order evolves, like Syria, Pakistan too faces security challenges in its neighborhood. Its people and the armed forces courageously face challenges, especially from its eastern and western borders. Since the creation of Pakistan and India, the relationship between these two states has been adversarial. The continued antagonism of these neighboring states has also been an enigma for many who have kept a close watch on the developments in the Sub-continent. Pakistan, in the true sense of a peace-loving country, has a most impressive record in the multiflora, especially in the United Nations in supporting to end of conflicts and sending its troops as peacemakers around the globe. It continues to support a peaceful Middle East and a peaceful South Asia.
It was time for India, which continues to boast of being a peace-loving country, to respond to Pakistan’s innumerable messages to India to sit across the table aimed at sorting out differences and issues, specifically the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and understand the geo-political realities and the significance of peaceful coexistence. The situation between India and Pakistan is escalating, marked by India's increasing bellicosity and failed diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan following a terrorist attack in Phalagram (IHK), where all fingers are pointing towards the Modi Government for having blundered by faking the Phalagram incident. After nearly a fortnight spent in a whipping frenzy for ‘punishing Pakistan’, things have not gone all according to plan for Narendra Modi and his government.
The Pahalgam attack has drawn renewed attention to a region that India has tried to silence. It presents an opportunity to confront the realities on the ground and recognise that the problem in Kashmir is not the people, but the policies imposed upon them. Hoping that the Modi Government breathes sanity, India and Pakistan could benefit significantly from collaboration on shared vulnerabilities and threats, particularly in the realm of health and climate change.
I am reminded of Charles Dickens often quoted message that “it was the best of times and worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” I leave it to the reader to pick the right time at which we are living!
