Full progress for Syria depends on more than its return to the Arab League

Iran's hefty investment in Syria

Senior Iranian officials have referred to Syria as Iran's "35th province," underscoring the equivalence they place on countering anti-Iranian activities within Syria and internal unrest.

They have also expressed scepticism regarding al-Assad's ability to maintain control over the country without their assistance.

Iran has invested significant resources in Syria, including manpower, finances, and political capital. Since 2016, its affiliated militias have played a major role in fighting opposition forces and controlling territory, while the Syrian army, due to defections, has had a more symbolic and secondary role.

This means there remains little of an independent Syria to work with, making the prospects of success for the Arab Option extremely limited in the short term. Arab intervention would likely be seen as interference in the country's internal affairs, similar to Iran's role.

Al-Assad is well aware of this and is unlikely to take the risk of separating from Iran or undermining its interests.  Tehran has various tools at its disposal, given its hegemony over Syria and its ability to foment tensions across Syrian territory and install opposition elements within the regime.

This further restricts al-Assad's authority. Potentially, and as a last resort, it could lead to a scenario similar to the Houthi model with Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen.

Options and risks

The Arab League has adopted a step-by-step policy towards Syria, prioritising humanitarian aid and reconstruction for the Syrian people. That, in itself, presents a particular risk: similar tactics and aid from the Gulf aimed at stabilising Lebanon was seized upon by Hezbollah to expand its influence in the country.

In Syria, there could be a similar outcome if reconstruction aid flows end up primarily benefiting Iranian companies and its de-facto powerbase there.

But there are risks with all the available options.

Relying on Russia to curb Iran's control over Syria would be a gamble. It would require deeper involvement in the war and confronting an opponent more powerful than the Syrian opposition.

Russian forces have previously held back from confronting Iran and its proxies, even before the complications that unfolded after its invasion of Ukraine. Moscow's willingness to undertake such a mission depends on securing its own interests, including the survival of al-Assad as an ally and the maintenance of its military bases.

The absurdity of betting on Russia to contribute to restoring al-Assad's independence is exacerbated by the impact on global relations of the Ukraine war.  

Moscow would have to divert its ground forces away from what it sees as an existential fight with the West to confront Tehran, which is now one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's indispensable allies.

A delicate moment

The UN's envoy to Syria, Geir Pedersen, used revealing words about the position the country finds itself in, calling it a "delicate moment". He emphasised the importance of all countries supporting the step-by-step approach that involves parallel and mutually verifiable measures taken by all parties.

Pedersen acknowledged the division within the international community. But he stressed the significance of reconciling the Arab initiative with the Moscow approach, which includes Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the Syrian government.

Then there are also the American and European positions.

For Pedersen, this comprehensive approach may pave the way for a political solution. He emphasised that, while all initiatives are important, it is crucial to determine the necessary actions that must be taken for progress to be made.

Concerted international initiatives, including the Moscow track, may provide more guarantees and increase the chances of success for the Arab initiative.

Merely restoring relations with Syria will not alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people under the weight of the current regime.

Without binding mechanisms to achieve the goals stated in the Jeddah Declaration — including "stopping foreign interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries and completely rejecting support for the formation of armed groups and militias outside the scope of state institutions," — the benefits will not be limited to the Syrian regime alone.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, which controls Syria and keeps al-Assad in power, will also benefit from such a scenario.