How a united and tough stance on Syria slowly softened

Syria and the West

Not everyone is newly enamoured with al-Assad. Major Western nations, including the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, were at odds with Arab capitals.

This Quartet reaffirmed its three red lines: no normalisation with the al-Assad regime, no funding for Syria's reconstruction, and no lifting of sanctions until there is significant progress on the political track, in line with International Resolution 2254.

Additionally, they emphasised the importance of accountability, the elimination of al-Assad's chemical weapons, and the return of refugees.

In the background, France tried to convene Western and Arab leaders in Paris to discuss the political situation in Syria, the consequences of the war in Gaza, Iranian influence, and humanitarian aid. The Arab nations said, "Non, merci".

Officially, they said this was because the Paris meeting was scheduled just before a session of the Arab Ministerial Committee, tasked with overseeing the implementation of the roadmap.

Intriguingly, the same Arab nations that swerved Paris also bypassed the Arab Ministerial Committee alongside Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Al-Miqdad during the last Arab ministerial gathering in Cairo.

A shared frustration

Their abstention was attributed to their "disappointment" with Damascus's approach to drug trafficking, refugee issues, and the Constitutional Committee.

This indicates that the Arab boycott of the Paris meeting was driven by a growing divergence between Arab and Western positions on Syria and Iran, suggesting that the discord extends beyond mere role distribution between the two blocs.

While the West has been frustrated by Arab states' neutral stance on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Arab states have been frustrated by the West's stance on Gaza.

This has further widened their rift over Syria, which is a break from the recent past. A decade ago, they were on the same page regarding Syria. Today, the situation is complex and contradictory, with many actors pursuing multiple agendas.

Irony and contradiction

One such contradiction involves the US designating the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as a terrorist organisation yet cooperating with the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in north-eastern Syria.

This cooperation is contentious because Washington's NATO ally Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the PKK and, thus, as a terrorist organisation.

Furthermore, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, which is officially designated a terrorist organisation by Western countries and the UN Security Council, has paradoxically received international aid from Western nations.

Various Syrian factions receive support from the US and often fight each other. One faction may be supported by the CIA, another by the Pentagon.

The irony extends to the geopolitical sphere where Arab countries that signed the Abraham Accords with Israel also cooperate with Syria, which works with Iran, which in turn works to prevent Arab normalisation with Israel.

A Syrian playground

Israeli aerial sorties over Syria successfully targeting Iranian agents appear to have met with little Syrian military resistance.

Al-Assad has sought (unsuccessfully) to acquire the kind of advanced air defence systems he needs to make the Israelis and others think twice.

Major international powers and significant regional actors such as Russia, Turkey, and the United States may be quite glad of that, given that they also conduct flights and military operations in Syria. These military forces are not operating through proxies but directly, both on land and in the air.

So, in a country where half the population is displaced, there are multiple highly armed actors having to coordinate over Syrian airspace for their military operations.

Both they and the Syrians hope there will be no breakdown in communication. An accident between some of these players is unlikely to be met with a shrug.