|
| FILE - In this Saturday, Sept. 26, 2015 file photo, US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at United Nations headquarters. Iran sits down with the United States, Russia, Europeans and key Arab states for the first time since the Syrian civil war began to discuss the future of the war-torn country. It will also break ground by bringing President Bashar Assad’s main supporter, Iran, to the same table as its regional rivals, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who have been backing many of the insurgent groups. |
BEIRUT (AP) -- Iran will take part in international talks on Syria for the first time this week, giving it a voice in the effort to find a resolution to the more than 4-year-old civil war that has so far defied even the slightest progress toward peace.
A
crucial backer of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Tehran has been shunned
from all previous talks on Syria. Its inclusion now marks recognition
by the United States that no discussion on Syria's future can succeed
without Iran at the table.
News of Iran's attendance outraged Syrian rebels, who said its participation will only prolong the conflict.
The
gathering, which takes place Thursday and Friday in Vienna, will also
put Iran in the same room with its most bitter regional rival, Saudi
Arabia, raising the potential for tensions. The kingdom, along with
other Gulf countries, has been funneling weapons to rebel factions,
while Iran has sent financing, weapons and military advisers to ensure
Assad's survival.
Iran's participation
reflects its newfound place in the international community following the
nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this year. It also shows
the seismic shift brought about by Russia's direct military involvement
in Syria since launching a campaign of airstrikes on behalf of Assad
last month. That intervention has emboldened Assad's supporters.
Russia's
intervention - and its insistence that it seeks a political solution -
have created a new dynamic. While no one expects a breakthrough, the
Vienna talks are the most serious attempt yet to put an end to a
conflict that has killed a quarter of a million people and displaced
millions of others, touching off a humanitarian crisis of spectacular
proportions and unleashing Islamic extremists across the Middle East.
Here is a look at what's at stake:
WHO'S AT THE TABLE - AND WHO'S NOT
The
core power players at the talks are Russia and Iran, the two top
supporters of Assad, and the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the top
backers of the opposition. Those countries, with the exception of Iran,
attended a first round of talks in Vienna last week.
Who's not there? Assad's government and the Syrian opposition.
That
reflects the intent of the gathering. It's not a negotiation between
combatants; it's an attempt by the outside powers with a hand in the
conflict to reach common ground on a solution. If the track eventually
leads to progress, the parties would then have to persuade - or, more
likely, strong-arm - their allies in Syria to go along.
The
conference has also been widened from last week's round to include
countries from around the region and Europe. The expansion from a huddle
of the key players to an international conference appears aimed at
ensuring that all those who could influence the conflict are roped into
backing any results.
Among those invited are
Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, all backers of the rebels,
as well as the Iranian-allied Iraqi government and Lebanon, home to the
Shiite Hezbollah guerrilla force that has also sent fighters to shore up
Assad.
THE ISSUES
At the heart of the Vienna talks - and the most contentious issue - is the future of Assad.
Participants
are trying to resuscitate the 2012 Geneva Communique which called for
the formation of a transitional government in Syria that would oversee
free and fair elections as part of a broader political transition.
Yet
in the 40 months since the communique was signed by Russia, the U.S.
and other nations - though not Iran - there has been no movement toward
implementing it, mainly because talks have always hit a wall when it
comes to what role, if any, Assad should have in the transition.
The
United States says it's willing to see Assad participate in the
transition but the process must end with him stepping down. Saudi Arabia
has said Assad must go first, though it has appeared to soften that
stance. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Wednesday that Assad
must step down "within a specific timeframe."
Iran
and Assad contend there is no reason for him to go. He won re-election
last year in a vote in the midst of the civil war that Western countries
called a sham, and his term does not end until 2021. Russian lawmakers
who met Assad last week said he was willing to hold early presidential
elections that he would run in - a non-starter for the opposition.
Assad's office issued a statement Tuesday reiterating that he would not
consider any political initiatives "until after eradicating terrorism."
POTENTIAL BACKLASH
Inviting
Iran to the talks, especially if no agreement is reached, could create a
backlash. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, said if the talks
fail, "we will resort to other options." He did not elaborate, but his
words suggest the kingdom would step up military aid to the rebels.
The
opposition is eager to see that happen. "Every assistance to Assad must
be met with assistance to the opposition," said Bebars al-Talawy, a
Homs-based activist.
Rebels and activists in
Syria denounced Iran's inclusion. Ahmed Ramadan, a member of the
Western-backed opposition-in-exile, the Syrian National Coalition, said
inviting Iran ensures the meeting will be a failure and lead to an
escalation in fighting.
Another problem is the
opposition's lack of unity. The Syrian National Council touts itself as
the representative of the opposition, but it has no authority over the
dozens of rebel factions battling on the ground, who range from
nominally secular nationalists to hard-line Islamic militants. While
many have formed alliances, they answer to different commanders and have
different international patrons.
The one
thing they have in common: They all hate Iran and Russia and are likely
to reject any solution that strengthens their hand in Syria or doesn't
clearly lead to Assad's departure.
WHAT MIGHT EMERGE?
It's
unlikely that a concrete deal on Syria will come out of the talks any
time soon - or even a vague, common vision for the future.
The
Obama administration has said repeatedly that all the countries must
agree on a unified, secular and pluralistic Syria governed with the
consent of its people. But even if all sides say that's their goal, that
doesn't mean they agree on what it means or how to bring it about.
If
the U.S. and its allies contend that vision cannot be reached with
Assad in power, Iran and Russia can counter that a fragmented rebellion
dominated by Sunni Islamic hard-liners will hardly achieve it either.
It's hard to conceive who could bring about such unity and pluralism,
with hatreds stoked among Syria's Sunnis, Alawites, Shiites and other
sects by nearly five years of mutual slaughter.
At
best, the conference might bring a re-commitment to the 2012 Geneva
Communique, this time with Iran signed onto it, and perhaps an agreement
to begin talks on implementing the transition it calls for, according
to U.N. diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the
delicate issue ahead of the talks.
But that would hardly be an advance over 2012.
ANOTHER FALSE DAWN?
Syria's
civil war has defied every international effort toward a political
settlement. Various international conferences and U.N. observer missions
failed to make a difference, and two of the U.N.'s most seasoned
diplomats quit in frustration. The Vienna track could similarly crumble.
Any
optimism now is based on speculation that Russia is not wedded to
keeping Assad in power and that including Iran could be a game-changer.
The
biggest accomplishment from the talks may be in building some degree of
trust among the powers that have turned Syria's civil war into a proxy
conflict. The only reason either side in the war has survived this long
is because of outside backing. In Vienna, each side will likely sound
out the other for possible confidence-building measures or wiggle-room
in their positions that could lead to common ground.
