Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Iran Turning To A More Transparent Nuclear Plan

If the words of Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected Iranian President are true, the nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community looks to be turning a corner. Over the weekend, Rouhani announced at a post election press conference, that Iran needs to be more transparent with its nuclear program.  

Rouhani is seen as a moderate leader than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became a thorn to the international community’s actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Rouhani stated that Iran will come to the negotiation table with the international community to solve the nuclear issue, he also said that Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, as the program is within the rules of the international framework.    

This re-engagement by President Rouhani is welcoming, that’s if the words will translate into actions. Although the international community cannot relax sanction or pressure on Iran just yet, until there are concrete efforts by the new government to convince that their nuclear program is for peaceful means only. I think to progress the stated willingness by President Rouhani, is for the 5+1 group (UNSC permanent five and Germany), to openly welcome a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the international community. 

The only resolution I can see of this issue, is not through military action (which has been the argument of Israel) but for peaceful negotiations, which will have to include the reality that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. On Iran’s part, the stated transparency will hopefully consist of allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor the program. I do think this crisis can be resolved with more open dialogue from both Iran and the international community. And let’s hope for the people of Iran and the rest of the world, that this stand-off can be resolved soon, as we do not want another unnecessary conflict in an already volatile region.   

Iran’s Nuclear Standoff

Image source: WikiCommons

Iran’s Nuclear stand off with the rest of the world has become a unending saga, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcing that Iran have installed advanced centrifuge machines, capable of enriching uranium much faster then in the past. 

Apart from this new report released by the IAEA, talks between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, French, Russia, China and Germany), has been planned to take place this week in Kazakhstan. Western diplomats have suggested that they will offer Iran reworked terms to settle the Nuclear crises, this will include easing some sanctions, in return for Iran closing some facilities, but still allow enrichment to continue in other facilities. 

This new deal is a step back from past negotiations, which the P5+1 demanded a halt of all enrichments and closing down of the Qom facility. Western powers seem to be viewing the present situation in more realistic terms, as Iran, after years of failed sanctions are not prepared to bow down to pressure by the international community and stop all uranium enrichment , and many states including the US are unwilling to be drawn into another conflict, likely to be a disaster and further destabilise the region.

Image source: WikiCommons

As we all know, Iran and western countries, specifically the United States (US), have been at  loggerheads over Iran’s nuclear ambitions for over ten years. The international community and the IAEA have been alarmed by Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful means, to be used for energy, but are expanding their research and technology to build a nuclear device in the near future. The Iranian leaders have rejected this claim on many occasions, saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon, but just want enrich uranium for energy purposes only. Even Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a ‘fatwa’ condemning nuclear weapons in the past.

The issue that the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA has with Iran’s program, is the fact that they will not fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by not cooperating with inspectors and lying about their ambitions to acquire weapons grade uranium.

Under the treaty, signatory nations are allowed to enrich uranium to be used for energy purposes, however the technology required producing fuel for a reactor can also create material for a nuclear weapon. To overcome the use of this technology been used to produce a nuclear device, the IAEA inspects the facilities that are producing nuclear fuel, making sure it is for peaceful purposes. However, Iran has not cooperated fully on allowing inspectors into their facilities to confirm that what Iran labels as peaceful production of nuclear energy.

I think that Iran is playing a risky game of ‘Russian Roulette with the international community by not cooperating with the IAEA and not abiding by the NPT. If they are true to their word, they should allow inspectors to fully monitor their program or withdraw from the treaty; although, if Iran did leave the NPT they would likely be viewed as having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and be a threat to international security. The current situation is two fold, on the one hand, Iran are threatened by the US and Israel, thus are secretly trying to acquire a nuclear weapons, on the other, the US and Israel are alarmed with the a prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, who’s leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and have supported the activities of a number of organizations. 

To solve these problems, Iran should suspend their ambitions to secretly build a nuclear capability and cooperate with the IAEA, and the US and Israel should stop threatening to attack BlogThis!