Syria is burning, after a two year civil war, the lethality and the suffering is escalating, and global markets are being affected.
It has been apparent for over a year that Assad is done. There is a condo in Cannes waiting for him. It is only a question of how much loot he gets to take with him.
One reason for the duration of the conflict is the lack of agreement amongst the sponsors of the opposition forces on what comes next. This essay will describe some of the forces in play, and speculate on possible outcomes. My thesis is that the duration of the conflict is due, in part, by the lack of consensus of the sponsors of what happens "After Assad"
More below the orange thingie.
This analytic framework rests on the assumption that the national interests and aspirations of the major geo-political powers are manifest in the struggle for Syria after Assad.
There is a profound and enduring rivalry for regional influence between Saudi, Iran, and Iraq. It was a classic three-body problem that enjoyed a degree of dynamic stability prior to the end of the cold war, which endured to some degree after until Bush the younger's spectacular gift to Iran of control and influence over Iraq.
Iran, in addition to extending influence over Iraq in the last decade, has enjoyed significant expansion of influence westward, through Syria and and Syria's de facto occupation of Lebanon and followed by Hezbollah's consolidation of political power after the Syrian withdrawal.
Saudi and the Sunni-Led gulf states are drawing their own red lines, wanting to arrest and roll back the forming Iranian 'Arc" from the Mediterranean to Turkmenistan Map
Iran is supporting the Assad Regime in order to retain their influence and geographic contiguity with their Hezbollah client. However there are signs that iran is realizing that Assad is a goner, and they may be distancing themselves.
Rafsanjani says Syrian people attacked by government
Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government, a strong ally of Tehran, has carried out chemical weapons attacks against its own people, the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported today. According to ILNA, Rafsanjani said:
"The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners. The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years."
Rafsanjani says Syrian people attacked by government
Khamanei recently stated
TEHRAN, Iran - United States intervention in Syria would be “a disaster” for the Middle East, Iran’s supreme leader warned on Wednesday as the region braced itself for the fallout from looming military action over a suspected chemical weapons attack.
“The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranian state television.
“If [President Barack Obama] gets stuck in this trap, he will certainly leave behind bad memories of his presidency,” he added. “The intervention of America will be a disaster for the region.”
Iran's Khamenei warns US intervention in Syria would be 'a disaster' for Middle East
Al Monitor is pointing out some softening of US-Iran traditional postures, and it seems Iran has been signaling a willingness to engage in "After Assad" discussions
In an interview with the "PBS Newshour" on Aug. 28, Obama said that he is willing to work with “anybody” to resolve the Syria conflict.
“Although I have called for Assad to leave and make sure that we got a transitional government that could be inclusive in Syria, what I’ve also concluded is that direct military engagement, involvement in the civil war in Syria, would not help the situation on the ground,” Obama said, adding, “We’re prepared to work with anybody — the Russians and others — to try to bring the parties together to resolve the conflict.”
“Anybody” just might mean Iran, which holds more influence in Syria than any other country. Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, welcomed the idea of the Geneva II conference on Syria in an interview with Al-Monitor on May 24.
A US-Iran diplomatic channel would be more decisive in ending the war and preventing further massacres than a limited bombing campaign against select military targets.
Can Syrian Chemical Weapons Issue Lead to US-Iran Opening? Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/week-in-review-chemical-weapons-possible-us-strike-on-syria.html#ixzz2decUShGV
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/...
Should the US pursue opening a channel to Iran in seeking a post Assad transition to a stable Syria? Maybe address other matters of regional and global importance? Would Saudi agree? Can we get to closure on the awful civil war in Syria without Iranian cooperation?