Agreement may be near on the future of Syria

What Arabic-language writers are saying about possible outcomes of the Syrian civil war. Translated by Carla Mirza.

ISIL, which released this picture of Palmyra prison being blown up, is now in control of much of Syria. (AFP / HO / Welayat Homs)

The repercussions of Syria’s civil war in the region are many. The rise of ISIL and the expansion of the conflict on Syrian territory have fuelled a massive exodus towards Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

In the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, Ghassan Charbel observed that "the Lebanese live at the rhythm of news from Syria".

He continued: “Concern is deep and obvious. At an earlier time, those visiting Beirut could hear that the regime is progressing in the north and in the south, that it would take Aleppo back, and that ‘it would only leave lifeless parts to takfirists’.

“Nowadays, one can hear quite a different discourse, as some ask about the future of Lebanon were Syria to be dismantled and how Lebanon might coexist with a permanently partitioned Syria.”

The writer said there was also talk of Syria adopting a federalist model through a system of provinces or that Syrian regions would be grouped “under areas of influence of warring factions and regional and international powers”.

Recent developments in the province of Idlib have led to a change in climate and expectations, the writer explained.

“Friends of the Syrian regime are talking about its redeployment in zones that can sustain a long defence,” he continued. “They also say that Iran will not allow a total collapse of the Syrian regime, particularly in vital areas such as Damascus, Homs and coastal areas and there has been talk that Tehran will not refrain from direct and expansive intervention if need be.”

The writer also noted its potential effect on Lebanon and noted that “no solution to the Syrian conflict will ever guarantee Hizbollah the status it enjoyed in Syria before the conflict”.

In the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al Awsat, Abdel Rahman Al Rashed wrote that "if Saudi Arabia and Egypt have indeed come to an agreement to oust Bashar Al Assad, that must be considered as a qualitative and important development".

He said that the Egyptian government had always been reluctant to talk about change in Syria, “implying that it stands against the Syrian revolution”.

The subject of Syria remained a “quiet, contentious” debate between Riyadh and Cairo until a recent statement by Saudi foreign minister Adel Al Jubeir, the writer said.

“Both parties have agreed on the necessity to convince Russia to change its position, as it plays an important role in the region and is the major reason behind the survival of the Assad regime.”

Al Rashed said that there had been three serious recent developments to explain this change. ISIL had carried out two major terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, the ISIL branch in Libya had seized the city of Sirte, and ISIL had seized the capital of the province of Anbar in Iraq.

He said that all parties were showing readiness for mutual concessions and that a “reasonable solution” might be found.

“The trend goes toward developing a hybrid regime in Syria – the current government with the opposition, but without Assad – and to maintain the structure of the state.”

But he concluded that all parties would have to agree about how to handle ISIL, as it now controlled half of Syria.

Translated by Carla Mirza