It has been nearly three years since the bloodbath of the Syrian uprising and civil war began, but until last Wednesday, the two adversaries, namely the Assad government and the opposition coalition, had never discussed face-to-face how to peacefully resolve the conflict or about the future of their country. The summit that began on Jan. 22 in Geneva is the first such opportunity, and the decision by the United Nations to rescind their invitation to Iran represents the exclusion of a major player in the region that cannot willfully be ignored.
Iran had been invited specifically by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon somewhat unexpectedly on the Sunday night before the conference was to begin. Ban announced this after the Iranian foreign minister had agreed to the mandate for the conference, which is to establish a transitional government by the mutual consent of the opposition and the Assad regime. Although the foreign minister endorsed this mandate, Iran failed to publicly endorse it on Monday, resulting in their disinvitation.
But there was also outrage in the U.S. government over the extension of the invitation to Iran in the first place, which contributed to the revoke. The possible invitation of Iran also infuriated the opposition leaders, since Iran’s paramilitary Quds forces have been fighting alongside the forces of the Syrian government against the rebels.
Some criticisms of the peace talks have been that they do not set a target date or timeline for a transitional administration if Assad gives up power. Perhaps the most important point of the talks is to establish a transitional governmental body to govern Syria during an interim period. Establishing this sense of legitimacy is expected to encourage defections by members of the current regime, ensuring them that they have a place to run to with an alternative vision. This is more difficult to do than it sounds, since many of the conditions necessary for a full and complete discussion of the matter are lacking without the presence of Iran, the Syrian government’s most important sponsor.
“For any political conference to succeed in trying to defuse, much less settle, an intense conflict, the ground has to be laid,” said Dennis B. Ross, a former Middle East envoy. “An agenda needs to be agreed, the parties have to want some minimal achievement, the convening co-sponsors have to share some basic goals, and there has to be sufficient leverage on those doing the fighting to permit some compromises to be made. Most of these conditions are lacking.”
Given Iran’s outsized role in the conflict to date, it only makes sense that they should be invited to the peace talks. But the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) said they would pull out of the talks if Iran attended. This really does not make a great deal of sense, since the SNC is already meeting with the Assad government itself in Geneva, which has inflicted far greater brutalities against the Syrian people, including the use of chemical weapons, than Iran ever has in the shadows. Russia has specifically said that the absence of Iran would be an “unforgivable mistake.”
Although the U.S., the rest of the West and the SNC might wish Iran could be wiped from the map because of their role as a geopolitical foe in this conflict, the fact of the matter is that Iran should be invited because it is a power player in the conflict, helping to prop up the Assad regime. In order for the peace talks to make meaningful progress, Iran needs to have its voice heard and be considered because of their role in the conflict. Even if it is not convenient or comfortable to invite a voice that will denounce much of what is said, it is a real and necessary voice to have present.
