When the much-delayed Syrian peace conference known as Geneva II starts in Montreux, Switzerland, on January 22, before moving across the lake to Geneva on January 24, everyone will be there.
Apart from Syria’s government and opposition, the Geneva II guest list includes representatives of the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, Algeria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
Everyone? No, one state is missing: Iran—and the Iranians aren’t happy about it.
“Iran is determined to settle the crisis in Syria, and no one can resolve this crisis without Iran’s help,” complained Mansour Haqiqatpour, vice chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
The Iranian government has repeatedly made clear its interest in going to Geneva II, but it still hasn't received an invitation. The reason: objections from the United States.
Many Reasons to Invite Iran
Not only Syria and Russia but also the UN and Arab League peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi have said that Iran should join the talks, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently added his own weight to this demand. “Iran can play a very important role,” Ban said on December 23. “It's a very important regional power. Therefore, logically speaking, and practically and realistically, they should be a part of this meeting.”
That makes a lot of sense. Iran is deeply involved in the conflict. It has been a close ally of Syria’s ruling Assad family since 1979, and it supplies the regime with money, fuel, weapons, and even fighters. While this is what has earned Iran international condemnation, it is also precisely what has earned it a place at the negotiating table. Peace is not made between spectators but between warring sides—and Iran is one of them.
Tehran makes no secret of its intention to try to make or break a peace agreement. The government has hinted that it could push the foreign Shia Islamists fighting for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to withdraw from Syria if it wanted to, and no other state has this sort of sway over the Shia radicals. Conversely, excluding Iran means that it could try to wreck an agreement not to its liking. And at the end of the day, if Denmark, South Africa, and Indonesia are invited, it would be ridiculous to exclude Iran.
Opposing Iranian Participation
Still, many governments are deeply uncomfortable with Iran’s presence at the Geneva II talks. Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf Arab states are much more concerned with weakening the regime in Tehran than displacing the one in Damascus. The main reason they’re even involved in Syria is to undercut Iranian influence. Granting Tehran a seat at the peace talks would go against the grain of that strategy.
Most of the armed opposition factions oppose Iranian participation at Geneva, but then again, most of them oppose Geneva altogether. The main U.S.- and Gulf-backed exile opposition body, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, has also spoken out against Iran’s participation, even after it reluctantly agreed to the Geneva process. But it is not clear why the exiles feel that talking to Iran would be any worse than talking to Assad himself. It looks like meaningless posturing.
First Geneva I, Then Geneva II
Anonymous U.S. officials have hinted that the American objections to inviting Iran are partly related to Iranian military involvement in Syria, but State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was very explicit a few days ago: “They have not agreed to the Geneva communiqué; that is our issue with their participation.”
This refers to the declaration of June 30, 2012, following a conference of world powers meeting in Geneva to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict, often referred to as Geneva I. The June 2012 statement included a call for a combined opposition-regime “transitional governing body” with “full executive powers,” and this is supposed to be the starting point of discussions in Montreux and Geneva in January 2014. Iran’s refusal to publicly endorse these terms signals that it isn’t willing to play by the same rules as all the other participants. And it’s not only the United States that has picked up on this lack of commitment but also, for example, Turkey and the exile opposition.
Iran refuses to accept this logic, and it has repeatedly said it will not accept any “preconditions” for its participation. Apparently, that means that Iranian officials expect to be allowed to go to Geneva II without first passing Geneva I.
Ironically, the reason Iran hasn’t already endorsed Geneva I is that no Iranian delegation was invited to the June 2012 meeting, following American objections. At that time, the United States succeeded in isolating Iran, but only on paper and at the cost of losing its signature on the Geneva I document. In the year and a half that has passed since, the Tehran government has only grown more involved in the conflict, and isolating it from the peace talks is no longer a realistic option. In fact, it never was.
And the fact that Iran was blocked from participating in June 2012 is hardly an insurmountable problem. Saudi Arabia wasn’t invited to Geneva I either (it was removed as a quid pro quo for Iran’s exclusion). Neither was Brazil, Algeria, Sweden, Morocco, or Oman (since they are mostly irrelevant to the war in Syria). But these states will all join the Geneva II session at Montreux on January 22, having raised no objection to the Geneva I principles.
Why Won’t Iran Just Say the Words?
Iran could easily do the same, if it wanted to. Uttering a few words in support of the Geneva I declaration is a cost-free concession. Even Assad’s government has endorsed Geneva I, and there’s no reason that Iran couldn’t adopt the same interpretation and make the same formal endorsement.
And yet Iran refuses to take that simple step and say those few words, thereby almost guaranteeing that the United States will block its invitation to Geneva II.
Is this simply about Iran being obstinate, or is Tehran trying to play the bad cop to Moscow’s good cop? Might Iran be trying to extract other concessions from the United States, even at the cost of wrecking the peace conference? Or perhaps the United States has secretly posed other preconditions—but then why wouldn’t Iran simply call the American bluff by endorsing Geneva I?
Comments(4)
Why not Iran? Simply because any solution for a stable, safe, democratic and independent Syria is ONLY possible when Iran (the iranian regime) is not apart of the solution.The Iranian regime is not a part of any solution in the region.
"But it is not clear why the exiles feel that talking to Iran would be any worse than talking to Assad himself. " It is a nice excuse not to attend. And given is own behavior the US will find it hard to reproach them for it. Geneva I was a foolish communique. North Africa had such transitional governments. They proved to be powerless bodies that neither implemented reforms nor were able to maintain order and they tended to be under continuous attack by both sides. Remember that South Africa and El Salvador did not use such transitional governments in their transition. Instead they relied on the old government to implement negotiated reforms. The lack of concreteness of how such a transitional government should look has already played out in disagreement between the US and Russia. One can expect that the fighting parties will have even more diverse visions.
I agree with NasseR. Whether analysts support Iran or the United States of America, those analysts agree that Iran has every reason to continue the Syrian Civil War while America has every to end it. None of the Syrian government's supporters—Algeria, Belarus, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela—want it to lose. Because foreign Shia fighters have traveled from not only Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon but also Afghanistan and Yemen, I doubt that Iran has as much control as it claims.
The USA has continuously excluded Iran from any peace discussion on Syria essentially to calm Saudi Arabia's furor over the Geneva agreement on nuclear. It is obvious to everybody that any deal in Geneva on Syria where Iran is not involved is doomed. The irony is that the USA is now asking Iran to put pressure on Bashar al Assad to resign as a condition for Iran's presence in Geneva. Iran is simply waiting that the USA hits a dead end and begs Iran to join. This will happen sooner that we think.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.