United States plans to hold talks with Syrian President to end bloodshed likely to fizzle out after a stark Saudi reaction.
“A regional security framework requiring the participation of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would be the necessary precursor to bringing about an end to civil war in Syria, provided that this was acceptable to actors on the ground directly involved in fighting,” according to new analysis from Zaineb Al-Assam, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk.
“In contrast, strong objections by the secular or ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition to negotiations with Assad or his representatives would be of less relevance. For the foreseeable future, there is little prospect that the interests of Iran and Saudi Arabia will converge, as indicated by King Salman’s attempts to organise a united Sunni alliance with Turkey and Egypt.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said “we have to negotiate in the end” with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Kerry’s comment diverges widely from the stance taken by US regional ally Saudi Arabia, which perceives Iran and its proxies in Syria and Iraq as the primary threat to its interests. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal had said on 5 March that Iran was “taking over Iraq” and later voiced opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Tehran.
This indicates strong opposition by Saudi Arabia, in particular, to any future negotiations with the present Syrian leadership. Although Kerry’s representatives have since clarified that negotiations would not be with Assad directly but rather the people around him, this is still unlikely to be acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, whose co-operation would be required to implement a political settlement in Syria.