Enab Baladi – Hussam al-Mahmoud

Over the past few days, following a clear Turkish push towards rapprochement with the Syrian regime, statements have been made by both sides to clarify their positions after a series of declarations that included an invitation for Syrian regime’s President, Bashar al-Assad, to visit Turkey.

The latest of these statements came from al-Assad himself last Monday when he linked a meeting with the Turkish president to achieving results, showing a greater openness and a clearer change in tone towards Ankara.

In statements made to the press on the sidelines of his participation in the People’s Assembly elections, al-Assad said, “If the meeting, embrace, reproach or the kissing of beards, as they colloquially say, achieve the interest of the country, I will do it. But the problem is not here, it lies in the content of the meeting.” He added, “We have not heard what the goal is. To solve the problem? Improve relations? Restore them to their normal state?”

Al-Assad emphasized that the meeting is necessary regardless of the level while indicating preparations for a security-level meeting by some intermediaries, denying at the same time the existence of secret meetings with the Turkish side.

He also spoke about the potential reference for the meeting, “Will the reference be to end or eliminate the reasons for the problem that lies in supporting terrorism and withdrawing from Syrian territories? This is the essence of the problem, and there is no other reason. If there is no discussion about this essence, what does the meeting mean?”

The Syrian regime’s talk about a Turkish withdrawal from northern Syria to push the negotiation track forward is not new in this context. The regime has continuously spoken about conditions related to the Turkish withdrawal during, before, and after the meetings that took place in the Quartet Track (launched on December 28, 2022, including Turkey, Russia, and the regime before Iran joined, and collapsed in the fall of 2023).

Al-Assad also said during an interview with Russia Today mid-March 2023, while the track was ongoing, “We did not set conditions for meeting with Erdoğan, and the issue of withdrawal from Syrian territories is a national issue, not a political one.”

These statements from the regime carried “diplomatic flirtation” aligned with the statement from the Syrian Foreign Ministry in response to Erdoğan’s invitation extended to al-Assad to visit Turkey. Al-Assad considered that the term “normalization of relations” could be used with an abnormal enemy outside the logic of things, like Israel. “But when we talk about a neighboring country and there have been relations for centuries, the relations must be exclusively natural, the term normalization is wrong.”

Back to pre-2011

In the first official response from the regime to the Turkish invitations, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that any initiative in this regard should be based on clear foundations to ensure the return of relations between the two countries to their natural state.

In its statement issued on July 13, it added that “the withdrawal of illegally present forces from Syrian territories and combating terrorist groups that do not only threaten Syria’s security but also Turkey’s security” are at the forefront of these foundations.

According to the Foreign Ministry, the return of natural relations between the two countries is based on the return of the situation to what it was before 2011, which is the foundation for the security, safety, and stability of the two countries, without providing clarifications or pointing to the political solution mechanism represented in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which various international and UN entities call for.

The researcher in international relations, Mahmoud Alloush, explained to Enab Baladi that al-Assad’s rhetoric, and before that the statement from the Syrian Foreign Ministry, enhances the new shift in Damascus’s position on this process. Al-Assad no longer conditions the resumption of negotiations on the timeline for Turkish withdrawal, leaving the door open to the possibility of meeting with Erdoğan.

The researcher believes that defining Turkish withdrawal as the basis for the return of natural relations is inevitable and implicitly means that Damascus accepts the idea that the withdrawal would crown this natural return, not the normalization process. There is also a shift in al-Assad’s tone towards Erdoğan, showing readiness to meet if there are clear rules for the normalization process, which, alongside Erdoğan’s push, marks the beginning of establishing the normalization era.

According to Alloush, Turkey will not abandon its relationship with the opposition because it remains a cornerstone of its current policy in Syria. However, the normalization project imposes on Ankara a redesign of its relationship with the opposition and redirects it towards resolving the conflict.

“Al-Assad raised his expectations from the normalization by linking it to returning to the pre-2011 era, meaning Turkey’s involvement in ending the conflict based on this principle and not as per UN Security Council Resolution 2254. I believe Turks are more inclined to accept this expectation, wrapping it in the idea of reconciliation to develop it into a political reform process,” added Alloush.

Saudi role between Ankara and Damascus

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said last Sunday that the Turkish president called for peace, hoping that all parties understood it correctly. He clarified that this call does not come from a position of weakness.

During a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart, Fidan spoke about the need for long periods to achieve peace, Syria being amidst a major crisis, and the presence of Russia, Iran, and the United States. There are areas under regime control, areas under opposition control, and areas under the control of the “terrorist organization” (a Turkish reference to the Autonomous Administration in northeast Syria).

Fidan added that Turkey has not changed its view of the Syrian opposition but does not impose any matters on them and considers them Syrian parties naturally seated at a Syrian table while continuing efforts against “terrorist” organizations inside and outside Turkey.

He also called on Saudi Arabia to play a role in improving Turkish relations with the regime, alongside calling on Russia and Iran to pressure the regime to achieve peace, according to Fidan’s statements.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed on July 11 his government’s intention to develop relations with the Syrian regime. He said that he invited al-Assad to a meeting in Turkey or a third country to end disputes and start a new process.

Erdoğan added, “I have extended my invitation to al-Assad two weeks ago, either to come to my country or for us to do it in a third country.” He pointed out that the Turkish foreign minister would follow up on this matter.

From his side, the last Turkish ambassador in Damascus, Ömer Önhon, said that Turkey has changed its approach, realizing that dealing with al-Assad is necessary to address the refugee issue because he controls Damascus and can help map the return of the remaining Syrians. Al-Assad uses this leverage to push the Turkish government to meet his conditions.

In an article published by Saudi magazine, Al-Majalla, on June 28, Önhon’s statement noted, “The Syrian issue is fraught with complexities and uncertainties, subject to international influences, including the outcomes of the upcoming US elections. It is well known that Donald Trump (the Republican party’s strong candidate) has a desire to withdraw from Syria and other hotspots in the world.”

 

The main actors, such as Turkey, Iran, the US, Russia, and some Arab countries, remain crucial in determining Syria’s future. However, lasting peace largely hinges on whether al-Assad is truly willing to follow the path outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Ömer Önhon, last Turkish ambassador in Damascus

 

Objection to Erdoğan’s approach

Ahmet Davutoğlu, head of the Turkish Future Party and former foreign minister when the revolution began in Syria, expressed his objection to the approach of developing relations pursued by the Turkish president with the Syrian regime.

He clarified that when messages from the government indicate contact with Damascus, if a general solution is not reached, merely agreeing with Damascus will lead hundreds of thousands of people in Idlib to move to that side of the border (referring to entering Turkey).

Davutoğlu said less than a week ago, “I never said we should not meet, but what is the reference for this meeting? Family friendships or international law standards? We saw what family friendships can be like; one sits today and tomorrow are enemies again. The Republic of Turkey is not a state that can build on family friendships of the president,” he said, as reported by Turkish media.

Davutoğlu pointed out that what he means by the basis of international law is UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which he thinks should be defended by the Turkish president and foreign minister.

“Just as UN Resolution 242 remains a reference for Palestine since 1967, there is only one resolution for Syria, including refugees, and this framework should be accepted for negotiation,” Davutoğlu added.

An Arab role from Baghdad

On May 31, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani unveiled an Iraqi role in the reconciliation process between Turkey and the Syrian regime. This announcement was followed by talks of a future meeting to be hosted in Baghdad between the two sides, which has not taken place as of the preparation of this report.

According to the pro-regime newspaper Al-Watan, which follows the news of this process, the upcoming meeting is expected to be the beginning of a long negotiation process that could lead to political and field understandings.

According to “observing sources” quoted by the newspaper, the Turkish side requested Moscow and Baghdad to sit at a bilateral dialogue table with the regime, with no third party present and away from the media, to discuss all the details that are supposed to restore relations to their previous state.

Despite Moscow’s welcoming of communications with neighboring countries that will allow Turkish normalization with the regime to develop successfully, as stated by the spokesperson for the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, the British website “Middle East Eye” noted on July 11 that Russian President Vladimir Putin opposes the idea of Iraq hosting a meeting between al-Assad and Erdoğan, preferring to hold the meeting in Turkey.

The website quoted sources it described as “informed,” saying that despite the move to hold Turkish talks with the regime in Baghdad under the auspices of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi Prime Minister aims to host the first personal meeting between Erdoğan and al-Assad in more than a decade.

The anticipated negotiations between the two parties in Baghdad receive “wide Arab support,” especially from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, alongside Chinese, Russian, and Iranian support, according to Al-Watan.

Will the Arab role bear fruit?

The Arab support for the Turkish rapprochement with the regime comes after more than a year of Arab countries opening the way for the Syrian regime to return to the Arab League in order to reach a political solution manifested by the implementation of resolution 2254.

The Arab demands presented by the Jordanian Initiative and repeated in various Arab meetings concerning Syria have been achieved in the opposite manner, exacerbating the problems rather than solving them. This has led to official and unofficial talks of a decline in Arab momentum towards Damascus, which was evident in al-Assad’s quiet participation in the Manama summit.

Despite the continued imprisonment of Arab demands within statements and declarations, the rapprochement process between Ankara and Damascus has been driven by the Arabs, as Iraq hosts it and it is supported by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The researcher in strategic and security studies, retired Saudi General Abdullah Ghanem al-Qahtani, told Enab Baladi that the Syrian scene is experiencing a dreadful vacuum and a miserable state, with no resolution for the internal situation, and all of Saudi Arabia’s and some Arab countries’ efforts are for the benefit of Syria’s internal affairs.

The researcher explained that the regime’s problem seems insurmountable to everyone, and no one can change its behavior, policy, style, or even its dealings with itself, its people, and others. However, the other problem is that Iranian militias of various names are causing havoc.

On the other hand, Turkish-Saudi relations are growing, and this Saudi interest in advancing relations with Turkey leads to the search for a balance to attempt to repair the Syrian interior, amidst the absence of international and UN efforts. There is nothing on the horizon that reassures that the regime, UN institutions, and Syria’s non-Arab neighbors will play a positive role.

 

The geography in the region is changing, and Syria no longer exists currently within its old political boundaries or its old concept. There is land under Turkish hegemony, land under Iranian influence through purchase or hand placement, Russian land, and Syrian forces outside the regime’s control, foreign forces, and the regime in Damascus is the weakest among these groups in the Syrian region. Riyadh is searching for a glimmer of hope not to leave the whole subject to further devastation.

Retired Saudi General Abdullah Ghanem al-Qahtani, Researcher in strategic and security studies

 

These factors paved the way for Saudi Arabia, according to the researcher, through any good relationship with the Turkish side or others to search for a common base to find the beginning of a solution to the Syrian issue, as the issue is complex, and no country alone can do anything to help the Syrian people. Iranian influence is more entrenched in Syria than many believe, the situation is blocked, there are no positive horizons, no international solutions, no Arab or Islamic endeavors to push the regime towards reaching a solution with its people and neighbors, drug issues are increasing, the Syrian citizen is suffering, terrorism exists, and the United Nations seems to have forgotten the Syrian issue. The United States and its allies do not care beyond their interests in Syria, and all this forms closed circles with no hope, from the researcher’s perspective.