Obama must seize diplomatic opening with Iran to help end Syria crisis

Diplomacy is alive again at the United Nations this week. And it's deeply needed. President Obama should make clear to Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani that Iran would be welcome to participate in a conference to discuss an end to the civil war in Syria.

Andrew Burton/Reuters
President Obama addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New York Sept. 24. Op-ed contributor David Owen writes: 'Over time, as a civil war [in Syria] emerged, events have demonstrated that just as Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan have to be involved [in peace negotiations], so does Iran.'

The eyes of the world are focused on the United Nations in New York this week in an amazing turnabout in international politics. We could have been in the midst of a Middle East war with the United States and France having attacked Syria, triggering resumed fighting across the border of southern Lebanon and Israel. Instead, the UN is back on center stage, the Security Council is functioning again, and its five permanent powers are in a constructive dialogue over chemical weapons in Syria for the first time in two and a half years.

And in an immensely encouraging sign, we have the presence in New York of the new president of Iran, Hasan Rouhani, clearly intent on improving relations with the US and President Obama and talking the language of peace on how to accommodate Iran’s right to have a civil nuclear-power program with respected non-proliferation treaty safeguards to prevent the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

It should be a source of pride to the British people that their democratic chamber of the House of Commons responded to their views and ignored the advice of their prime minister and foreign secretary. It is now crystal clear that the US intention was to bomb Syria a few days after that debate, possibly as early as that weekend.

To find as historically significant a debate, one has to go back to the World War II, to the second day of a no-confidence debate in the government on May 8, 1940, when the Labor Party, in opposition, announced that it would vote against Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The government was not defeated, and what was significant was not the 30 Conservatives who voted against, but the 60 who abstained, forcing Chamberlain to resign and enabling Winston Churchill to succeed him as prime minister.

Similarly, it was the 95 abstentions this most recent vote that ensured that Prime Minister David Cameron had no alternative but to accept that Britain would not participate in any bombing of Syria and paved the way for Mr. Obama to announce that he too would consult Congress. It also paved the way for the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg to provide the occasion for Obama to talk directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Syria and the subsequent US-Russian diplomacy.

Now, this week in New York, diplomacy must move on to lay the foundation for a negotiated settlement of the long and bitter civil war in Syria. The crucial step is for the US president to make it clear to the Iranian president that Iran would be welcome to participate in a Middle East conference on Syria. If Israel is also invited, so much the better, but that is a matter best left for their two presidents to discuss. The vital step is to involve Iran. 

Why is it so vital to involve Iran? The reason is simple: realpolitik based on four facts. Iran is involved already on the ground with its elite Revolutionary Guard. Iran helps finance Russian-made arms for Syria. Iran has a crucial influence on Hezbollah, the Shiite fighters based in Lebanon who are also on the ground in Syria. Iran, as a Shiite-majority country, is also close in religious terms to the Alawite minority in Syria, from which the Assad regime, first the father and now the son, draws its strength.

Realpolitik is a tactical plan or conduct designed to deal with facts that are often difficult, even disobliging, to face up to. The most intangible conflicts often demand the practice of realpolitik, and its absence can both prolong and exacerbate conflict situations. The reason for creating five veto countries within the Security Council in 1945 was to reflect the realpolitik that was absent in the structure of the League of Nations once Woodrow Wilson found he could not convince the US Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

Over Syria there has been a total failure of the Security Council to work toward a solution based on realpolitik. The US, Britain, and France have moralized while refusing to face uncomfortable facts. Namely, that after acquiescing in passing a resolution over Libya by abstention, Russia and China were not prepared to pass any similar resolution over Syria involving Chapter VII of the UN Charter. They feared such a resolution would be used again to force regime change. On grounds of realpolitik, Russia always had to be involved in creating the climate for a negotiated ceasefire and settlement in Syria. Over time, as a civil war emerged, events have demonstrated that just as Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan have to be involved, so does Iran.

Why is it so urgent to start peace negotiations? The prime reason is that the map that shows which forces control territory in Syria is changing rapidly and in an adverse direction for a sustainable peace. Bashar al-Assad's forces are coming ever closer to imposing a partition line, which is defensible yet has profound consequences. They still do not control the whole of the capital city, Damascus, but that could soon change. They do not yet quite control the whole border down south to Jordan that abuts the Palestinian West Bank and Israel, though they do control the border with Lebanon.

In the north and east of the country, the rise of the Al Qaeda-linked forces is becoming more apparent each day. Their black flag is evident everywhere, and the Syrian-based Kurds are having difficulty maintaining their position. The countries of the Middle East do not have time to develop a leisurely peace-negotiation timetable. Events on the ground are dictating the pattern of a future Middle East.

We in the Western democracies cannot dictate the map or the nature of a settlement, but we can, with Russia and within the framework of the UN, help to establish a negotiating process. As the world saw in Bosnia from May 1993 to September 1995, delay created a far bigger mess than settling and compromising earlier. Now, this week in New York, a pattern for peace can be set. Let us hope the dwindling opportunity is seized.

Lord David Owen is a former British foreign secretary and was European Union co-chairman of the peace negotiations in the former Yugoslavia from 1992 to 1995.

© 2013 Global Viewpoint Network, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Obama must seize diplomatic opening with Iran to help end Syria crisis
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today