Shambolic

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s invitation today to Iran to attend threw the scheduled opening of peace talks on Syria Wednesday in Montreux into doubt.  The United States says it wants Iran to accept publicly as the purpose of the conference creation of a transitional governing body with full executive powers (TGBFEP), as provided for in the June 2012 “Geneva 1” communique.  Iran has said it won’t do that, but the Secretary General says Tehran understands what the meeting is about.  The Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC), which Saturday voted to attend in Montreux and the subsequent “Geneva 2” meeting, says it won’t come if Iran does without withdrawing its troops from Syria and its support from Bashar al Asad.  That won’t happen.

This is a mess.  The merits of an invitation to Iran are clear.  Tehran’s direct military engagement with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its sponsorship of Hizbollah to fight on behalf of Bashar al Asad makes it indispensable to any substantial progress in the talks.  But it is hard for the SOC to attend if Iran does.  Going to Montreux to sit at the table with Iran could further discredit its relative moderates and lead to resignations, thus reducing further its already minimal usefulness as a negotiating partner.

Odds are this will all be patched up somehow in the next two days.  High-level initiatives of this sort are rarely allowed to fail at the last minute.  The Iranians might obliquely acknowledge the Geneva 1 communique.  The Americans, if they continue to want the meeting to happen, will bend the arm of the SOC to attend.  Secretary Kerry has signaled his reduced expectations for the meeting:  a prisoner exchange and some increased humanitarian access will suffice for the Americans to declare the meeting a success.

The Russians and Iranians need do nothing to get Damascus there.  Bashar al Asad has already agreed to send his foreign minister to talk about ending the terrorist insurgency in Syria.  He has shown no inclination to accept a transition away from his rule and has indicated he plans to run in Syria’s anticipated spring election to boot.  Neither Moscow nor Tehran will force his hand.  Both are aggressively arming and equipping his security forces as they attack civilians.

It is also possible the meeting will be cancelled, or held without the SOC or the US.  A meeting without the SOC would be a public relations disaster for the opposition’s image in the West, which is already in a sorry state.  Were the US also to stay away, it is hard to picture the UN going ahead with the meeting. If it does, Bashar al Asad will come away with a PR advantage, but little else.

Unless some sort of solution can be patched together at the 12th hour, postponement would be the better part of valor.  Or holding the meeting without both the SOC and Damascus.  The Geneva 1 meeting was held that way and produced a decent communique.  A call for prisoner exchanges and humanitarian access, followed up by the UN quietly at lower levels, could be worthwhile.

Whatever happens, shambolic is the right word for the current mess.