TONY BURMAN

Small signs of hope after four years of civil war in Syria,

Civil wars eventually come to an end, even in the Middle East. Lebanon’s civil war began in 1975 and ended after 15 years, with 120,000 deaths. But Syria’s conflict is still raging. It is now in its fifth year with at least 300,000 people dead. Millions more have become homeless, trying desperately to flee.

But, incredibly, we may be witnessing the first signs of a breakthrough. As horrific as the Syrian drama has been — will we ever forget the lifeless body of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi lying face down on a Turkish beach? — history may very well remember this week as the moment when the road leading to a compromise emerged.

There have been two significant developments in recent days. The growing threat of Islamic State extremists in Syria and Iraq — by threatening the interests of the U.S., Russia, Iran and others — seems to have pushed traditional rivals together.

For the first time, Iran has been invited by the United States to join talks in Vienna with the U.S., Russia and several other nations on a possible political resolution to the Syrian impasse. These talks were expected to start on Friday and extend through the weekend. There were also increasing signs this week from American officials that they would allow the despised Bashar Assad to stay on as Syrian president in an interim role if that led to an eventual solution. Both Iran and Russia are Assad’s most powerful backers, and no breakthrough is possible without their support.

These developments are occurring not long after the groundbreaking nuclear agreement between Iran and the world’s leading industrial powers. They raise hope that Iran can emerge as the “solution,” rather than the “problem,” in dealing with the region’s many crises.

But they come as tensions increase on all sides. Many conservative Republican leaders in the U.S. are agitating for more direct American military intervention in Iraq and Syria, as if the lessons of the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and Britain were completely forgotten.

In an interview this week with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, former British prime minister Tony Blair offered a qualified apology for the Iraq war. He was asked whether the invasion of Iraq was the principal cause of the rise of Islamic State extremists, and replied: “I think there are elements of truth to that. Of course, you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.”

It is widely believed now that the chaos created by the 2003 invasion enabled the Islamic State extremists to organize. They drew on disaffected members of the former regime and supporters of the al-Qaida faction.

But Blair, who many in Britain now regard as a war criminal, was only limited in his apology. Blair felt the decision to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a correct one, although he apologized “for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.” By any measure, those are some of the obvious lessons of the Iraq invasion.

In 2003, the Canadian government was notable in its opposition to the invasion. Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien resisted pressure from Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush. According to polls at the time, the government’s opposition to the invasion was supported by 70 per cent of Canadians. Stephen Harper, who was leader of the official Opposition, supported the invasion.

Do you remember two years ago when the newly elected leader of Canada’s Liberal Party wondered about the “root causes” behind the bombings at the Boston Marathon? He created an uproar within Canada’s conservative echo chamber.

Editorialists and columnists huffed and puffed about Justin Trudeau’s “diplomatic maturity,” while Prime Minister Harper accused Trudeau of trying “to rationalize or make excuses” for those responsible for the bombings.

A year later, in October 2014, Trudeau spoke about the 2003 Iraq invasion at the “Canada 2020” conference, saying it was sold to the public “with overheated, moralistic rhetoric that obscured real flaws in the strategy and the plan to implement it.”

He went on: “It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies three trillion dollars and cost thousands of people their lives. The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.” Well, he was right, and we should learn from it. Hopefully, “root causes” in this new Trudeau era may again be in vogue.