7. The war has redefined alliances in the Middle East

Iran’s growing footprint in Syria has triggered the revival of a decades-old proposal for a “new regional security architecture” to provide a framework for ending the conflict.

The idea has its roots in the Cold War Helsinki Process that effectively managed a standstill between the two sides. Last month leading officials from Qatar, Iran, Russia and Turkey also endorsed the idea for the Middle East.

But other powers see the idea as unacceptable because it would hand the task of settling regional differences to non-Arab states.

The role of Qatar in this axis is remarkable given its deep involvement in the Syrian conflict. Before the revolution Syria was a Qatari playground. The ruling Al Thani family maintain luxury hunting lodges, including the so-called Mozeh Palace outside Palmyra. Syria’s Al Assad family then took it as a personal slight when Qatar poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Al Qaeda-linked groups, notably Jabhat Al Nusra.

Doha’s alignment with Moscow and Tehran adds a new twist to the consequences of the Syrian war for regional diplomacy. Last month Dr Anwar Gargash, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, dismissed the idea as unnecessary and undermining the goal of restoring Arab control of the region.

While Al Assad’s control of the Syrian state was the main driver of the conflict until relatively recent times, a new dynamic has emerged: outside forces are scrambling to directly promote their own interests.

The increasing proximity of Israeli and Iranian forces on the battlefield sets the stage for a durable competition for influence between the two sworn rivals, according to Julien Barnes-Dacey, who has followed the war since its inception for the European Council for Foreign Relations.

In his latest research, Mr Barnes-Dacey said the war had moved into a new stage. “The most visible manifestation of this new phase is the deepening conflict pitting Iran, which has entrenched itself across Syria in support of Bashar Al Assad, against the US and Israel, both of which are set on containing Tehran’s widening influence.

“The Trump administration has openly adopted an anti-Iran policy and staked out a long-term, albeit limited, military presence in north-eastern Syria. This US positioning has been accompanied by an increasingly active posture by the Israeli government. Israel has grown ever more worried by the perceived Iranian threat on its north-eastern border and has intensified its campaign of military strikes.”

Tilt the kaleidoscope around the battlefield and another flashpoint stands out for Michael Stephens of the Royal United Services Institute. Turkey has sent in its forces against US-trained fighters as Ankara seeks to break-up Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria.

“Absent of any real strategy to solve the conflict, the game switched to creating as much leverage as possible in anticipation of an end-state in Syria,” Mr Stevens reports. “For Washington and Ankara, creating leverage has meant carving out regions of Syria with a light military footprint and reliable partners on the ground, which both have done with relative success. The problem was not so much the tactic, (both the US and Turkey will now be guaranteed a seat at the table when Syria’s war ends), but the choice of partners.”

Meanwhile the eclipse of ISIL as a territorial force has changed the dynamics within the international coalition, according to US experts, Melissa Dalton and Hijab Shah at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

“As the [Global] Coalition shifts to a local governance and civilian-led stabilisation approach, overlapping tensions and interests of competitors, adversaries and allies in Syria pose further challenges to US interests in consolidating hard-fought gains by local US partners and US forces,” the pair wrote in the Washington publication, The Hill. “US strategy in Syria hinges on leveraging relative strength from the periphery to the centre, to pressure Al Assad to negotiate a political outcome to the conflict.”

They say that to build up its allies in Syria, Washington needs Turkey to stop attacking its friends and to allow a flood of aid for reconstruction into border zones.

European powers have put their faith in a deal with Russia to end bloodshed by forcing Al Assad to sign a peace agreement that leads to his departure from power.

Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, summed up this route to peace when speaking in the House of Commons last month. “There is only one way forward, which is for the Russians to put pressure on the Assad regime to get to the negotiating table,” he said. “I think that view may at last be gaining ground in Russia, because the Kremlin has no easy way out of this morass.

“It is up to the Russians to deliver their client.” Those comments now look outdated. With so much outside meddling conducted across an ever-widening front, it is naive to assume a change of heart in the Kremlin would end the fighting.