Rather, it is the Great Powers -- the US, Russia and China -- and two regional powers, Turkey and Iran, that find themselves unable to agree on a joint agenda for resolving the Syrian situation. The Syrian crisis is more than just a bloody struggle between the Assad regime and the opposition. Therefore, the defusing of the crisis entails the need for compromise between the Great Powers.
History has seen many similar stalemates between the Great Powers, which have prolonged national impasses. It is habitual in world politics that some lands become the hub of the Great Powers' competing interests. As they rarely want to go to war against one another over much smaller states, the Great Powers prefer to establish their zones of influence on these territories. For instance, Poland was in this situation in the late 18th century because of the conflicting interests it represented for Russia and Prussia. In another famous example, the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907 created zones of influence in Iran: A Russian zone, a British zone and a neutral zone. Of course, the most ambitious example is the post-World War II partitioning of Europe by the Great Powers at Yalta. Partition here does not necessarily mean the physical partitioning of a state; mostly, it takes the form of the creation of various zones of influence of the Great Powers.
The Syrian case is a typical example of a struggle between the Great Powers to secure their own interests in a territory. The Russians and Iranians are themselves not happy about the horrendous acts taking place under Assad, but their own interests in Syria force them to stand with the regime. Thus, so long as they are persuaded that their interests are secure, reminding them of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the cities of Syria will not be sufficient to do the job of halting it. This is a sad but familiar phenomenon in world politics. Thus, to set progress in motion, the international community must first persuade Russia, China and Iran that action is necessary. This can best be achieved by guaranteeing their long-term interests in Syria. In other words, those countries should be given concrete guarantees that a regime change in Syria will not mean the total loss of their established interests there. Both Moscow and Tehran should be persuaded to believe that they will retain their interests in the region, even if the present regime in Damascus is overthrown. Today, both Iran and Russia are of the firm view that regime change will be detrimental to their interests in the Middle East.
The terminology of competition between the Great Powers is not sympathetic. However, the killing of innocent people, including children, obliges the international community to revisit all sorts of potential solutions and strategies. If it is not possible to move forward without the consent of Russia and China, the critical mission should be to persuade them. The international community, represented by an international conference on Syria, can easily offer China and Russia guarantees for the preservation of their long term interests in Syria. Meanwhile, regional countries like Turkey can play a serious role with regard to Iran's position in this process.
