With refusals, threats of boycott, unrealistic preconditions and a whole host of other complications, the concept of a political resolution to the Syrian conflict is on shaky ground indeed. Despite everyone agreeing that there can be no military solution in Syria, the diplomatic alternative seems as distant as ever. Meanwhile ordinary Syrians continue to suffer the horrors of war and witness their humanitarian conditions worsening by the day. The regime for its part will most certainly be attending. Although significant pressure was applied by its main ally Russia, it probably didn't take much convincing, as it feels it has nothing to lose and everything to gain, a win-win situation as far it's concerned. Bolstered by its recent military and political gains, the regime appears more comfortable and secure in its position. In a recent interview on Lebanese Al Mayadeen tv, a confident Assad said as much, even announcing he plans to stand for reelection next year. In the calculations of the regime, absent any foreign military intervention, victory on the battlefield is feasible in the long term, and any political process can be dragged out but still used as evidence that they are "playing ball". The chemical disarmament deal and subsequent U.S military back down has further bolstered the regime's image, and lead to its partial rehabilitation back into the international community. The rise of extremist Jihadist groups and their dominance over moderate rebels has also played well into the regime's hand, as the fear is should the regime fall, the ensuing chaos and vacuum will be filled by terrorists. For global powers those are the two main overriding concerns, WMD and Al Qaeda. Humanitarian issues and democracy feature way back on the agenda, much to the dismay of ordinary Syrians. A consensus was reached between Russia and the U.S to try and deal with the Syrian issue through a political process, ruling out once and for all any military option. Both sides would exert influence over their respective allies, and hope to forge some sort of workable deal from the entangled mess that is the Syrian conflict today. But major sticking issues remain, most notably the fate of Assad, and it is unclear whether Geneva 2 will ultimately turn into the debacle that Geneva 1 was, with both sides coming out of the conference with very ambiguous announcements and conflicting interpretations as to what it is they had actually agreed upon. Last time the vagueness surrounded what role, if any, Assad would play in a political transition, and it may yet again throw a spanner in the works this time around. What might constitute a bigger problem for Geneva 2 however is Saudi Arabia, which has been absolutely livid over the recent U.S-Iranian warming of relations, as well as the refusal of the U.S to use military force against the Syrian regime. So angered were the Saudis that they declined a seat at the UNSC in protest, and rather surprisingly have even spoken about diplomatic and economic retaliation against the U.S. It is unclear whether all this is mere rhetoric and letting off steam, but what is undeniable is that Saudi is actively seeking to sabotage any peace conference over Syria. The large leverage it has with the political opposition abroad as well as armed groups on the ground makes it a major player in the conflict, with the means to derail any negotiations or agreements. It remains to be seen whether the Saudis will break from U.S policy in the region, or if ultimately they'll fall back in line, but for the time being it seems they're adamant in perusing their own agenda in Syria, at odds with the interests of global powers. As for the disparate Syrian opposition(s), some have already outright refused to attend Geneva 2 (The Islamist dominated Syrian National Council). While the main umbrella group, the Opposition Coalition is still deciding what stance to take. It has already postponed a vote on the matter, pending further internal haggling and arm twisting by the various backers of its constituent entities. The fear is that a split vote now may irreparably disintegrate the precariously assembled organization. At the recent friends of Syria meeting in London, the group's head, Mr. Jarba again reiterated the Coalition's disappointment at international inaction, and the failure to impose humanitarian corridors, no fly zones and airstrikes, a mantra that is repeated at almost every opposition news conference or gathering. Furthermore, he laid out a list of preconditions which read more like a demand for unconditional surrender rather than a basis for negotiations. Clearly the opposition is unhappy with what it sees as an attempt by the West to force it into talks which it fears may lead to a capitulation on its raison d'etre; that of the removal of Assad from power. Simply attending the conference may wipe out what little credibility and traction the Coalition still enjoys on the ground. Besides which, if it were to actually reach an agreement with the regime, it may be exposed much like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes". A "naked" opposition quite powerless to impose its will or decisions on the ground inside Syria. For their part, the majority of the mainstream rebel factions have flat out refused any form of dialogue or peace talks with the regime. The jihadist groups would never envisage any form of political process anyway, it's not part of their doctrine, and in any case they do not recognize any authority other than that of their "Imir"(warlord). The obstacles facing the Geneva 2 conference seem very daunting indeed, and even if some sort of solution is reached, involving a role for Assad or not, implementing it on the ground is another matter entirely. Amid the multitudes of armed groups, Jihadists and Al Qaeda getting any peace agreement or ceasefire to hold will be a tremendous challenge requiring an extraordinary effort from all parties involved. Meanwhile the Syrian people continue to suffer and hope against all odds that their collective nightmare will soon end.
