Editor's note: Ghanbar Naderi is an Iranian columnist and political commentator. The article reflects the author’s opinion and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The situation in Syria was discussed in Tehran on Friday, September 7, by leaders from three countries: Russia's Vladimir Putin, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iran's Hassan Rouhani as part of the "Astana process."

The summit achieved some remarkable results. Although petty differences masked a consensus on Idlib, in a final statement, Erdogan, Putin, and Rouhani, whose countries are under US sanctions and pressure, all agreed a ceasefire that would forestall a Syrian government offensive in the last rebel-held province.

Final communique

Based on the final communique of the summit, diplomatic recourse is still available and allowing the Syrian wound to fester will prove to be irresponsible for all parties concerned.

There could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict and it could only end through a negotiated political process. This flies in the face of the US government’s key policy of dividing up Syria. The communique unfolds as follows:

• One thing that does bind together Russia, Iran, and Turkey is their shared hostility toward the US deployment in Syria. The United States must swiftly end its "illegal presence and interference" in Syria, which has led to the continuation of insecurity in the war-ravaged country, thus cementing a de facto partition of Syria.

• In any political negotiations, the country must emerge from the long-running war with its territorial integrity intact – a point also underlined by the United Nations. 

• The fight against terrorism will continue until the eradication of all terrorist groups. The three presidents only differ as to how this should be achieved, particularly in Idlib, which has become a furnace feeding many conflagrations involving players with conflicting agendas, raising the possibility of high-risk clashes.

• The international civil society must pay heed to the issues of the Syrian refugees' return to their homeland and the reconstruction of the war-stricken country.

• As guarantors of the Astana process, a track of negotiations which have resulted in the return of a succession of militant bastions to the government fold and movement of civilians to safe zones, the three sides will further continue their cooperation to fully establish peace and stability in Syria.

• Joint efforts by the international community and the United Nations have contributed to nearly ending the protracted war and bloodshed, stopping acts of terror in the country and preventing their long-term regional and international consequences. Such measures also have prepared the ground for a constructive dialogue among the Syrian people.

A battle for the hearts

During a press conference after the Tehran summit, Putin and Rouhani pushed back against Erdogan’s call for a truce in Idlib, although they agreed there would be some civilian casualties and that “Turkey cannot accommodate any more refugees flooding over its border.”

What was lost in these performances of reproach and imperiousness was the extent to which the three presidents were generally in agreement over how the battle for Idlib ought to begin and what, in fact, constitutes a sound humanitarian approach.

As it happens, top diplomats and foreign ministers of the three countries were at work devising substantive evaluation of the situation several months before the summit even took place. The main effort was the three-way conference in Tehran, where the three presidents were expected to approve a final communique. 

Then Erdogan set out wildly a different position. He said Turkey would not let any offensive carried out in Idlib without them intervening against Syria. He also demanded a ceasefire in Idlib. When Iran and Russia rejected that idea at the press conference, he backtracked on his position and said the joint fight against terrorism would continue.

Erdogan set himself out as opposed to virtually every other nation involved, with threats to intervene on all fronts. He insisted he wouldn’t allow any offensive in Idlib benefiting the Syrian government. At the same time, Erdogan said he is “extremely annoyed” by the US policy in Syria, saying they are supporting a “terrorist organization,” meaning the Kurdish YPG.

No de facto partition

Terrorism remained a contested term in the Tehran summit as well, with no set definition for the concept or broad agreement among the three presidents on its usage in Syria. 

Erdogan defined terrorism as “Kurdish violence,” or equally important, the threat of violence used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim by the US-backed YPG for Kurdish autonomy in Syria. Instead, Iran and Russia said foreign-backed terrorism is deliberately and violently targeting civilians. 

Under these definitions, Iran and Russia believe that not all Syrian Kurds are terrorists and that aligning all Kurdish groups with the definition of terrorism is more tenuous and difficult compared to the more obvious cases of ISIL, Al-Qaeda and others whose acts of violence against the Syrian state and people are often directly coordinated, commanded and encouraged by outside powers. 

At Erdogan's suggestion, nonetheless, the final communique of the summit was amended to include a call for all armed groups in Idlib to lay down arms and seek a political transition in the country. Putin and Rouhani agreed, which may indicate that a major offensive in Idlib, one of the main goals of the summit, is not likely to be launched in the immediate future.

Conversely, some major developments might happen on the ground and this might force the alliance of Iran, Syria, and Russia not to delay the Idlib offensive any further. On balance, their de-escalation zone agreement with Ankara based on the Astana process was provisional, lauded by the United Nations, and on humanitarian grounds. 

Further delays in liberating Idlib might give the wrong impression to the Qaeda-allied goons and clients that the alliance has given up on efforts to promote the political process aimed at ending seven years of conflict and instead has agreed to a temporary de facto partition or social engineering for Syria. Seeing local history, sectarian structures, language, customs, politics, and values in Syria, they reject this way forward.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)