With the vast majority of the current wave of refugees fleeing violence in Syria, there will never be an end to the migrant crisis until we first find some way to resolve the ongoing civil war in that country. Although my wif, her family and many of her friends are natives of Syria, my analysis of the current state of affairs is not a reflection of their respective points of view. It is my own political calculus primarily based on my international relations experience as well as my in-depth knowledge of the intertwined politics of the United States, the EU and the Middle East. More importantly, it’s based on a thorough examination of the political and security interests of Russia and Iran that underpin their support for the Bashar al-Assad regime.

But before I discuss what we should be doing in Syria and Iraq, I think it would be helpful if I provided a capsule analysis of the international and domestic political positions and security considerations of all of the major nation states who are actively engaged in the conflict. I could be wrong, but I firmly believe that there will not be any progress negotiating an end to the conflict until both sides stop demonising each other. Only then will they be able to look at the situation from the perspective of their opponents in order to develop acceptable compromises.

From the outset of the conflict in Syria, the official and unofficial US position has been to provide diplomatic support for the Syrian opposition and apply financial pressure on the Assad regime. While many Republicans in Congress and those running for the White House love to complain about President Obama’s actions in the region, none of them have offered concrete alternatives. Furthermore, even though many Republican politicians have proposed stronger military actions, they aren’t specific about them because they know most Americans are firmly against this idea.

Much like the United States, European governments have implemented trade and financial sanctions against the Assad regime,  provided financial aid for Syrian refugees and diplomatic support for the fractured Syrian opposition forces. But European political leaders are equally aware that most of their citizens would never support a military intervention in Syria.

Although Turkey joined the American-European Nato alliance more than 60 years ago, in Syria it has been pursuing a distinctly different political agenda than that of its Nato allies. Like his American and European counterparts, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan also wants to bring an end to the Assad regime, but fighting and defeating Daesh has never been a priority for Erdogan. In fact, until recently Erdogan had tacitly supported Daesh, al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front and other Islamist opposition forces by enforcing a no-fly zone along its border.

For its part, Saudi Arabia was and still is the source of the ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim Wahabist doctrine that has been embraced by Daesh, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. On the other hand, it was and still is the Arab Gulf states like Saudi Arabia that have supplied most of the money and weapons used by Islamist extremists to attack the Assad regime as well as more moderate Syrian opposition forces. Like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are adamantly opposed to any peace deal that would allow Assad to remain in power for an extended period of time.

Iran views Wahabism as a pseudo-religious Sunni Muslim threat to Shiites living throughout the Middle East. As the largest and wealthiest Shiite Muslim nation, Iran’s political leaders see Syria and Iraq as a crucial link to Shiites and its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon. Iran believes that if Daesh or other Islamist groups come to power in Syria, then Iran will not only be cut off from its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, it will also be surrounded by Sunni nations that may one day threaten the security of Iran’s citizens.

As for Russia, Syria was and still is strategically important because it provides Russia with its only naval base in the Mediterranean at Tartus. This base provides Russia with a sphere of influence arc stretching from southern Turkey to Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and North Africa. Russia also wants to crush Deash because it doesn’t want Wahabism to spread throughout its growing Muslim population. Lastly, getting involved in Syria gives Russia some leverage regarding the sanctions it is facing for invading Ukraine.

Within Syria itself, the situation on the battlefield has now become a stalemate. Back in the spring, after Islamist opposition forces supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar took control of Idlib, and Daesh successfully took Palmyra, it appeared Assad’s days might be numbered. He even went on national TV and admitted he no longer had enough soldiers to defend all areas of the country because so many young men had fled or gone into hiding. That same fear explains why Iran and Russia decided to up the ante by going all in with the Assad regime.

Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas pursuing a career in public service. He previously lectured on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU from 2009-2011 and pursued a PhD in Public Policy and Political Economy.