She said: “This issue is still ongoing. There are countries in the region that still believe that a military solution is possible. What we see today is a daily war in the region between Sunnis and Shiites. It is also a war among the Sunnis themselves. Looking at the Sunni-Shiite issue, however, we see that it is a historical and cultural conflict. It is not really related to religion as much as it is related to the misuse of religion for geostrategic purposes. We are well aware of that, because our region witnessed 30 years of war in the name of religion (between 1618 and 1648, Europe witnessed a series of long and destructive wars between Protestants and Catholics). However, here, there is nothing related to religion or God, but rather to geopolitical strategy and such. I feel that in all cases, even now, there are countries that actually prefer a military solution over negotiations.”

In June 2013, Bonino criticized the repeated delays of Geneva II . However, her opinions were not in line with Western propaganda when she attributed the delays to the fact that countries in the region were still “contemplating a military solution.” When asked about this comment, she laughed and confirmed that the issue represented the approach adopted by these countries.

In an interview with As-Safir, Bonino revealed the process that stirred the Syrian conflict. She said that the military solution dominated the thoughts of the anti-regime camp, though she expressed suspicion over the plotting of the Arab states and Turkey. Bonino spoke about the West’s mistakes, criticizing what she views as the fundamental flaws in the international alliance against the Islamic State (IS).

No one can compete with Emma Bonino when it comes to putting forth one's voice. When she was Italy’s minister of foreign affairs and sat alongside top players in the Syrian crisis, she was at the heart of the international action.

Bonino: For example, I believe that even IS’ mobilization supports this conclusion. It is a Sunni Wahhabi group. When talking historically and culturally, that is not something new. IS, or whatever its name was, has been there since 2006. It was in Syria, then mobilized in Iraq and is now back in Syria. Of course, this extremist group snatched away the Syrian revolution. I believed it to be a revolution with very honest and decent principles. It first started in 2011 with democratic and revolutionary aspirations, but it was quickly snatched away and taken over by an internal Sunni conflict within the opposition.

Opposition groups started fighting each other: the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, IS. … There are the Kurds as well, who always had a different point of view. Jabhat al-Nusra had always been fragile against [President Bashar] al-Assad, and its members often fought each other. Until now, I have a feeling that a certain party in the region, perhaps the Turkish or another party, is counting on the military solution. For instance, IS’ presence, despite its horrors, could be used as a tool to weaken the Kurdish stance. This is why the situation is quite complicated and why one should have the ability to read this complex puzzle.

Military mistakes

The observations of the veteran Italian politician are not only supported by direct information from talking with the parties involved in the conflict, but stems from extensive political expertise.

Bonino did not once mention the regime or the opposition as being the decision-makers in the Syrian conflict. She spoke about a division in the anti-regime camp that she thought was complicating things for any foreign intervention. “One way or another, Qatar and Turkey are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are supporting the Salafist Wahhabi group. They are completely against the Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, and in Syria, of course. There is division within the Sunni community, which contributes to the main problem and makes it difficult for foreign parties to intervene,” she said.

As-Safir: Do you think that the mobilization of these countries is different in Syria? Do you believe they have a common objective?

Bonino: I know that they still have a common objective, which is the ousting of Assad. All I know is that they are truly still considering some kind of military solution and that they cannot find common ground. It is obvious that they are still trying to come up with something else. Anyway, it is mainly an internal Islamic and political conflict, whose driver is the internal Sunni-Shiite quarrel, regardless of our mistakes in 2003 and 2011. All we can do is stop making the same mistakes that we always do.

As-Safir: What kind of mistakes do you mean?

Bonino: For example, rushing in militarily. There is no doubt that the Americans are still a military superpower. They know how to overthrow dictators, such as [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and [Col. Moammar] Gadhafi. However, after that, no one, not even the Americans, know what is going to happen on the next day, or what can be done.

International coalition

Bonino attends a conference on the world crisis in Brussels. With her well-maintained, slim figure, she moves briskly among elite prominent politicians. She finds it difficult to stay in the same seat. She speaks dynamically, and the expressions of her face complete the meaning of her sentences. She does not hide her suspicion when questions are related to the “international coalition.”

She said: “I call this international coalition the coalition of ambiguity (or confusion). This is because its first target is IS, which is a common goal. But after that, each party has its own agenda. Some believe that Assad should leave office, others have another opinion and others support a transitional process. The Kurdish issue has also become an issue in Turkey. This is in addition to the many negative consequences, because there is no UN Security Council resolution in this regard. Nevertheless, what raises concern for me is that this military intervention has no strategy. In Iraq, which is still vulnerable, the government requested military support. There was also a kind of strategy in terms of an inclusive government, on how to move forward and so on. All of this is totally missing in Syria. The airstrikes and drones can be considered a useful tactic to stop IS, but not a strategy, for sure. What is missing is exactly what will be coming next, not only from the Americans or the coalition, but from the Arab countries in the coalition.”

As-Safir: What do you mean exactly with your comment?

Bonino: Everyone is part of the coalition, be it Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar. Everyone is part of it except Iran. May I ask our friends, the Arabs, what idea do they have regarding the future of Syria?

As-Safir: What pushes you to question the issue?

Bonino: I'm not questioning it. I do not know. After the military campaign against IS, can the Arabs in the coalition, along with Turkey, tell us if they have a vision for what comes next?

As-Safir: They said they wanted to lead this coalition to target the Syrian regime.

Bonino: First of all, they did not deploy troops on the ground. Let us wait and see who will do it. It is not very clear though that they want to direct the war toward Assad. Who will deploy troops on the ground? I do not know, but they have to give an answer. Let us look at the issue from another point of view. This coalition has a problem, because it does not have a mandate from the Security Council. Also, to me, it seems that it does not have a strategy for Syria. May I ask our friends, the Arabs and Muslims, if they have a vision? If yes, which vision do they have? Can it be confirmed? Turkey, the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — do they have a common vision regarding the future of Syria? I doubt it.

This is not just a doubt, but rather a suspicion that can be considered a disapproval. What project does the coalition, which is divided regionally regarding Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, have for Syria? What kind of settlement will the ally of the [Syrian] regime accept?

Opening to Iran

We asked Bonino about Iran. She was the first European minister to visit the country last year, following the recent opening-up policy. She had reservations, but spoke of Tehran's role in removing Nouri al-Maliki in order to form a new Iraqi government.

She hesitated and said, “I do not know. [Iran’s] position is very clear now, but it can evolve. The process can be very difficult and very surprising. Maliki was supposed to be untouchable, but suddenly he was put aside.”

Bonino served as foreign affairs minister from April 2013 to February 2014. She was present during the discussions that led to the Geneva II conference, and chaired her country's delegation [to the conference] in December 2013. She also attended the meetings of the “core” of the Friends of Syria Group, which includes Italy. All of this makes her assessment of a particular importance. This is added to her direct presence within “the black box” to manage the crisis.

Bonino, born in 1948, was elected seven times as member of the Italian parliament and served as minister of international trade. She was also European commissioner for five years. She adopts a liberal left-wing economic, cultural and political approach that is represented by the Italian Radical Party, of which she is a prominent leader.