Turkey, Iran and Russia have signed an agreement calling for the creation of four “safe zones” in Syria, a proposal rejected by opposition fighters who walked out of a press conference in the Kazakh capital, Astana, where the deal was announced.

An angry opposition delegation said they would never accept Iran as a military guarantor of a peace process, and claimed there was a huge gap between Russian promises and actions. They also questioned whether the plan could lead to Syria’s disintegration.

For once, Putin is doing the right thing for Syria | Hamish de Bretton-Gordon Read more

The Astana talks, which involve armed rebel groups, are the latest attempt to reduce the violence in Syria, where a six-year conflict has killed more than 400,000 people. Stop-start negotiations held under the auspices of the UN, and involving the Syrian political opposition, are due to recommence in Geneva in May.

According to a three-page memorandum from the Astana talks seen by the Russian Kommersant newspaper, the use of weapons would be forbidden in the safe – or “de-escalation” – zones, allowing for the restoration of infrastructure and essential services and the return of refugees. Humanitarian aid would also be allowed to these zones, which include areas in the provinces of Idlib and Homs, the eastern Ghouta suburbs outside Damascus, and an area in the south of the country, all of which include significant rebel-controlled enclaves.

The US State Department offered a cautious welcome to the announcement, but expressed a number of concerns, including over the involvement of Iran. “Iran’s activities in Syria have only contributed to the violence, not stopped it, and Iran’s unquestioning support for the Assad regime has perpetuated the misery of ordinary Syrians,” the statement said.

“In light of the failures of past agreements, we have reason to be cautious. We expect the regime to stop all attacks on civilians and opposition forces, something they have never done. We expect Russia to ensure regime compliance.

With all major countries with a military stake in the conflict – Iran, Russia, Syria, Turkey and the US – now apparently endorsing the creation of safe zones, the proposal marks a rare chance at a breakthrough. In effect the zones would freeze the conflict in the four areas, but allow fighting to continue elsewhere, especially against Islamic State and other extremist terror groups.



America’s initial reluctance to jump behind the Russian safe zone plan is underscored by reports that western intelligence believes it knows the location of three sites where the Syrian government is still making chemical weapons in breach of undertakings given to the UN and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The BBC reported the intelligence documents showed chemical and biological munitions were being produced at three main sites near Damascus and Hama. All three are branches of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre, a government agency.

They allege that both Iran and Russia, the Syrian government’s allies, have knowledge of Syria’s activity.

The French government last month published an intelligence report claiming: “France considers that Syria, despite the commitment to destroy all its stocks and capacities, has maintained a productive capacity.”

Opposition figures asked why the anticipated ceasefire would not cover the entire country. They had walked out of the talks on Wednesday, protesting about continued Syrian air force attacks, but returned on Thursday. It is not clear if their objections will mean the agreement collapses.



Osama Abu Zaid, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, said: “We demand guarantee of aid entry, the immediate release of detainees and a cessation of hostilities.” He also insisted that the FSA rejected “any initiative, military or political agreement if it is not based on UN resolutions”.

The document seen by Kommersant said “security zones” would be established along the boundaries of four “islands of safety” to prevent shelling, and allowed for foreign troops from “observer countries” to be deployed at the demarcation lines. The agreement also allows for refugees to return to their homes.

The US has long been wary of the Astana process, fearing it will supplant the UN-backed Geneva talks, which are more focused on a long-term political settlement, as opposed to a military ceasefire. But in a sign of a change of thinking, Donald Trump sent a top diplomat to observe the Astana discussion this week.



The Syrian foreign ministry said the regime, which is not a signatory to the agreement, backed the safe zone proposal. That represents a concession given that earlier this year the president, Bashar al-Assad, called it “not a realistic idea at all”.

The two major pitfalls of the agreement, apart from opposition objection to Iran acting as a guarantor, is the extent to which the Russians will enforce Syrian air force compliance, and the extent to which jihadi forces linked to al-Nusra but active inside the safe zones could be regarded as legitimate targets by Russia or Syrian warplanes.

It is generally accepted that an overarching solution for the whole of Syria is not yet possible. Despite the opposition losing control of east Aleppo in December, Assad does not have the forces to defeat the rebel troops outright. The war has also broken up into multiple geographical disputes.

