What are the solutions to the Syrian crisis?

Iran should reconsider its unwavering support for Assad

Question: What are the solutions to the Syrian crisis?
Position‹3 of 4›: The internationalisation of the conflict must end
Argument1 of 4›: Iran should reconsider its unwavering support for Assad

The Syrian Assad government is a big part of the Iranian backed 'Axis of Resistance' which is why their unwavering support for Assad comes as no surprise, however, Iran must begin to take into account the severity of the existing humanitarian crisis in Syria.

The argument

The 'Axis of Resistance' is a political alliance consisting of Iran firstly, the Syrian Assad government and the Lebanese group Hezbollah. This inevitably meant that for the past nine years Iran has spent billions of dollars to push for keeping the Assad Alawite government ruling in Syria. His remain in government helps advance the Iranian Shia resistance movement in the region. With Bashar continuing to serve as president, transits of weapons to the Lebanese Shia resistance, Hezbollah, will continue to operate. This is down to the simple fact that Syrian government is the only Arab government which is allies with Iran. To protect Assad, Iran has influenced Hezbollah fighter as well as militiamen from both Iraq and Iran to protect Shia holy sites along with assisting pro-Assad forces in the fight.

Premises

[P1]Iran has spent billions over nine years backing Assad because Syria is its only Arab ally and a conduit for arming Hezbollah. [P2] This support keeps the Assad government in power and advances Iran's regional Shia resistance. [P3] By funnelling fighters and militias into Syria, Iran deepens and internationalises the conflict. [C] Therefore, Iran should reconsider its unwavering support for Assad to help end the internationalisation of the conflict.

Counter-arguments

Critics of this prescription argue that singling out Iran ignores the symmetrical external involvement of Russia, Turkey, the Gulf states and the US-led coalition, so asking Iran alone to withdraw would not de-internationalise a conflict sustained by many outside powers, and might merely shift the balance rather than end the fighting. They note Iran regards its Syrian foothold as a core strategic interest it will not surrender for others' benefit, which makes a unilateral reconsideration unrealistic without reciprocal steps. Ending the internationalisation of the war, they contend, requires a negotiated, mutual drawdown by all external backers rather than a demand placed on one of them.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Iran is one of several external backers — alongside Russia, Turkey, Gulf states and the US-led coalition — so its withdrawal alone would not end the conflict's internationalisation. [Rejecting C] Iran treats its Syrian foothold as a core strategic interest, so a unilateral reconsideration is unrealistic; de-internationalisation would require a reciprocal drawdown by all outside powers.