Alwaght- The tripartite meeting that gathered together Russia, Iran, and Turkey in Moscow, without any Western presence, gives rise to a question in the mind: Are these three nations trying to form a new coalition and find a settlement to the Syrian crisis in general and the Aleppo crisis in particular in the present time?

On Tuesday, December 20, the foreign ministers of the three countries attended the meeting in the Russian capital while less than 12 hours before the conference, the Russian ambassador to Turkey had been gunned down by several shots of a Turkish off-duty police officer who cautioned against liberation of Aleppo, a key northern Syrian city.

Although the meeting was held on time after paying tribute to the assassinated Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov, the assassination in the wake of full retaking of Aleppo, which could pave the way for exit of the country from the crisis, overshadowed the diplomatic event.

Anyway, Javad Zarif, Sergey Lavrov, and Mevlut Chavush-oglu, respectively the foreign ministers of Iran, Russia, and Turkey discussed the latest status of Aleppo after liberation with a special focus on three aims: first, pursuing the political solutions for the Syrian crisis, second, forging a lasting ceasefire, and third jointly battling terrorism. They highlighted the Turkish role in a counterterrorism fight, particularly because Turkey shares borders with Syria.

Wondering about possibility of formation of a Moscow-Tehran-Ankara alliance to address the crisis in Aleppo, the Alwaght has asked Jaafar Haghpanah, an Iranian Turkey affairs analyst, for a comment. He said: �what we are seeing under way between Russia, Iran, and Turkey should not be branded a three-nation alliance majorly because an alliance requires a high level of trust building, institution forming, and achievement of a common understanding of the security challenges. These factors are not observable among these three countries. Haghpanah continued: �it is right to say that there is a sort of tactical cooperation between the three nations meant to thwart the common threats they are facing. This point pushes us to deem this tripartite collaboration to be less, in degree, than a coalition.�

Following the session between the three foreign ministers, dubbedgroup 3, the New York Times has commented on it, maintaining that the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss ways to find a closing for the nearly-6-year Syrian war. The US was pushed to the margins because the three actors struggled to direct the Syrian conflict to a way that well benefits their interests.

Commenting on the outcomes of the Moscow conference, Haghpanah said: �there have happened some gives and takes between Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Each side received security guarantees and gave to the other sides some privileges. For example, Turkey, a top anti-Assad actor, now has accepted to work with Iran and Russia on future of the President Assad of Syria, as well as Aleppo. In return, Tehran and Moscow will recognize and observe Ankara�s security worries about the Kurdish cause and security troubles on its shared borders with Syria. These negotiations between the three countries seem to stop in this level and we can barely expect further fruits from them.�

Noting that even this level of cooperation and agreement can be affected by some unexpected occurrences, the Iranian analyst suggested that it should be put into account that even within this short time of their cooperation some sides took inconsistent steps. Turkey, for instance, declined to make the necessary cooperation with Iran when it launched its military operation in northern Syria, codenamed Operation Euphrates Shield. Now and after advancing deeper in Syria�s north, Turkey to some extent has gained freedom of action in Al-Bab town, a key city held by ISIS terrorist group. On the opposite side, the Aleppo struggle has been concluded in favor of Syria�s President Assad government, with the area fully cleansed of terrorists.

Touching on some differences on the Syrian conflict among the countries, Haghpanah said that everything now returns to Turkey which mostly follows a �sinusoidal policy� in Syria and still keeps its options open about working with other parties. So, odds are that Ankara in a glaring about-face heads to boosting cooperation with Washington, the European capitals, and the Arab states, according to the Turkish affairs analyst.

�But we saw Iran and Russia showing a kind of stability and persistence in policy in the past five years at least in the case of the Syrian crisis,� said Jaafar Haghpanah.

At the same time, following developments such as Aleppo liberation, Russia ambassador assassination, and holding the Russia-Iran-Turkey conference in Moscow, speculations began to flood the media about possible ripened opportunity for rise and strengthening of a tripartite coalition to fight terror in West Asia generally and in Syria particularly. The speculations on such a coalition developed to expect it to present a model for settling other security crises in the region. Such a model, of course, forms without the presence of the US or the European countries.

Referring to the possibility of emergence of such a model and its outlooks, Haghpanah explained: �if we generalize the collaborations to a specific case, we can see it be applied to solve some other cases. For example, this model can be applied to a joint Turkish-Iranian-Egyptian cooperation. But this cooperation is unlikely to develop into a comprehensive model, encompassing the whole region.� He believes that on Syria, Ankara will very likely be interested in following policies in line with those of Moscow and Tehran, and it sees interests in such a pathway. But a game-changing factor like a serious change in the US policies under the new government of President Donald Trump can transform Turkey�s� and even Iran's and Russia�s� behavior in dealing with Syria.