It would be a great surprise if the U.S. and Russia met at the same point in terms of Syria's future, because the ultimate expectations of both countries are very different. Although both powers officially state that they want Syria to keep its territorial integrity, everyone else knows that this isn't their real intention. Establishing permanent peace in Syria isn't a policy these two countries agree on. Because the cease-fire that the U.S. and Russia lead didn't go on for too long. U.S. aircraft hit Syrian regime forces in Deir ez-Zor and more than 60 soldiers lost their lives. Although the U.S. argued that it was an accident, Russia didn't accept this as a valid excuse. The Russians (and Damascus) believe that this “accidental” attack served Daesh. Israel, on the other hand, is carrying out attacks on Damascus forces as part of its “no one should win policy.” At the same time, Russia and the U.S. cannot agree on why the cease-fire was broken or who broke it.
A strategy as such, a no-win policy, was a policy we saw during the Iran-Iraq war. Muhammed Heykel, an Egyptian journalist who observes the Arab world very well, says that the U.S. was using a zigzag policy during the Iran-Iraq war. According to this theory, although Washington didn't want Bagdad to be completely defeated, it couldn't hide its hope that Bagdad would come out weaker. The war dragging on benefitted everyone except for Iran and Iraq. According to Henry Kissinger, an effective name in the U.S., it was the first war the U.S. hoped both countries lost. When one side became stronger on the battlefield, the U.S., sometimes openly sometimes sneakily, supported the other side so both sides remained equal. Iran was on one side of the scale while Iraq was on the other side. The U.S.'s aim was to ensure both sides remained balanced. This balance was sometimes ensured by giving false or misleading intelligence information.
The happiest party at the end of the day was Israel. Former Mossad President Efraim Halewy said that they remained merrily impartial for seven years while watching the conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis. According to Halewy, they both served Israel's strategic interests and worked toward weakening Iraq and Iran. This war served to weaken the key point of Israel's planning: The “eastern front threat.” This war was compensation for the toppling of Israel's strategic ally, the Iran shah.
When the war ended in 1988, both sides had massive losses. Close to 1 million people lost their lives, and about 2 million people were injured. The losses for both countries was about $390 billion. While Iran's daily petrol production was 4.6 million barrels in 1979, this number dropped to 600,000 barrels in 1981. Iraq's petrol production dropped from 3 million to 550,000 barrels. The Gulf Emirates spent $42 billion on Iraq during this war period. The natural resources of Iran, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula were wasted with this war. A reasonable part of this money filled the pockets of Western weapon industrialists. When the sides of a war are Muslim, the U.S., the West and Russia want the war to continue. They will not give this up as long as it does not affect their interests.