The United Kingdom has a deeply compassionate and ethical royal family. Their foundation is ending homelessness and integrating refugees from other countries into the British middle class. They also set the standard for peaceful communication with their media savvy appearances and exemplary public image. They are so caring about British society that they won't allow average citizens to serve on the front lines of conflicts without sending their own family members to be there along side them in person. That unique family leadership style is heroic. And it ensures a genuine desire for peace whenever appropriate, which is almost always.
The Royal Family loves one another. And like all families, they have real emotions and differences of opinion from time to time. Extraordinarily, the British Royal Family resolve theirs by holding what they describe to the media as "peace talks," which sets a near perfect example to governments and mass media experts of how to get the media to pattern "peace." By directing attention to "peace talks" any way that they can, the family encourages the media to focus on something peaceful that subtly influences countries and populations everywhere to feel peaceful. Helpful suggestions appear in articles and television shows that affect readers and viewers everywhere. The sophisticated media strategy reflects a deep understanding of pattern recognition. Heads of state around the world recognize their integrity and are grateful to them as a result. They have heartfelt friendships with distinguished leaders around the world in both competing and alliance countries.
Both the Royal Family and the elected British government has the full support of the United States. President Joe Biden has even followed the British lead in improving relations with Muslim leaders, including with Syria. The Biden administration even encouraged Saudi Arabia, a close alliance country, to achieve peace with Syria. This represented exemplary leadership for peace. More has to be done for the entire region to have a great relationship with all NATO states. But the progress is very encouraging because it reflects a great attitude from the United Kingdom and United States. According to U.S. government press releases and subsequent media reports, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations even announced billions in economic support for Syria.
See the Syria peace page
The United Kingdom and United States have also encouraged improving relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which has brought peace to Yemen after decades of conflict there.
See the Saudi Arabia peace page
The Syrian government has been desirous of peace for close to two decades. The government wants Syrians to enjoy themselves with the British people some day without their being a deterrent relationship between the two states. This is obvious because the Syrian government has participated in close to a hundred peace talks over the past twenty years. Dozens were initiated by then-President Barrack Obama and later by President Putin after Obama's term in office. Syria eagerly attended peace talk after peace talk. (But Syria developed a fantastic relationship with Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, and achieved peace along most of its borders as a result of them.)
There was a misunderstanding in 2003 in the Middle East. There were airplane crashes in New York City, Washington DC and other populated cities around the United States in 2001 through 2003 that the NATO intelligence community perhaps incorrectly attributed to Muslims. Were central Baghdad buildings destroyed during that timeframe from above as well? People in the Middle East thought that NATO was on offense when NATO probably was not. (This author doesn’t know for sure what occurred in Baghdad during 2001 & 2002. But his intuition is that NATO wasn’t intending to be on offense in the city then. Neither side wanted damage to occur there that way.) It's important that countries give each other the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Because real conflicts can occur when governments hold each other responsible for events - even when the events weren’t intentionally caused. (Islam is literally named "surrender” and “peace.” So it’s very unlikely Muslim countries sought confrontation. And NATO doesn’t challenge countries without internal and even external permissions. The initiation of conflict was very probably unintentional, in this author’s opinion.)
Peace was interrupted to say the least. That may not have been the hoped for result by anyone. Iraq deterred NATO by expanding militarily into neighboring countries without their permission. The United Kingdom and United States then used Iraq’s imposition on Kuwait as a rationale for entering Iraq. NATO dominated Iraq almost immediately in 2003 and 2004 nearly unopposed. The Iraqi army clearly wasn’t hoping for confrontation with NATO, and gave up easily - even offering to join with them. That was a very ethical way to respond and consistent with Muslim teachings of peace and surrender. It was an awesome strategy because then perhaps both groups could become great friends. But NATO made a fateful strategic mistake in this writer's opinion to decline the army’s offer to join NATO, disbanded the group, and then opposed them with sanctions and physical conflict. Newly confronted, impoverished and very well trained, militias expressed their deep dissatisfaction with tremendously capable opposition to NATO.
The problem in the Iraqi-NATO relationship initially wasn't economic. But sanctions seems like theft to more than just militias. They seem that way to honest people throughout the Middle East. The perception of unfairness became important to the regions response to what this writer believes was initially just a genuine misunderstanding. A real conflict developed that was completely unintentional in the first place.
NATO leaders said they wanted to create a burgeoning democracy in Iraq that would set a western standard for ethical governing in the region. But NATO did not understand the customs, religion or even the language in the region. So they were unsuccessful. NATO leadership thought they were doing the right thing in "retaliating" and creating “freedom” when people in the region were stunned by western involvement in their affairs.
Eventually NATO and Iraqi militias increased the number of troops opposing one another in a conflict that spilled across a wide open border into Syria (of no fault whatsoever of the Syrians). Large sections of cities first in Iraq and later in Syria were destroyed by NATO in pursuit of a disbanded Iraqi army. Syria was innocent of the matter, and lost an entire city in one of the most regrettable moments in the history of warfare. The population in the region fled by the millions into neighboring Turkey and even further into Europe. Many Iraqis and Syrians now live peacefully in a compassionately accommodating United Kingdom as a result.