Can bombing the Islamic State (IS) in Syria help end the war and reduce the flow of refugees to Europe? The answer is no. This idea, popular among many western politicians, is an absurd misconception of the situation in place. Airstrikes against IS will neither stop the war, nor will they solve Europe’s biggest headache, the wave of refugees at its borders. But rather the opposite.

In recent weeks, France became the latest country to announce airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. French President François Hollande had long hesitated striking IS in Syria for fear the attacks would bolster Bashar Assad, the jihadists’ main enemy. “Nothing should be done to consolidate or keep Assad in power in Syria”, he said.

When France decided in favour of airstrikes they failed to realise that this may lead to precisely what Hollande feared. Even where airstrikes give Western-backed rebels an occasional advantage against the jihadists and a few tactical benefits, these benefits are quickly undone by the advantage IS gains in terms of manipulation.

Most Syrians perceive airstrikes against IS as aiding the Syrian regime. From their perspective, it looks like the West is attacking IS but not doing anything against the regime, who is responsible for most of the civilian casualties in this war. For locals on the ground it appears as though Europeans are solely concerned with their own security and potential IS attacks in Europe, while ignoring the fate of Syrians trapped in the war. This is a perfect propaganda tool for the Islamic State.

What Western politicians often fail to recognise is that IS is the product of a long and radicalised war. Syrians started fleeing the country long before IS came into play. And IS’s rise to its current size and importance in Syria was only possible thanks to the regime’s actions. The Syrian refugee crisis is a result of Bashar Assad’s war against his own population.

Citing self-defence to justify airstrikes against IS, as Hollande did, is illusory. Let’s remember: the IS-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe were committed by Europeans. The war in Syria attracts and inspires these western Islamists, but ultimately they are children of the West.

The focus on IS is therefore short-sighted. It is impossible to beat IS without tackling the foundation on which it builds its success. The priority must instead be on ending the war in Syria.

Yet today we are faced with a situation where none of the conflicting parties have any interest in negotiations. The rebel groups and their sponsors, the gulf monarchies and Turkey, have noted that the regime keeps loosing territory. They hope that it will eventually crumble under military pressure. In turn, the Assad regime has felt pressure from the West diminish since the rise of IS. The regime benefits from Russia and Iran’s increased support and believes its days are not yet numbered.

What the West needs to do is convince both camps that there is no military solution to this conflict. But before negotiations start, it needs to send out strong signals that it does not tolerate the regime’s strikes against civilians. Several options are on the table.

Some are calling for a no-fly zone. This is a radical measure and difficult to implement without the consent of the UN Security Council. Clearly Russia would veto it. Some kind of timely retaliatory measures against planes bombing civilian areas would be easier. This is not a declaration of war against the regime, but an important measure to make the regime pay for its attacks on civilians. Every time Assad’s army bombs civilian targets, an attack against a Syrian airbase could follow in retaliation. With a bit of determination, this is possible.

Only then can negotiations start. No side will agree to negotiate if it fears a total defeat, or is certain of victory.

This time, talks have to include all stakeholders in the conflict, including Russia and Iran. In the past, the West shut Tehran out of the Geneva I talks in June 2012 and Geneva II in January 2014, fearing that Tehran’s participation would reduce western pressure in negotiations for a nuclear agreement with Iran. But Iran is part of the problem and must be part of the solution. Now that the nuclear deal is done, the way for Iran’s inclusion is clear.

All countries involved in the war as the conflicting parties’ auxiliaries must realise that there is no military end to the Syrian conflict. Russia’s decision to expand its military presence in Syria is dangerous but could also become part of a solution. One does not achieve peace without security guarantees for all parties. The Russian forces could be that guarantee for the majority Alawite regions.

Finally, regarding the refugees, the West should significantly increase aid for Syria’s neighbours which are home to over 3.7 million displaced Syrians. It’s a miracle that they have so far not collapsed under this burden. Let’s help Lebanon and Jordan strengthen their institutions before they crumble. Let’s give them – and others bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis, like Turkey – the money and technical assistance they need to prepare their refugee camps for the winter. Let’s put all our diplomatic weight behind the UN’s efforts for a mediated solution in Syria. And let’s not wait for things to become even worse.