Skip to main content

Oh but Iran is not going anywhere



     Donald Trump’s agenda was - surprisingly – clear when he met with Vladimir Putin during the July 16 summit in Helsinki. Trump’s wish-list included maintaining the gains made against the Islamic State, constraining Iranian influence in Syria, and gradually pulling out all military presence from the country. It does not really matter who stays in power, as long as the Islamic State in the eastern part of the country has been defeated, and Iran’s influence in Damascus is reined by Russia. It is a question of time before Assad gains control over the entire country – eastern side in particular – and the Syrian Democratic Forces will no longer be recognised as the authority on the ground, including by its US patron. What is left for the US to save face is to appear to have minimised Iran's role in Syria.

The Trump administration clearly wants to kick Iran out of Syria. Russia is neither crazy about Iranian growing influence and power in Syria.  A compromise can be reached between the two world powers…but what about Syria and Iran? Would they agree to such a deal? And would Russia have a change of heart and keep a winning (yet problematic) card at hand?

The Trump administration rightly seeks to limit Iranian influence in Syria, but it would do well to recognise that neither the United States nor Russia can force a complete Iranian withdrawal. At the summit, both leaders agreed that they would ‘do certain things with Syria’ that would contribute to ensuring the safety of Israel. It is quite clear what these ‘things’ are:  containing Iran’s influence in Syria (in exchange for downsizing US military presence).

Interestingly, the issue is no longer the Assad regime, the role of rebels, or the safety and well-being of Syria. With Russia still supporting the Assad regime, the US backing rebels in the east, and Syrians still under fire and siege, everyone somehow agreed that the safety of Israel and curbing Iran’s influence in the region would suffice as goals.

The tragedy is that it does not really matter at all whether such an agreement holds. At the end of the day, Iran’s multiple proxies in the entire Middle East and its ability to shape policies are not limited to its current role in the Assad regime. More importantly, there is no guarantee that Russia would respect its side or the agreement, or that Damascus and Tehran would follow through. In the past, Iran and the regime have brushed aside Russian efforts to reshape the political and diplomatic landscape in Syria—most notably in dismissing Russian’s call for all foreign forces to leave the country. Iran and Syria have cooperated since the 1980s amidst the Iran-Iraq war, and their ‘friendship’ has only grown stronger, forged by common goals, ideologies, geopolitical perspectives, and economic interests. 

To assume that Iran would pack and leave because Russia told it so would be both innocent, and slightly stupid. Now that Assad has reasserted control over the country, made the US fight a successful war against ISIS for him, and strengthened the country's alliance with Iran and Russia, it would be impossible to consider relinquishing such leverage in the name of peace. The Trump administration might be tricked into believing the Russian rhetoric...but oh does Israel really know better.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and ...
3 comments
Read more

Kaftar

Muaawiya Bin Abi Sufyan was the first Umayyad Caliph, who ruled as a just and jovial leader until his death in 683 AD. Known for his sense of humour and his love for women, Abi Sufyan was famous for a story that took place in his own harem. While escorting a woman for the Khorasan region in modern day Iran, a beautiful woman entered the harem and mesmerised the Leader of All Believers. With his pride in his manhood and prowess in the bed arena, Abi Sufyan did not hesitate to engage in a brazen and manly sexual act in front of the Khorasani woman, who was patiently waiting for her turn. After he was done, he turned victoriously to his first concubine and asked her how to say ‘lion' in Persian - in a direct analogy to his sexual performance.  The Khorasani woman, unamused, told him slyly, that lion is kaftar in Persian. The Caliph went back to his Court ever so jubilant and told his subjects – repeatedly – that he was one lucky kaftar. His...
2 comments
Read more

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate be...
Post a Comment
Read more