1. Iranian/ American compatibility on the fate of the
Syrian revolution
The Syrian crisis now, shows that the world is establishing a new bipolarity,
comprising the United States, on the one hand and Russia and China bloc and
Iran on the other hand, after sparring that took place in the Security Council on
the issue of Syria, which ended in favor of Russian / Chinese veto, booster to
their ally Syria, but what does this have to do with the problematic topic of our
research: the Iranian nuclear issue and US relationship?
The answer lies in that the Russian-Chinese veto was in the service of Iran's
Shiite Crescent regional project leader, a strategic dimension to its interests in
the Middle East, which Russia counts as an area of vital catalysts to them, such
as the Russian military base stationed in Syrian Banyas, which is hold a vital
security position.
Furthermore Iran would create problems for Russia if they did not help their ally
(the Syrian regime) in his problem with the Security Council.
These arrangements designed Russian-Chinese pole allies, leaded by Iran, lord of
Shiite Crescent, what their officers told in clear that pro-Iranian entities in the
Arabic region obeyed them order, such a statement is a declaration of the
exclusivity of this vital area to Iran, who prevents interference, and arranged
through this Declaration the Office dealing with allies and adversaries, thus Iran
occurs interests and make concessions, and that's what happened in the Security
Council on the issue of abuses of the Syrian regime's Security Division against
The public revolution, which erupted in the midst of the Arab spring 2011.
The dealing relationship between this Poles is transitive, America waives for
Russia and China regarding the Syrian issue for Iranian interests bellowed to the
Russian-Chinese Alliance, and this was confirmed by the 26.04.2012's Obama's
statement when he promised to Russia a security concessions, if he’ll be re-
elected
This statement also was suspicious, at the height of the Syrian revolution and
when 10-05-2012 Damascus bombings attributed by the Syrian regime to Al-
Qaeda, authorized State spokeswoman Victoria Noland confirmed that Al-Qaeda
is active in Syria, supporting the already US. Defense Secretary view about the
same issue
sure, the other party also will benefit from this understanding, in accordance with
its own strategy in the Middle East region, the United States expressed
agreement or complacency before the Syrian issue, because its strategy in the
region requires not the downfall of Assad, fearing the arrival of the forces
opposing Israel in the region, and therefore the United States Rhetorically

2. manifests its support for the Syrian revolution, and deals in the same time a
procedural work to facilitate the task of Russia in support of Assad.
And may begin the vision clear after US and West contradictions when Jeffrey
Feltman says in the same day that “the United States would adjust the strategic
concepts, commensurate with Arab spring”, and he said: “any failure of
transitional stages will lead to the destabilization of the region”.
It may settle the confusion after the Hula massacre (committed at the end of
May 2012, which exceeded their victims a hundred of dead), amid compatibility
between America and Russia over the fate of the conflict in Syria as the following
press report:
The New York Times said the administration of President Barack Obama is
seeking to persuade Russia to resolve the Syrian crisis basing on the experience
of Yemen where President Ali Abdullah Saleh resigned, but government
personnel remained in power.
Quoting officials had cited that plan calls for a political settlement could satisfy
the Syrian opposition teams, but may keep items from the Government of
President Bashar Al-Assad their positions, noting that the plan depends on the
approval of Russia after its opposition to offset Assad.
A US official said that the United States is ready to reassure Russia that it would
continue to maintain close relations with Syria after Assad, adding, “We know
that Russia wants to keep its influence on Syria, our goal is to make the situation
stable and not eliminate the Russian effect.
However, officials said that although Obama did not reject Medvedev's proposal
on the adoption of the Yemeni solution, but did not approve it.
They said that even if Putin agreed the US plan, may have disagreement about
the definition of the Yemeni model and how it is implemented.
And we will understand this setback reference in US dealing with the merits of
the Syrian crisis, which is contrary to its position in the crisis in the similar Libyan
one, through its strategy with the Syrian regime forces contain, Iran and Russia.
The United States, and at the height of its support for Saddam Hussein in his war
against Iran, noted the President Ronald Reagan's involvement in the Iran gate
scandal, which revealed the involvement of American arms sales to Iran, if the
water gate scandal led to the resignation of Nixon, Reagan as a head of Iran gate
remained, so that the foreign policy for Americans do not affect American citizens
mainly affecting internal conditions associated with living style.
on the other side America has got support Iran in invading Afghanistan and Iraq,
in accordance with arrangements concluded with Iraq delivered to Iran and break

3. the Taliban opposed to Iran, despite significant animosity between the two
countries.
And the secret of this understanding, despite the absence of Iranian American
friendliness between them, are arrangements of convenience for all parties, and
that:
• international actors: like the Syrian people, Taliban and Saddam's former
regime have a global strategy over the issue of Jerusalem and Palestine in
General, (radical demand and extraterritorial, viewed as defiant toward the West
which is in support of Israel) while Iran has a regional agenda over the Middle
East, and not to controlling Central Asia, although it is a natural geostrategic
prolongation of Iran, witnessing Shiite Azerbaijan's problems with them, let
alone considered Central Asia the area of influence for Russia supporting Iran,
and this is the matter of the deal between both of them
As America fights all its international interests threatening actors in the Middle
East and on top of that Israeli security interests and Arab oil, they prefer to face
owners of endangered agendas against its interests on the one hand, and dealing
understandings with those are away from threat to its strategic interests in the
region, and although they have some economic and ideological territorial
ambitions.