1. Published: 25/10/2016 01:28 PM
Call it crazy, call it perplexing. The recent failed attempts for a US-Russian ceasefire deal, in regards to Aleppo, can potentially exemplify the subtle skirmish between Russia and Iran.
The latest proposed (US-Russian) ceasefire provides an intriguing element in its failure to consider Iran’s strength on the ground. Rather, the ceasefire mainly focused on how the US and
Russia could cooperate to arrive at a peace deal beneficial for both countries. Ultimately, failure to consider Iran’s role in the conflict — combined with Russia’s uncertain ability to control
Iranian-backed militias and Assad’s army’s behavior in the long term — could spell the failure of future pacts. Both these militias and the Syrian army have ignored Moscow’s demands
that they restrain their attacks, and Assad even stated on the Eid al-Adha holiday that his army was “determined to recover every area from the terrorists regardless of any internal or
external circumstances.” Funny enough, it is important not to forget that early this year, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, warned Assad against just such a stance. Churkin
stressed in an interview with Russian newspaper Kommersant that “Russia invested seriously in this crisis politically and diplomatically and that if [they] are knocked off that path (of a
diplomatic resolution), then a difficult situation could arise and the conflict will carry on for a long time.” In that interview, the diplomat also highlighted the Syrian regime’s weaknesses on
the ground, suggesting that it was only thanks to the Russian Air Force that the regime was able to push its opponents back from Damascus. In one sense, this Russian message may be
understood as directed not only at Assad, but Iran as well (letting them know who the “real force” on the ground is). With that being said, Iran has invested heavily in a military solution to
the Syrian crisis, to the extent that negotiating a peaceful settlement that favors every side might seem an unthinkable option to the Iranian government. And to a certain extent, one can
understand their perspective: why should they comply with an externally imposed solution while they have a strong foothold on the ground? Why should they restrain their expansionism if
the international community is silent and turns a blind eye to their actions? The reality of this perspective was confirmed by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was quoted as saying
to Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar that “There is no prospect for a political solution; the final words will remain on the battlefield.”
Without indulging in conspiracy theories, let us also briefly consider the goal of the US-Russian alliance in Syria, and its importance to Iran. In September 2016, The Daily Beast broke a
story of the US being potentially warned of an attack against a UN aid convoy and Syrian Civil Defense (also known as the ‘White Helmets’) facilities. The article uncovered the possibility
that Michael Ratney, the US special envoy to Syria, had received information beforehand about the imminent massacre. This story (and previous ones) highlights the possibility that the
US and Russia have either collaborated, are collaborating or want to collaborate with each other in Syria under the proposed Joint Implementation Group (JIC). And indeed, such a
coalition might be exactly what Iran fears. Former Iranian Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi stated that there is “currently an arrangement between the Americans and the Russians,”
and also expressed the fear that the alliance might pull the Russians towards a deal that favored the US rather than Iran. The Iranian ex-general also expressed fears about Russia
disregarding the interests of Iran, deeming the current world of politics “not trustworthy.”
Iranian distress over (possible) growing cooperation between Washington and Moscow could also be attributed to the failing of a direct cooperation between Iran and Russia and their
growing desire for distinct solutions to the problem. To take a concrete example of a failed joint plan between the two nations, consider the use of the Iranian Hamedan Airbase by
Russian air forces. News of the use of this airbase by Russian forces was heralded by experts and commentators from the “Resistance Axis” as a game changer and a “new phase” in
terms of combatting terrorism in Syria. Strangely enough, only a few days later the whole strategic pact between the two countries fell apart, under curious circumstances. Iran’s defense
minister, Hossein Deghan, accused his Russian counterparts of “showing off” their military power as they announced the operation before Iran, causing the agreement to be broken
almost as soon as it was publicized. Deghan even suggested that the Russian announcement was meant to be used as “leverage” against the US at the negotiation table, to “secure
Russia’s influence” in Syria. Hours later, Tehran confirmed that Russian troops were no longer stationed in Iran, nor did Russia have access to the Hamedan Airbase. Iran’s behavior
during this incident can be summed up as, “Help us achieve our goals and target, but do not overstep your mark and harm our ego pretending you are the big fish in this alliance.” If
nothing else, the whole debacle certainly made clear the utter lack of coordination between the two regimes.
The Syrian conflict has been by far the most complex conflict thus far in the 21th century, in terms of reality, our understanding of where everyone stands and our grasp of the interests of
foreign states. The agenda of foreign states in Syria is undeniably related to ongoing events on the ground; this conflict is rapidly becoming a race between every party involved, rather
than a mere civil war. If Russia deals carefully with the various sides of the conflict, it could give them a get-out-of-jail-free card on the international stage, even if the final outcome of the
conflict proves unfavorable. Seeking a quick deal with the US before a new presidential administration enters office and before Iranian hegemony becomes too sturdy could seem like a
logical approach. Although the Russians are currently leading negotiations on the world stage, if Iran’s power on the ground grows too great, political manoeuvering may not manner
anymore. It is also certainly possible that Iran will not choose to open itself to Russia the same way the Assad regime did. We can also draw a meaningful parallel to the Iraq War; there,
Iran benefited from the early American invasion to topple an enemy, Saddam Hussein, but then used every means necessarily to hasten an American exist and establish control over
Baghdad. The same Iranian strategy could soon be employed to resolve the Syrian conflict. Both countries are fighting on the same side today, and both continue to use each other to
help achieve their respective objectives. But tomorrow makes no guarantees. The end of this demoralizing conflict will, one way or the other, change the course of the history of the Middle
East. As for now, Russia is very quickly learning the Middle Eastern way of doing politics, while Iran is practicing a very old Middle Eastern philosophy: live by the sword or die by the
sword.
You can follow the author on Twitter @abmawlawi
Is Russian diplomacy on Syria bothering Iran?
now.mmedia.me