Stalemate in the Syrian Crisis
and its Impact on Iran’s Middle East Strategy
Ali Asghar Kazemi
June 20, 2015
________________________
The
Prolongation of the Syrian crisis that has so far caused
extended human and material loses to this country has also become an undesired
huge burden to Iran. Four years have elapsed since first signs of political manifestations
inspired from the “Arab Spring” appeared in this country.[1]
Not many people in the region, including Iran as the main Syrian ally, appeared
to believe that the events could cause so much damage and structural changes.
During this unfortunate crisis, Iran supported the Syrian incumbent government
with all financial and material means at hand while itself was under serious UN
and international economic sanctions.
The continuation of the crisis and gradual
weakening of Syria induced opposition groups on the one hand and opportunist terrorists
who where active in Iraq , Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, to enter into
the scene and the trend led to the creation of a self-proclaimed
“Islamic State” ISIS, in control of parts
of Iraq and Syria headed by a “Caliph.”
Observers
believe that the main causes of terrorist victory in the region were:
a)
Disparity and weakness
of the opposition groups unable to set and follow a consistent strategy for
toppling the Syrian regime;
b)
The prolongation of the
crisis due to foreign intervention and assistance to the Syrian government that could eventually collapse in the first
months of the crisis;
c)
Extended human loses and material damages that caused forced
repatriation of huge numbers of Syrian people;
d)
Extensive and unnecessary use of lethal and illegal
weapons for the purposes containing political discontents and demonstrations;
e)
Unrestricted support of
a dying regime that had become a huge liability for Iran’s Middle East
strategy.
In
fact, Iranian decision makers did not realize that Bashar al Assad as a
contested head of Arab state could no longer play his expected role for Iran’s
forward strategy in the new crisis-ridden Middle East. It is well to remember
that almost all Arab States wished Assad regime to collapse right from the
beginning.
The
prevailing deadlock at the present time makes it very difficult for Syrian
conventional allies including Iran and
Russia to continue their supports of Syria. Consequently the weakening of the
Assad regime could lead to one of the following destiny:
1)
Total collapse of the
regime in favor of the ISIS that could extend its power to the whole Syrian
territory;
2)
Protracted civil war
leading to the disintegration of Syria divided
into three or four region between Shia’ Alawites , Sunnis, Kurds and
Islamic State( Wahabis , Salafis and Takfiris) ;
3)
There could be another alternative
relating to the United Nation Security Council intervention for the purpose of
establishing law and order in Syria and putting the country provisionally under
the tutorship of the permanent members of the Security Council;
4)
The Security Council may
if necessary relegate its power and responsibility to protect in Syria to a
third party such as for instance the Arab League to assume security and
administrative tasks during a transitional period.
There
is no need to prove that none of the above outcomes could serve the strategic
interests of Iran in the region. Therefore it can be suggested that Iran would
be better off to avoid tension and stay away from Syrian affairs as soon as
possible before it be driven to a real quagmire that could jeopardize its
overall national interests.
Syrian
regime has lost legitimacy long ago and foreign intervention to rescue it from
collapse has only worsened the situation for its people and the international
community as a whole. Syria should have followed the fate of other North
African Arab states such as Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.
International
political analysts believe that it is most likely that upon the conclusion of
an eventual nuclear deal between Iran
and the 5+1 powers , the United States and its allies would probably move on to other outstanding items on their agenda including the Syrian crisis and destabilizing
groups backed by the Islamic regime. This would mean that sooner or later the
fate of Syria will be determined once for all. In that case Iran would be the
main looser in the game and will be forced to adjust its strategy to the
conditions imposed upon it.
In view
of Middle East experts, loosing Syria may be an onerous defeat for Iran’s
ambitious strategy in the region since it would prevent its footings and logistic
lines of support to Hezbollah and Hamas; but, in the final account that might
prevent an eventual serious clash between Iran and its main rival regional powers
namely Saudi Arabia.
Saudi
Arabia has clearly shown its resolve to tackle with foreign encroachment in its
security perimeter. The case of Yemen crisis proved that it has very high
propensity to directly engage into a regional war where its strategic interests
are at peril. Therefore, Iran should be cautious
in achieving its regional ambitions in the Middle East and avoid any tension
that could escalate to a full-fledged crisis situation. /
[1] Some analysts claim that the Syrian civil war began in 1980 when a group of Muslim Brothers stormed the military academy in Aleppo and, after separating the Alawite and Sunni cadets, cold-bloodedly killed the Alawites with knives and assault rifles. The regime retaliated in 1982 by brutally killing more than 20,000 Muslim Brothers in Homs and Hama – See: Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, Stalemate in the Syrian Civil War April 14, 2013
http://jcpa.org/article/stalemate-in-the-syrian-civil-war/
* Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and -International Relations in Tehran-Iran. Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts of this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and the Middle East Academic Forum. ©All Copy Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment