• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
18.09.2012

SYRIAN CRISIS AND IRAN

EnglishРуский

   

Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan

At the end of August Iran stated that its armed forces were participating in the civil war in Syria. “We are involved in all kinds of combat actions [in Syria]”, stated general Salar Abnush – the commander of “Sahib al-Amr” unit of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution – at his meeting with the journalists. And several days later several Iranian media brought the words of the anonymous “high-ranking AGIR officer” who said that if “the US attacks Syria Tehran will act according to the mutual defence treaty (Iranian-Syrian) which was concluded with al-Assad in 2006”1.

It is clear that the fall of the Bashar al-Assad’s regime will weaken not only Iran’s regional influence, thus making it more vulnerable from abroad, but it will be a serious blow for the ruling Iranian regime. Especially if we take into consideration the fact that the next presidential elections will be held in less than one year (in June 2013) and the last elections had unprecedented negative impact on ruling Islamic regime in Iran. In this aspect it seems there is no other option for Tehran and, of course, it is more profitable to fight in Syria than on its own soil.

Round the military and political situation

At the beginning of September Turkish media spread rather interesting information that in the units of the Syrian rebels operating in the north of Syria – in the regions near the Turkish border – Turkish officers took a command. The information was published on September 3 after the visit of the CIA director David Petraeus2 to Ankara.

This information is important in the aspect that it demonstrates the dynamics of the Syrian crisis – the countries which tend to overthrow Bashar al-Assad took a decision to increase their involvement in the Syrian war which has to prove that in the near future the situation in Syria and round will aggravate even more3.

Approximately in the same period – in the second half of the summer – they began to speak actively about the chemical weapons of Syria. Both sides put it into circulation. Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its allies tried to demonstrate their military potential this way. But the western powers, putting the issue in circulation, tended to impose even more pressure on Al-Assad’s regime and demonstrate the whole world how dangerous it was as they spoke about the weapons of mass-distraction.

In September the issue has even developed. American sources wrote that al-Assad’s chemical arsenal was deployed in different parts of the country and western coalition needed to increase its participation in the Syrian war to destroy it, otherwise after the fall of Al-Assad the arsenal may appear in the hands of the Islamist terrorists.

Generally, connecting weapons of mass-destruction element with any international crisis proves how important it is for the global policy (North Korea, Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Kaddafi’s Libya, etc.). Bringing forward this element in the Syrian issue speaks about the expected aggravation of the situation.

The fact that the Syrian crisis has a direct impact on Iran has become obvious particularly over the recent weeks. Situation in Lebanon has been escalating gradually – encounters between Shiites and Sunnites took place. There was escalation of situation at the Lebanese-Israeli border too. It is known that Tehran influences “Hezbollah” movement and it has been for the first time since the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese war that the representatives of the movement began to speak about the possibility of military encounters with the Jewish state. On September 5 in his interview to “Al-Mayadin” TV Company the leader of “Hezbollah” Hasan Nasrala stated that if Iran was attacked by Israel, not only Jewish state but the American base stations in the region would be counterpunched4. Many took this statement by Nasrala as a demonstration of the leverages by Iran. In this aspect the visit of Mahmud a-Zahari – one of the leaders of ruling in Palestine “Hamas” movement” – to Tehran is remarkable (on September 9). It is remarkable that a delegation of the heads of the military units of “Hamas” led by deputy commander of the military units of the movement Marvan Isayi, also visited Tehran together with a-Zahari.

In mid September unprecedented maneuvers of the US and its allies started in the Persian Gulf. On the US side three aircraft carrier groups were involved. It was stated that the main goal of the naval exercises was to prevent blockade of Strait of Hormuz and provision of oil and gas production and transportation in the Persian Gulf.

It is known that Iran stated that in case of any military aggression the Iranian forces will close the Strait of Hormuz through which approximately 1/4 of the worlds transported oil passes every day. But this time international experts considered the maneuvers of the US and its allies is a message to Iran regarding the Syrian issue.

IAEA’s new statement

It is remarkable that alongside with intensification of tension round Syria and Iran, at the end of August International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came forward with new statement that Iran had considerably broadened the works on uranium enrichment, placing additional centrifuges at its nuclear objects. In particular, according to the Agency the number of the centrifuges at Fordo uranium enrichment plant has doubled – 1500 additional centrifuges has been installed (800 of them has been installed recently). According to the same source the amount of 20% enriched uranium over the three summer months reached from 145kg to 190kg.

Against the background of IAEA’s statement information that in August a celebrated physicist, the founder of the Iranian nuclear programme Mohsen Fahrizade returned to his work and that with this purpose authorities established a laboratory near Tehran stood out5.

On Prospects

Overwhelming majority of the experts is convinced that new developments in the region should be expected after the presidential elections in the US in November. Rather tense political infighting in the US forges Washington’s actions in the direction of Syria and Iran. It is not a secret that for Barak Obama whose rating does not differ much from the rating of Mitt Romney escalation and broadening of the regional processes which may bring to a new tension on the international level and affect global (including US) economy are not desirable. In this aspect the situation may be quite different after the elections.

1The American and European media also began speaking actively about the involvement of the Iranian military representatives in Syrian war in recent period. At the beginning of September The Times wrote with reference to its sources in the intelligence services that at the beginning of the month two special operations units of the AGIR – 300 soldiers – were sent to Syria through the territory of Iraq.

2It is remarkable that the CIA was headed by the commander of the US troops in Iraq and then in the whole Middle East General David Petraeus. Such an appointment shows the significance of the region for the global American strategy (if we take into consideration that the biggest military contingent which is deployed outside the US territory has been centered there). In this aspect Arab revolutions and considerations on reshaping of the Middle East, most probably, are not over yet.

3Let us mention that during the summer months European and American media spread information about the British, French and Qatari special operations forces’ activity in Syria. As for the information spread by the Turkish media from exclusively military point of view it can indicate an imminent invasion of the Turkish troops into Syria.

4In this regard remarkable information was published by The New York Times and The Washington Times in August-September. The first wrote that according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica Enrique Castillio Iran built a secret station for “Hezbollah” at the territory of neighboring Nicaragua with which Tehran established close political and economic relations. And in approximately ten day The Washington Times informed that at the US-Mexican border three Hezbollah militants were arrested.

5Let us remind you that Fahrizade was relieved in 2006 when there was a kind of melt down in the US-Iranian relations, and in December 2007 American intelligence made public a well-known report according to which in 2003 Iran closed its nuclear weapon programme. In this aspect Mohsen Fahrizade’s return may mean that Tehran has overlooked its nuclear programme in recent years.


Return
Another materials of author