The Race for Iran

To follow up on our post from yesterday, “Syria’s Increasingly Strategic Partnership With the Islamic Republic: Diplomacy in the Post-Iraq/Post-Peace Process Middle East”, we wanted to bring to our readers’ attention an interesting Op Ed from Gulf News, by Sami Moubayed, the “Tripartite Alliance Stands Firm”.  Sami is, among other things, the editor of Forward Magazine an English-language magazine published in Syria.  He is a sharp political analyst and is well-connected with the Syrian leadership, including President Bashar al-Assad.  

The “Tripartite Alliance Stands Firm”, opens by noting the rather alarmist commentary in the West about the recent “resistance” summit in Damascus, involving President Assad, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.  (HAMAS’s Khalid Mishal also met with Ahmadinejad while the Iranian President was in Damascus.)  Sami also notes a tone of perplexity in Western commentary on these meetings, which came on the heels of a visit to Damascus by U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and Washington’s announcement that it would be posting a U.S. ambassador to Syria for the first time in five years. 

Sami insightfully explains Bashar al-Assad’s approach to foreign affairs as an adroit exercise in what, from a European historical perspective, could well be described as “classical diplomacy”, based on a nuanced reading of the regional and global balance of power and a flexible approach to individual bilateral relationships.  He also relates the “resistance” summit to the question of a possible war in the region later this year, a question that we took up a few days ago. 

“Syria wants to keep all doors to Damascus open, much like it did in the 1990s, when Syria enjoyed excellent relations with the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and both HAMAS and Hezbollah.  Many in the West claim this is no longer possible, echoing words spoken by George W. Bush after 9/11, when he said:  ‘Either you are with us or with the terrorists.’  Syria thinks otherwise, however, arguing that Syrian-Iranian relations are in the best interest of the international community, and should be seen as a blessing in disguise for the United States. 

“King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia shares this view, believing that Syria can indeed walk the tightrope between the so-called moderate and radical camps in the Middle East, helping influence and moderate the behavior of HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Iran.  Syria has repeatedly used its influence with these players in meetings like the ones that just took place in Damascus (which perhaps were not as high profile) to get HAMAS to accept the Arab Peace Initiative, for example, or to get Hezbollah more involved in the political process in Lebanon.  In Iran, Syria used its influence to free 17 British sailors captured in 2007, as well as a French prisoner in the summer of 2009.  Syria, after all, doesn’t have a history of anti-Americanism, and has proven since 1990 that it is a credible peace partner, with whom the West can do business. 

“The Damascus Summit…is a reminder of how helpful Syria can be [to the United States and others] in dealing with these non-state players.  Nevertheless, it sends another strong message:  Think twice before waging another war on Lebanon, because neither Syria nor Iran will allow it.  Rather than escalate the conflict, the tripartite meeting in Damascus actually force Israel to recalculate, thereby minimizing the chances of war next summer.  The leaders assembled in Damascus are clearly very confident in their abilities, and feel that neither Israel nor the US can deal with them as they have in the past.  Much has changed since Obama came to power in 2009, but much remains the same, given that the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah alliance has outlived five US administrations since that of Ronald Reagan, and will likely outlive the Obama administration as well.  Persuading the US to pressure Israel into seeking peace is high on Syria’s agenda, and this explains the recent Damascus Summit.” 

Along the lines of Sami’s analysis, in our meeting with President Assad in Damascus two weeks ago, the Syrian leader underscored that his ties to Iran and to resistance groups like HAMAS and Hizballah should be seen by the United States as an asset—as something that could help open doors that would otherwise remain shut.  It was at a press conference in Damascus in 2006, after all, that Khalid Mishal began talking publicly about the 1967 lines as a potential basis for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict; during 2009, Mishal spoke openly about the prospect of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  (Indeed, in our first meeting with Mishal last summer, he pointed out that HAMAS has offered Israel “a two-state solution on the 1967 lines”, and noted that “no Arab state has gone farther than that”.)   

President Assad presents himself as someone focused on solving problems.  He is clearly thinking in comprehensive terms about the Middle East’s core conflicts—as we discussed in our post yesterday, he believes a comprehensive settlement of the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict is necessary, and that such a settlement will necessarily involve groups like HAMAS and Hizballah.  He also says that the challenge of U.S.-Iranian relations is, in some ways, a relatively simple problem, but could become the region’s “worst” problem if it is not solved.  In our view, President Assad is likely to be an important player in “the race for Iran”, and in Middle Eastern diplomacy more generally, for many years to come.       

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett