US-Syrian Negotiations: Implications for Iran
By Kayhan Barzegar, university professor and international affairs analyst comments
As regards, the United States’ intention in the region, despite the existing pessimistic views in Iran and other parts of the world which doubt on the U.S. policy of change , I believe that Obama is intent on moving through a new phase of diplomatic approach toward the rival countries like Iran and Syria in the Middle East region.
Middle East is the ground in which President Obama has decided to test his new policy of change . Obama’s newstance on the Arab-Israeli peace process, his new approach toward Iran and Afghanistan, are the first signs of change in the U.S. policy.. As several times expressed by Obama, he is seeking the ways to sit down at the table and negotiate with Iran.
Approaching Syria is a part of Obama’s new policy to change U.S. Middle East policy. . The United States’ determination to finalize the Arab-Israeli peace deal requires serious engagement with Syria. Many political observers in America believe that the US-Syria reconciliation is somehow connected to the US-Iranian relations, and the U.S. new administration’s attempt to press Iran for accepting the U.S conditions in the region.
They believe that if the United States could manage to separate Syria from Iran and engage this country in direct talks and independently , then Iran will be isolated and excluded from the peace talks, consequently Iran will lose its main levers of power in the region. Syria’s separation from Iran is therefore a favorite outcome for the United States.
By persuading Syria to distance from Iran and cooperate with the United States, the U.S. position will be stronger in the Arab-Israeli peace process. . Syria is likely to benefit from such a reconciliation. But , in my view it is unlikely that Syria would follow a policy of losing its strategic relations with Iran only for the sake of starting negotiations with America or Israel. The issue is more complicated, because Syria also needs Iran’s friendship for bargaining in its relations with America and Israel, not only for the peace process but for its future political-security position in the region. . For this reason, and at least for now, a split between Iran and Syria is unlikely since they have common interests and the same adversaries like the Nuited States and Israel. There is an unwritten strategic coalition between the rival countries of the United States in the region.
In the case of Russia for instance the United States was not successful in convincing the Russians to move away from Iran. Despite the all bonuses the Americans have offered Russia during President Obama’s recent visit of the country,, the Russians preferred to maintain their close relations with Iran. Russia sees Iran a regional power, full of strategic advantages, which for the years to come Russia could play with in order to balance its relations with the U.S.
Back to Syria, during recent years, Iran has been a source of strategic, financial, and logistical supports for Syria . It is unlikely therefore that the Syrians would want to lose this great and irreplaceable source of supports for the sake of getting unpredictable results from their negotiations with the U.S. or Israel. On another development, the Europeans have also been active in the Levant issues recently. They have tried to approach the Lebanese and Palestinian influential actors. Some meetings have been taken place between the Europeans and Hezbollah representatives. It seems that the EU wants to actively integrate the resistance movements like Hezbollah into political phase. The EU has come to the belief that Hezbollah is a political-security reality in Lebanon and its role and presence can not be easily eliminated.
Syria’s role could be analyzed within this framework. The European Union is aware of Syria’s influence on Hezbollah when it negotiates with this group. If Syria is given a chance to cooperate, things would go on better. Talks on engaging with Syria are serious in the European diplomatic circle. They believe that all actors, including Iran should be engaged in the peace process.
But let’s not forget that Iran’s role in the Arab world is not favored by the traditional Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But the European Union is aware of Iran’s influence on Hezbollah and therefore has decided to get all the parties involved in Middle East affairs.
On Iran’s nuclear program, naturally Syria and France do not share the same views. The French FM Bernard Kouchner pointed out that Iran’s nuclear policy causes problems in the Franco-Syrian ties. But, Syria has always defended Iran’s nuclear program. Because it is well aware that a strong Iran with more bargaining power will benefit the Syria position in the region, it is not that Iran’s nuclear program itself will have advantages for Syria, but the fact of the matter is that support for Iran’s nuclear program reinforces bilateral strategic ties, subsequently strengthen their coalition against any foreign threats. For Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, staying in close friendship with Iran is necessary for tackling the threats posed by Israel and the U.S. In other words, they all want Iran to remain strong for the sake of balancing their position in the power politics and regional issues.
Middle East is the ground in which President Obama has decided to test his new policy of change . Obama’s newstance on the Arab-Israeli peace process, his new approach toward Iran and Afghanistan, are the first signs of change in the U.S. policy.. As several times expressed by Obama, he is seeking the ways to sit down at the table and negotiate with Iran.
Approaching Syria is a part of Obama’s new policy to change U.S. Middle East policy. . The United States’ determination to finalize the Arab-Israeli peace deal requires serious engagement with Syria. Many political observers in America believe that the US-Syria reconciliation is somehow connected to the US-Iranian relations, and the U.S. new administration’s attempt to press Iran for accepting the U.S conditions in the region.
They believe that if the United States could manage to separate Syria from Iran and engage this country in direct talks and independently , then Iran will be isolated and excluded from the peace talks, consequently Iran will lose its main levers of power in the region. Syria’s separation from Iran is therefore a favorite outcome for the United States.
By persuading Syria to distance from Iran and cooperate with the United States, the U.S. position will be stronger in the Arab-Israeli peace process. . Syria is likely to benefit from such a reconciliation. But , in my view it is unlikely that Syria would follow a policy of losing its strategic relations with Iran only for the sake of starting negotiations with America or Israel. The issue is more complicated, because Syria also needs Iran’s friendship for bargaining in its relations with America and Israel, not only for the peace process but for its future political-security position in the region. . For this reason, and at least for now, a split between Iran and Syria is unlikely since they have common interests and the same adversaries like the Nuited States and Israel. There is an unwritten strategic coalition between the rival countries of the United States in the region.
In the case of Russia for instance the United States was not successful in convincing the Russians to move away from Iran. Despite the all bonuses the Americans have offered Russia during President Obama’s recent visit of the country,, the Russians preferred to maintain their close relations with Iran. Russia sees Iran a regional power, full of strategic advantages, which for the years to come Russia could play with in order to balance its relations with the U.S.
Back to Syria, during recent years, Iran has been a source of strategic, financial, and logistical supports for Syria . It is unlikely therefore that the Syrians would want to lose this great and irreplaceable source of supports for the sake of getting unpredictable results from their negotiations with the U.S. or Israel. On another development, the Europeans have also been active in the Levant issues recently. They have tried to approach the Lebanese and Palestinian influential actors. Some meetings have been taken place between the Europeans and Hezbollah representatives. It seems that the EU wants to actively integrate the resistance movements like Hezbollah into political phase. The EU has come to the belief that Hezbollah is a political-security reality in Lebanon and its role and presence can not be easily eliminated.
Syria’s role could be analyzed within this framework. The European Union is aware of Syria’s influence on Hezbollah when it negotiates with this group. If Syria is given a chance to cooperate, things would go on better. Talks on engaging with Syria are serious in the European diplomatic circle. They believe that all actors, including Iran should be engaged in the peace process.
But let’s not forget that Iran’s role in the Arab world is not favored by the traditional Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But the European Union is aware of Iran’s influence on Hezbollah and therefore has decided to get all the parties involved in Middle East affairs.
On Iran’s nuclear program, naturally Syria and France do not share the same views. The French FM Bernard Kouchner pointed out that Iran’s nuclear policy causes problems in the Franco-Syrian ties. But, Syria has always defended Iran’s nuclear program. Because it is well aware that a strong Iran with more bargaining power will benefit the Syria position in the region, it is not that Iran’s nuclear program itself will have advantages for Syria, but the fact of the matter is that support for Iran’s nuclear program reinforces bilateral strategic ties, subsequently strengthen their coalition against any foreign threats. For Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, staying in close friendship with Iran is necessary for tackling the threats posed by Israel and the U.S. In other words, they all want Iran to remain strong for the sake of balancing their position in the power politics and regional issues.