Dr Mohammed Al Sulami
Iranian politics is sometimes characterised by obvious duplicity in dealing with regional and international events.
The political changes that have swept the Arab region since the end of 2010, or what is known as the Arab Spring, clearly illustrate this. The Iranian position on this issue was uncertain, with Tehran supporting some of the political changes and welcoming them, but once the wave hit its Syrian ally, its stand changed.
To ensure that it achieved its strategic objectives in the region and to protect its supporters in the Arab world, Tehran defended Bashar Al Assad’s regime tooth and nail and has worked in various ways to convince Western countries of its key role in the Middle East.
In this regard, the Syrian crisis represents the position of Iran, which is a clear example of its duplicity. I do not call it pragmatism because Iran’s stance towards events in Syria, the reasons behind it, and those who support it have changed in accordance with the geopolitical, ideological and political interests involved.
Iran’s position on Arab revolutions
When the so-called Arab Spring started and toppled regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, Iran welcomed these changes in the Arab world and spoke of “the people’s dignity.”
It also said that “The day will come when these countries will go on fire”. Of course, it meant the Gulf states.
Iran cited national dignity, social justice and freedom — all under the canopy of the Islamic religion — to support its stance.
Not only that, it said the changes amounted to an “Islamic awakening” similar to the changes that followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979, wherein Muslims demanded justice, freedom, democracy and human rights, all of which are part of the Islamic religion.
Syrian crisis and its causes
Iran’s position on the Arab revolutions began changing after the wave of revolutions reached Syria, an Iranian ally.
While it had welcomed the changes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, on Syria it voiced doubt and spoke of a “conspiracy”.
Iran made a distinction between events in the rest of the Arab region and developments in Syria, which raised questions about its principled position on the Arab revolutions.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed that the situation in Syria was different from that in the rest of the Arab countries. Those nations had revolted against America and Zionism, but in Syria, where the American and Zionist stands were obvious, one shouldn’t make the mistake of using the same standards. The revolution in Syria was suspicious because its slogans were in the interest of America and Israel, he said.
Syria after November 2013 agreement
After November 2013, an initial agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations on the Iranian nuclear issue changed Tehran’s views on the situation in Syria.
Tehran shifted the blame from “the forces of global arrogance” and “US-Zionist” plots to “international terrorism”, which corresponded well with the concerns of the great powers, particularly the United States.
Iran has focused on the threat from terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq, and alleged that this terrorism is supported by regional states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, with the first being emphasised as the most prominent supporter.
In other words, Sunni insurgent groups were accused of terrorism with no distinction being made between Islamic State, Al Nusra Front, the Free Syrian Army, the tribal forces, the Baathists of Iraq and other armed groups in Syria and Iraq, in line with the Iranian goal of keeping the Assad regime in power and a government in Iraq under its influence.
Iran no longer focuses on the US-Zionist project; instead it harps on about terrorism and terrorist groups, and charges countries in the region with supporting terrorism financially and militarily.
The bottom line
Iran classifies revolutions in the region as admired revolutions (in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and Bahrain), a Zionist-American plot (in Syria), and “sedition” supported from abroad (the Green Movement in Iran) to target the axis of resistance to Israel.
The change in Tehran’s stance after the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 in November 2013 did not affect Iran’s support for the Syrian regime; it merely replaced “forces of global arrogance” with “international terrorism” as the threat in Syria.
Iran’s new reading of the situation in Syria and it playing the “international terrorism” card has two motives. One goal is to change its anti-Western tone and avoid any tension that may affect the progress of negotiations on its nuclear programme. This will result in lifting of sanctions imposed on Iran, end its political isolation and revive its economy.
The other goal is to build a new partnership with the major powers under the pretext of fighting terror, by marketing the claim that the terrorism that is targeting Iran also targets the West, and it will reach Europe after eliminating the Shias in the region.
This claim is being repeated whenever Iran talks about the Houthi coup in Yemen, and the coup leader himself repeats it in his speeches in Yemeni areas such as Marib and the southern provinces.
The author is a columnist and political analyst specialising in Iranian affairs
