Syria pulls some strings in Iran

Wise diplomacy makes some strange bedfellows. Such is the price of effectiveness. Bush was more interested in looking tough to the American voter than being effective diplomatically. Obama means what he says that he intents to do what he thinks is best for the American people. Of course, the truth is, he too is concerned about 2012.

Asia Times Online.

Appearing in court on Saturday, a tearful Afshar admitted she had been involved in post-election unrest, saying that "brothers at the Intelligence Ministry made me understand my mistake", the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The decision to arrest Afshar would have needed the approval of either Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khemanei; only top officials can order such an arrest, given Iran's troubled relationship with Europe.

The decision to release her, however, would have needed the consent of Khemanei as it involved overriding the judiciary that had her on trial. The fact that Syria was a go-between is testimony to the excellent relations Damascus enjoys with the supreme leader.

Syria has played a similar role in mediating conflicts with Iran. In 2007, it helped secure the release of 15 British sailors abducted in Iranian waters - mainly because it had the ear of the grand ayatollah. It also helped win the freedom in 2007 of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, who was being held captive in Gaza by an Islamic group close to Hamas.

During the long years of the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), Syria helped secure the release of American hostages, notably the president of the American University of Beirut, David Dodge, after he had been abducted by militias linked to Tehran.

The latest release comes as part of a long list of initiatives made by Damascus. Long accused of being a source of instability in the region, Syria has proved yet again that countries that can destabilize can also play a crucial role in stability.

This week's developments raise the possibility that Iran and Syria are sending a message to the world by showing how they have the ability to coordinate their efforts to diminish Western influence in the Muslim world.

Beyond that, what matters is how influential Syria is not only within Iran but also with non-state players like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. It illustrates that US President Barack Obama - who never embraced the notion of breaking the Syrian-Iranian alliance - was right after all.

The US president does not see the merit in trying to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran; rather, he sees the Syrian-Iranian friendship as a blessing in disguise. He clearly believes the Syrians are a people with whom he can do business, especially as they do not have a history of anti-Amercanism, as the Iranians have had since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

Obama's predecessor, George W Bush, faced a difficult reality in 2006 when the Baker-Hamilton Report [1] was issued and it advised working with Syria and Iran to restore normalcy and security to war-torn Iraq. Bush then had a choice: either talk to Damascus, or talk to Tehran. Talking to both was too problematical.

Bush thus approved some contact with Syria, notably at the Sharm al-Sheikh summit in Egypt of 2007, when then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice met with her Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Mouallem. The Syrians at the time, however, reasoned that any meaningful breakthrough with Bush was close to impossible, so they kept all their cards close to their chests until Obama entered the White House in January.

Since then, there has been a chain effect of positive gestures between Syria and the US. Military delegations from US Central Command have twice visited the Syrian capital to discuss security in Iraq. Syria used its considerable influence in Baghdad to get angry Sunni tribal leaders to vote in provincial elections this January.

The Sunni street of Iraq - which Obama needs to get in order before the Americans are totally out of the country by 2012 - has traditionally been divided between Syria and Saudi Arabia. As long as these countries were in disagreement over Lebanon, progress in Iraq would be minimal, at best.

Now that the two have settled their differences over internal Lebanese affairs, the prospects of real results in Iraq are high. Syria has one advantage in Iraq, however, that the Saudis do not have - a strong influence in the Shi'ite street.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama drops 'global war on terror' for narrower focus (nationalpost.com)
• Did Hezbollah Kill Hariri? (windsofchange.net)
• The end of the ayatollahs? (guardian.co.uk)