Adonis Diaries

Iran and Syria:  A difficult 30 years alliance; (Apr. 20, 2010)

            Almost every day, news media analyze the alliance between Syria and Iran.  Since the Iranian nuclear program was launched, the western media and the so-called “moderate” Sunni Arab dictators and monarchs’ media would like to witness any kinds of rift in the alliance, sort of an illusion made to sound a reality anytime soon: they would also like to relieve Israel of a “psychological” nuisance that Islamic countries can also own nuclear capability if they set their mind to it. 

            Actually, there are no lack of brain power and money for Egypt, Syria, or Saudi Arabia to fulfill this project if the Arab League was up to its name.  The USA and Europe are actively working to destabilizing Iran and threatening harsher economical embargo so that Iran desist “manipulating” the dangerous products, even for civilian use such as hospital and generating electricity.  So far, Iran is within the boundaries of Atomic Energy Agency guidelines; that is why the UN is unable to threaten strong arm interventions.

            Syria’s Baath Party tried to re-unite with Iraq’s Baath branch and then have strategic alliance between the two States in 1979 but Saddam Hussein foiled the attempt of Syria Hafez Assad.  Iran of the Shah was the strongest ally to the US and Israel; Saddam Hussein went along with the Shah’s policies in partitioning the water passageway (Shat al Arab) and the Kurdistan problems.  When Khomeini revolution succeeded then Syria allied with the new Islamic regime and still is, even during the devastating 8 years war between Iraq and Iran.

            In the Near East (for example, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Syria), Iran needs the alliance with Syria more than any other States because Syria can put the squeeze on the US and Israel if conditions deteriorates.  In global politics, especially securing veto powers of China and Russia in the UN, Syria badly need the heavy weight of Iran to circumvent any economical embargoes or blockades on Syria and also for securing military credits and hardware.  In the last two decades, Syria wooed Turkey and managed to establish one of the closest alliances in the region.  As long as Turkey lacks the requisite caliber to weight on Russia and China in the UN as Iran can, then Syria has no option but to put more eggs in Iran’s basket.

            Syria has assimilated the idiom: “Never put all your eggs in one basket” and is not about to change this strategic policy. This article focuses on the deal between Iran and Syria on Lebanon. Iran grasped early on that the fundamental strategy of Syria is: “Syria military strategy is one with Lebanon”.  Thus, Hezbollah may resume its political leaning toward Iran but in no situation should Hezbollah undertake any military activities without prior consent of Syria and complete coordination with Syria.  The other deal is that the other Chiaa political faction of AMAL should share equally, if not a bit more than Hezbollah, in the parliament, government, municipality, and civil administrations. AMAL is headed by Nabih Berry, over 30 years as head of the Lebanese Parliament, and was created by late Iranian Imam Moussa Sadr in 1972 who was assassinated in Libya in 1983. AMAL is the main political party totally at the beck of Syria instructions; thus, when any Lebanese file or problem is turned exclusively to Nabih Berry for consideration then it means that the resolution is in the hands of Syria.

            Currently, the most urgent demand of Syria on Lebanon’s government is to let go of the International Court investigating the assassination of late Rafic Harri PM in 2005. Syria knows that this Court was created as a political weapon by the US to pressure Syria into political concessions. After 5 years of heavy political pressures on Syria, now the Court is turning the weapon on Hezbollah.  Syria knows that targeting Hezbollah is implicitly targeting Syria. The international political usage of this Court has to end and very soon or Lebanon will suffer great instability if Saad Hariri PM keeps his uncertain position and refuses to step down.  Most probably, another Prime Minister ready to bring the International Court to Lebanon’s jurisdiction would be selected. Fact is, France declined to resume financing the Court; a signal that France no longer sees any benefit of the Court to its current policies in the Near East.