The need for a strategic shift

A week back steamy headlines made it to the front pages and Security News Alerts: Iran may act as negotiator with Assad, Syrian President. It is no secret that Rouhani’s government has been deemed friendly, forward looking, and less fanatical than its predecessors. So must Iran with a freshly signed nuclear deal, our new member on the bandwagon for global peace, play a role in convincing Syria’s Assad to hop aboard too? Possibly yes. But will the Arab League, Turkey and Washington’s other allies allow for such bold acceptance of the pariah state?

While Putin was able to pen his plea for caution in ‘The’ New York Times; and Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, and the latest NSA spying scandal courtesy Edward Snowden had raised question marks in blindly trusting audience; the Syrian imbroglio remains perturbed and unchecked. Ticking like a time bomb, with dozens killed on a weekly basis, the state of war in Syria needs to be addressed. Then who must step in?

So far the Iranian government has said No to this proposition. Perhaps retaining their individuality on the global front is a far more vital pursuit. However it’s rare that Washington and Tehran are on the same wavelength with respect to the al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists who have been leading a mutiny in parts of Iraq and Syria. Both countries said they would support Iraqi authorities faced with an insurrection led in large part by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a group of al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists.

Iran and the US are central sources of support for the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is preparing a major counterattack against the jihadist group in Fallujah. At the same time this support for the Iraqi Prime Minister may fuel anti-government sentiment among the Sunnis, who say they are discriminated against and marginalized by the Shiite authorities in power both in Iraq and Iran. Sunni anger could benefit the jihadists, who capitalize on anti-government sentiment and divergences between tribes in order to recruit new members.

Syria, still a war-zone, the hotbed of conflict, steals the spotlight. And even though Rouhani’s diplomatically suave government enjoys Assad’s trust, this alliance has received harsh criticism of other stakeholders who expect more prudence from the United States. Over the objections of the Arab League, Turkey among others, Washington is blocking Iran’s participation in the Geneva II conference. Set to begin in Montreux, Switzerland on January 22, the UN sponsored, Russia-US co-chaired conference is charged with reaching a “political settlement” to the nearly three-year-old Syrian conflict.

Lacking popular support, the US-sponsored anti-Assad insurgency has been thrown on the defensive and is becoming increasingly dependent on Sunni Islamists, including scores of foreign fighters. The sectarian atrocities committed by Islamist forces including Al Qaeda-linked groups have only further discredited and isolated the insurgents among the Syrian people. What started as a hate-Assad campaign has become a royal mess lacking both direction and purpose.

The grave reality that the US has to address is the ‘Islamist’ nature of Assad’s opposition. The Syrian rebels the West attempted to empower remain on the fringes, sidelined by much stronger forces that pose a threat to US friendly governments in the region, like Iraq. The failure of secular transition from dictatorships has been observed in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. With Iran on the negotiating table and in the process of forming a potentially healthy alliance, perhaps the US must reconsider her Middle East strategy.

It is obvious that Tehran, fearing an explosion of working-class protest over unemployment and inflation, is anxious to reach an accommodation with Washington, as the US and its allies seek to bully it into making ever larger concessions. Iranian President spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, about “the situation in Syria in the context of preparations for the Geneva II conference, and implementation of agreements on the Iranian nuclear program.”

Iran, understandably so, reacted angrily to its exclusion from the Geneva II conference, viewing US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that Tehran could perhaps “help” on the conference sidelines as an insult. However, its leaders continue to insist they are ready to assist in “stabilizing” the Middle East. Empowering a non-existent ‘secular’ force has failed in the recent past. Watching Shia governments fall is beneficial to the regional Wahabi stakeholders whose sectarian rivalries have dictated alliances in the Middle East for decades and getting into this petty sectarian conflict may lead to no desirable ends for the US.