The rapid fall of Assad’s regime in Syria has surprised Iranian authorities, revealing a rift within Iran’s establishment regarding foreign policy. Some factions blame the government’s inadequate support for Assad, while others advocate for a pragmatic re-evaluation of Iran’s regional approach. Iranian leaders discuss forming new resistance groups, but this may be hindered by diminished influence and the looming threat of Western scrutiny on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has led to unexpected reactions within the Iranian establishment. Iranian authorities were taken aback as rebel forces swiftly advanced and captured significant territory. A source familiar with Iranian decision-making noted that Tehran underestimated the rapid disintegration of the Syrian army. Compounding this situation was the withdrawal of Hezbollah fighters from Syria, who shifted their focus to confront Israel in Lebanon, leaving many checkpoints vulnerable. As Iranian media shifted terminology from labeling rebels as “terrorists” to “armed groups,” it reflected a notable shift in the government’s narrative. Reports emerged confirming that Tehran sought assurances from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) that Shia shrines in Syria would remain unharmed, amidst rising concerns over the safety of these sites.
Public sentiment in Iran appears sharply divided. While some loyalists to the Islamic Republic condemn the government’s approach, asserting that a greater commitment was needed to support Assad, others view this shift as a potential realignment in Iran’s foreign policy strategy. They argue that the fall of Assad could suggest a reevaluation of Iran’s regional engagements, specifically regarding its alliances with militant groups. A senior reformist commentator highlighted that Iran’s foreign policy must prioritize national interests over ideological commitments, calling for a balance between recognizing Israel as a rival rather than an ultimate adversary. This discord among political elites has implications for Iran’s future strategizing in Syria, with suggestions ranging from diplomatic engagement with the new powers in Syria to efforts in creating new proxy forces.
Furthermore, Iranian leadership has articulated plans to build Syrian resistance groups with an anti-Israel focus, aiming to challenge the narrative that Iran’s intervention has faltered due to Assad’s ouster. Yet, this ambition might face significant obstacles, as Iran has already suffered losses in its proxy influence, notably the diminished capacity of the Syrian National Defence Forces.
The repercussions of these shifts extend beyond Syria, raising concerns that as Iran’s foothold weakens in the region, it might also face increasing vulnerabilities in Lebanon. Analysts speculate that the disintegration of Iran’s power structure may lead to a renewed focus from Western powers, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear program. A divergence in strategy may catalyze changes in Iran’s nuclear policies as the state navigates these new geopolitical realities.
The Iranian establishment’s response to the escalating conflict in Syria epitomizes a broader struggle between ideological commitments and pragmatic national interests. Iran has heavily invested in Assad’s regime as part of its strategy to counter perceived threats from extremist groups and Israel. However, the unanticipated speed of the regime’s collapse has exposed fissures within Iranian policymaking, with various factions advocating different responses to the evolving landscape. The implications of Assad’s fall threaten to undermine both Iran’s influence in the Levant and its intricate network of regional alliances.
The complexities surrounding the Iranian response to Bashar al-Assad’s regime collapse in Syria reveal a critical juncture for Tehran’s foreign policy. As internal divisions surface, the Iranian establishment grapples with the potential erosion of influence in Syria and beyond. Key factions within Iran are now debating the direction of their support and engagement in the region, suggesting a possible shift from rigid ideological stances to a more calculated approach prioritizing national interests. The fall of the Assad regime could thus serve as a catalyst for significant reevaluations in Iranian strategy and engagement in neighboring countries.
Original Source: www.middleeasteye.net
