General Petraeus is reportedly stepping up accusations against Iran.
And there is plenty of speculation that the Israeli raid on Syria was a dress rehearsal for a military assault on Iran.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly seems like a man frantic to reduce Iranian isolation on the Arab street in an effort to undermine Arab support for anti-Iranian initiatives. Most recently, Ahmadinejad reportedly accused Israel on Friday of using the Holocaust as a pretext for “genocide” against Palestinians.
And yet…
Hugh Naylor of the New York Times has filed a story under the headline “Syria Is Said to Be Strengthening Ties to Opponents of Iraq’s Government.” It sounds simple enough: more US griping about Syria’s role as a “rogue” regime playing an “unhelpful” role in Iraq.
Buried within the article, however, Naylor delivers up his real news flash: Iran and the US appear to be allies in an uncoordinated effort to halt Syrian outreach to opponents of Iraq’s government.
In July, former Baathists opposed to the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki scheduled a conference for insurgent groups — including two of the most prominent, the 1920s Revolution Brigades and Ansar al Sunna — at the Sahara Resort outside Damascus….
The July conference was canceled at the last minute, however, indicating the political perils of Syria’s developing strategy. It was called off by the government of President Bashar al-Assad, participants, diplomats and analysts said, primarily because of pressure from Iran.
Iran is Syria’s chief ally and a staunch supporter of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited Damascus just days before the conference was to have taken place….
Syria is walking a fine line, forging an “enemy of my enemy†relationship with the Iraqi Baathists and insurgents while still maintaining an alliance with Tehran…
In an interview, a senior Defense Department official praised Damascus for canceling the opposition conference…
I know Iran and the US want to want to hate each other. But geopolitical strategy seems to be getting in the way. The US and Iran are, to the apparent chagrin of all concerned, becoming the worst of friends.
Were it not for Naylor’s mention of the senior Defense Department official who praised the Syrian decision to cancel the conference, I could almost have imagined a way of explaining Iranian efforts as anti-American.
Consider, for example, Naylor’s account of the relation between Baathist factionalism and Syrian political intervention:
Thabet Salem, a Syrian political commentator, said Syria was also exploiting a rift between two former Iraqi Baath Party leaders, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former vice president under Mr. Hussein, and Muhammad Younis al-Ahmed, who is believed to be living in Syria…
“Younis al-Ahmed is trying to go under the umbrella of the Syrians as a way to unite the Baathists,†Mr. Salem said. “And the Syrians quietly support him…
Some Syrians speculated that he wanted to take a more conciliatory stance with the Iraqi government and the United States. His rival, Mr. Douri, who is suspected of having stronger ties with insurgent groups, rejected the conference.
According to that scenario, Syria could be accused of trying to placate the US by sponsoring “conciliatory” Baathists factions while Iran’s attack on the Syrian initiative could be viewed as a gesture of solidarity in support of “irreconcilable” Iraqi insurgents linked to Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.
This would presumably be the interpretation championed by figures like Michael Ledeen who insist that the Iranian regime has allied itself with (and provided arms to) radical Sunni Arab insurgents.
What, then, to make of the alleged Defense Department praise for the cancelation of the conference? Wouldn’t that tend to undermine the Ledeen scenario?
And there is one other element of Naylor’s report that might give one pause:
“Douri deeply distrusts working with the Syrians because he distrusts the Iranians, who are strong allies with Syria,†Mr. Salem said.
If Naylor’s source, Thabet Salem, has his story right, then there are considerable tensions between the Iranian regime and Iraqi Baathist insurgents like Douri.
Perhaps Iran supports the Sunni Arab Baathists as an insurgency in Iraq insofar as such support prevents the US from establishing control over Iraq.
If so, that support may only go so far.
Will Iran favor the restoration of Sunni Arab political control over Iraq?
Will Iran support (reportedly) anti-Iranian Baathists like Douri?
If Naylor has his story right, the answer is: No.
Iran and the US are both backing the Maliki government in Iraq. Neither appear willing to dump Maliki in exchange for a Sunni Arab Baathist coup.
In this regard, Peter Galbraith may not be wholly incorrect in his recent assertion about US-Iranian relations:
[I]importantly, the most pro-Iranian Shi’ite political party is the one least hostile to the United States.
In the battle now under way… the United States and Iran are on the same side….
Iran does not oppose Iraq’s new political order. In fact, it is the chief beneficiary of the US-induced changes in Iraq since 2003.
Syria has exploited rifts within the Iraqi Ba’ath Party in a (cynical) bid to to gain control over it and use it as a bargaining chip with the US.
It is no secret that Syrian stooge Mohammed Younis Al-Ahmed and his band of opportunists held (covert) talks with the US and representatives of Maliki in late 2006, and that the precipitate liquidation of President Saddam Hussein was part of the dirty deal thar was concluded. In return, Maliki (and the US) were supposed to deliver on re-Ba’athification.
Al-Ahmed hurriedly convened a so-called conference in Homs (Syria) in January 2007 during the 40 day mourning period for the martyred President with the aim of hijacking the leadership of the Iraqi Ba’ath Party. However, the vast majority of Iraqi Ba’athists reacted to this crass move with revulsion and outrage, leaving Al-Ahmed isolated. Although the NYT article claims that the renegade Al-Ahmed still has a bounty on his head, he is in fact operating quite openly, using Syrian patronage – “cash incentives and Syrian residence permits†– to buy influence, as the article also confirms.
While it clearly wants to co-opt the Iraqi opposition for its own purposes, Syria is treading carefully and hedging its bets. Abu Mohammad, the political spokeman of the official Ba’ath Party, led by Izzat Ibriahim Al-Douri, a SHIA Muslim whose real name is Dr. Khudair Al-Murshidi, is also based in Damascus and he was a leading member of the organising committee for the abortive July conference. (By the way, the idea that Al-Douri is supported by Iran is ludicrous. And the key issue for the hardline Ba’ath is national liberation and independence, not “Sunni Arab political control”!!)
Yo Cutler–where you at?
-J