Kofi Annan has
invited Iran to join the adult table at the Syria talks. This
is the UN envoy’s latest misstep, as he wades, haphazardly, into
regional power politics.
The United States, her NATO allies, and Sunni Gulf Arabs are all
equal parts opposed to the involvement of the Islamic Republic, for
various reasons. However, the fact that Iran has proven a most
tireless supporter of the current regime has led all parties to
question the wisdom of any plan that banks on Tehran’s commitment
to peace, security and a post-Assad Syria.
With a tip of the hat to AP reporting, Karim Sadjapour of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
suggested, “Inviting Iran to discuss how to best transition to
a post-Assad Syria is akin to inviting vegetarians to a
barbecue.”
Put plainly, Iran cannot be part of any solution so long as the
opposition
sees the Islamic Republic as part of the problem. As well they
should. Tehran has been
supplying Assad’s cronies with political and military support
for years. But Annan should understand that the ongoing crisis in
Syria isn’t just a humanitarian priority.
It’s a proxy war fought over Iranian influence. As I wrote in
early
June:
…The conversation that’s happening in Washington about what to
do with Syria doesn’t have anything to do with a growing
humanitarian crisis.
Make no mistake — this is all about Assad’s
strategic relationship with Iran. Syria serves as international
conveyor-belt for those tools of terror deployed by the Islamic
Republic to its militant proxies in Gaza and southern Lebanon. The
collapse of the Assad regime would critically undermine Iran’s
ability to threaten Israel’s security.
As such, expect Annan’s commitment to Iran, as “part of the
solution in the Syrian crisis” to be ignored with the same alacrity
all parties have chosen to disregard his six-point peace plan, that
quickly fizzled earlier this year.
Make no mistake — America and her allies (both Western and in
the Gulf) are committed to removing the current regime. With Iran’s
assistance, Assad can hold on for a while, but he won’t last
forever.
The Syrian fulcrum isn’t particularly difficult to grasp. The
United States and her NATO partners want Assad gone — his ouster
would likely cut Tehran’s supply lines of terror. It would also
weaken Iran, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions and the
mullah’s regional muscle. Already isolated internationally, the
Iranian leadership would suddenly face a conspicuously less
friendly neighborhood. Remember, the removal of the Alawite regime
(through “kinetic” force, or diplomacy) would greatly benefit the
Saudis —as the contending, Sunni hegemon and bitter rival of
Iran.
I’ve written, ad nauseam,
why I’m
not
inclined to advocate regime change in Syria. The opposition is
shadowy (at best) and “the grass will surely prove greener…”
theorizing is chronically short-sighted. To be perfectly honest —
and more than a little insensitive — I’d suggest we respond to the
humanitarian crisis in Syria the way we respond to most other
international distress signals: informed inaction.
Regardless, Annan should understand that rousing commitments to
our collective humanitarian conscience don’t mean squat when it
comes to the situation in Syria. This is international relations by
means of blunt force trauma. Adding Iran to the mix will only
retard the inevitable outcome.
