Lecturing the U.S. and the West on the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Iran’s 66-year-old President Hassan Rouhani ripped support of Sunni rebels seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Speaking at a reception in Tehran for Syria’s parliament speaker Jihad al-Lahham, Rouhan warned the U.S. and Western powers to stop backing Sunni militants, fueling more terrorism and destabilizing the region. Since ending the Iraq War Dec. 15, 2011, President Barack Obama’s has a confusing policy on ISIS, agreeing to a dubious air war, arming a select group Syrian but refusing to put boots on the ground. Obama got mixed up over what to do with al-Assad while simultaneously fighting the Islamic State. Rouhani insisted that Iran—and its Shiite Beirut-based Hezbollah guerrillas—will always back the Shiite government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.
Declaring his 2016 GOP candidacy June 1 in Central, S.C., Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced his intent of putting U.S. boots on the ground to finish off the Islamic State. Like Obama, Graham has yet to reconcile his backing of the Free Syrian Army whose intent is toppling al-Assad, in effect aligning with al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front and ISIS. “Unfortunately some countries miscalculated and thought that terrorist groups would be a means for them to achieve their objectives, whereas sooner or later they were always going to be affected by the scourge of terrorism themselves,” Rouhani told the security meeting. Iran aligns itself with other Shiite regimes, including Syria and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, currently at war with Saudi Arabia. Battling ISIS in Syria, Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani leads Iran’s Revolutionary guards in pushing back’s ISIS’s advance to Baghdad.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who broke his leg May 31 in a biking accident near Geneva, has worked feverishly on a nuke deal with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif, putting the U.S. and Iran on the same page. While not officially on the nuke agenda, Kerry and Zarif have discussed the U.S. role backing Sunni insurgents trying topple al-Assad. Zarif and Rouhani would be far more compromising on a nuke deal if the U.S. would join Iran in battling Sunni insurgents. “After four years of resistance and perseverance, the plan of the enemies of Syria, who thought they could dominate it within a few months has fallen apart,” said Rouhani, referring to the numerous Saudi-backed Sunni terrorist groups trying to topple al-Assad. Whether it’s Obama’s foreign policy on Syria or the one of Capitol Hill hawks led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the issue of al-Assad is critical.
When former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ran the State Department, she agreed with McCain Aug. 13, 2012 to implement a no-fly zone in Syria. Had that policy been in place, the U.S. would have hastened the fall of Damascus. “The government and the nation of Iran will stand by the government and the nation of Syria till the end,” said Rouhani, signaling to Kerry and the White House to switch policies on Syria. While there’s a hint at a thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations, a U.S. pivot away from regime change in Damascus would be welcomed in Tehran, and Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose Russian Federation maintains the Tartus navy base on the Syrian coast, strongly supports Damascus. When you consider all the areas of conflict with Moscow, especially over Ukraine, it makes sense for the U.S. to align with Iran and Moscow on Syria.
Debating the proper role of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast, it’s clear that Obama has no intent of putting boots on the ground during his presidency. Obama’s position on the Mideast parallels that of GOP hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose isolationist views, especially when it comes to Israel, could torpedo his presidential ambitions. While Obama and Paul have little in common, they’re on the same page when it comes to opposing boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Paul rejects foreign intervention in Iraq and Syria for different reasons than Barack. He believes it goes beyond the U.S. Constitution to intervene when there’s no national security reason. Obama, on the other hands, opposes more intervention because he believes the U.S. has already done enough and it’s time for stakeholders, like other Mideast countries, to do the heavy lifting.
White House officials need to reassess its position on toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Four years into the Arab Spring, Syria has lost some 30% of its territory to ISIS, becoming a breeding ground for terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front. Since the U.S. works feverishly to build bridges with Iran on a nuke deal in Geneva, it makes zero sense that the White House opposes Iran and Russia on how to proceed with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. “They have realized they cannot ensure security and have influence in the region only with money and by selling their toys of war,” said Iran’s semi-official IRNA news agency. When you consider what happened after toppling Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003, it makes no sense to repeat the same mistake in Syria. Getting on the same page with Iran and Russia on Iraq and Syria should pay dividends on a nuke deal in Geneva.
