The “Fall” of Aleppo and Iran

It was announced on December 13, 2016 that the forces affiliated with the Assad government and its allies seized control in the east of Aleppo. Russian Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin stated that Syrian army retook control of the regions held by rebels, and a deal was broken for the withdrawal of rebel fighters from the city. Therefore, the armed opposition groups who had been holding a part of Aleppo since July 2012, had to leave the city. Whereas the supporters of the Assad administration viewed this development as the “liberation of Aleppo”, the opposition and its supporters called it the “fall” of Aleppo. Even though it was not the end of Syrian civil war, the “fall” of Aleppo remarkably excited Assad supporters in Syria and the region.

Iranian government, who resolutely backed the Assad government since the outbreak of crisis, and provided it with every kind of support, delighted with the “fall” of Aleppo. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani congratulated the “Syrian government” for “saving” Aleppo. Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani said that the liberation of Aleppo “was a milestone in the fight against terrorism”. Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign policy advisor to the Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who plays an efficient role in shaping Iran’s relations with the Arab world, underlined, “the victory in is considered as the introduction of other victories”. Other Iranian officials also called their counterparts in Syria and congratulated Syrian people and government for “the success gained in the fight against terrorism”. Friday prayer leaders delivered speeches praising the “resistance against imperialist designs of the West and Zionists,” and the “success recorded in the fight against terrorism.”

Iran’s Euphoria

There are various reasons why Iran is so pleased with the success of Syrian regime forces against the opposition: Firstly, this is not a war waged only by Iran’s ally with its own means. With the words of Yahya R. Safavi, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards and advisor to Khamenei on military affairs, “Aleppo was liberated thanks to a coalition between Iran, Syria, Russia, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.” Iran has actively involved in organizing, training and leading pro-Assad National Defense Forces in addition to its military advisory missions, and logistical support provided to the Syrian army. Furthermore, besides Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, it mobilized Shiite militia from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and led them into a number of fronts in Syria in the name of protecting Sayyidah Zaynab shrine. Moreover, in addition to the officers of the Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guards in charge of extraterritorial operations, some units from the army were deployed in Syria in order to join the fight. A number of insurgents claimed that they have been fighting against the forces affiliated with Iran, rather than the Assad regime. Iran suffered heavy losses for this cause, as well. Besides hundreds of militia and soldiers, many experienced generals like Hossein Hamadani who had orchestrated Iran’s military operations in the field lost their life in Syria. It is reported that Brigadier General Javad Ghafari took the command of Iranian operations in Syria after Hamadani, who was killed in October 2015. Therefore, Iranians counted a big part of the “success” gained in Aleppo on their own account.

Indeed, next to the military support given to the Assad government, political and diplomatic efforts of Iran contributed much to the current situation in Syria. Russian military involvement in Syria in support of the regime in September 2015 changed the military balance on the ground in favor of the Assad government. It is claimed by some rings that Iran was influential in the Russian intervention. Indeed, Tehran and Moscow, who agreed to support the Assad government, and “fight against terrorism” have coordinated their steps since the start of the conflict. The relationship between two countries has been deepened in the past year. Iranian, Syrian and Russian ministers of defense met in Tehran in June 2016. A tripartite meeting was held among the foreign ministers in Moscow in October 2016. Iran and Russia kept in touch with each other during the recent conflicts in Aleppo. Special Representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin for Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev was in Tehran shortly before and after the Syrian army took control in Aleppo. In his visit to Tehran, Lavrentiev met with Velayeti and Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s Secretary of Supreme National Security Council and coordinator of military, political and security cooperation with Russia and Syria.

Secondly, the consolidation of the government control in Aleppo, boosted Iranian arguments that Assad should be part of the transition process. In fact, the priorities of most of the regional and global actors have shifted in Syria for a while ago; instead of overthrowing the Assad regime they have focused on the fight against terrorism and extremism signified by ISIS and al-Nusra Front. The withdrawal of armed insurgents from Aleppo has strengthened both the position of Iran and Russia in the field, and their arguments in international forums.

Another reason why Iranians are pleased with the development in Aleppo is the special meaning that they ascribe to the fight in Syria. Many Iranians view the reclamation of Aleppo from the insurgents not only as the defeat of “rebels and terrorists” but also that of the regional actors and the USA that have supported the opposition. Such an assessment of the regional developments has made some Iranian officials, especially the military ones euphoric.

Former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Safavi claimed that the coalition that led to the liberation of Aleppo “will next liberate Mosul.” He also claimed that the victories of the Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah coalition underlined Iran’s increasing regional influence. Safavi said, “the United States has found out very well that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the first power in the region”. He added that the new US President Trump should “accept the reality that Iran is the leading power in the region.” Deputy Commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Hossein Salami stated that “the length of swords of the Islamic Revolution of Iran that stands against the excesses of global arrogance reached from Tehran to the east of Mediterranean.” Salami praised the “liberation of Aleppo” as the “first step of the success of the army of Islam,” and stated “God willing, the liberation of Mosul, Yemen, and Bahrain will soon be achieved.” IRGC Spokesman Ramazan Sharif maintained, “the liberation of Aleppo would prepare the ground for the liberation of Mosul and the resolution of crisis in Yemen and Bahrain.” In an article published in Javan newspaper affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Babaei argued; “Almost all observers agree in that the result of the battle will open a new chapter in the Middle East which will be under Iran’s leadership.”

Negotiation and Struggle in Iranian Foreign Policy

Since the outset of the crisis, Iranian officials and diplomats stated in various statements that the Syrian crisis could not be solved through military means, but a diplomatic and political solution should be sought. A small group has occasionally criticized the reckless support given to the Assad regime in a low tune. Against those critics and the call for political solution, neo-conservative rings and the Revolutionary Guards have continuously called “resistance and fight” as the only solution for the Syrian crisis. Recently, Velayati, who appeared in a television program in November 2016, condemned those who were in favor of negotiations with the United States on regional issues including the Syrian crisis, and said they “are not aware of the hostile nature of the USA”.

Neo-conservative circle and the Revolutionary Guards considered the liberation of Aleppo as a success for the “resistance and fight”. In his sermon on December 16, Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammed Emami-Kashani raised the question of Aleppo after he reminded that Iran sincerely fulfilled all its liabilities arising from the nuclear deal but the USA violated the deal by extending the embargoes. Congratulating Syrian nation and army for the liberation of Aleppo, Emami-Kashani said that the victory was won in light of resistance in Aleppo. Friday Prayer Leader of Qom, Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri claimed that the “liberation of Aleppo” was an “honorable example” of “relying on struggle, not on surrendering and negotiating fruitlessly.”

When Hassan Rouhani took office as the President of Iran with his discourse of “moderate foreign policy” in August 2013, most observers expected Iran, to adopt a more compromising approach with regard to the regional issues, notably the Syrian crisis, and the nuclear issue. Iran opted for negotiations in order to solve the nuclear question, however, it opted for “resistance” in the Syrian crisis. The negotiation process initially yielded positive outcomes, and the nuclear deal was broken. Nevertheless, Iranian officials accuse the USA of violating the deal due to the problems recently faced in the implementation of the nuclear deal and the ongoing American sanctions on their country. The rise of accusations against the USA is actually weakening the Rouhani government who defended a negotiated solution for the nuclear issue.

While the problems encountered in the implementation of the nuclear deal make “negotiations” less preferable in Iran’s foreign policy, the re-establishment of control in Aleppo by the Assad regime is seen as the success of the policy “resistance and fight”. Iranian neo-conservatives and military officials, who are currently in euphoria, have been assured that the “success” gained in Aleppo through “resistance and fight” would be repeated on other fronts as well. Moreover, they believe that Iran will be the most powerful and influential actor in the Middle East at the end of this process. Therefore, considering the consequences of the ‘liberation’ of Aleppo, Iran is likely to pursue politically and military more aggressive policies in the region.