In Geneva this week, there was both despair and hope. The despair came from the latest postponement of a summit, sponsored by Moscow and Washington, that might begin to find a way toward peace in Syria. The hope was produced by positive talks between Iran and the international community over its disputed nuclear program.
The Arab League-UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, announcing the postponement of the top-level meeting on Syria, which had been scheduled for this month, said gloomily that the situation in the country was now extremely bad. He hoped, though with little obvious conviction, that the meeting to look for an end to the violence in Syria might take place before the year’s end. Yet the news came yesterday that Assad’s forces had retaken a key Damascus suburb, overwhelming the rebels through a mix of firepower and starvation. With every setback the Free Syrian Army suffers, the regime’s bloody forces gain extra time, and with this comes the certainty that the death and destruction will continue.
Yet also in Geneva came a general agreement from all sides that the discussions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the potential lifting of sanctions had made progress. Neither side is grandstanding about the talks, the exact nature of which is not being publicized.
Of course, there is more than just the Swiss city of Geneva that links these two talks. The Assad regime in Syria is holding out because of support from Tehran and Iran’s Lebanese clients Hezbollah. A passive Iraqi government permits Iranian munitions and personnel to cross its airspace. The growing extent of Iran’s involvement in defense of Assad was demonstrated during the funeral of a top Iranian revolutionary guard general, who was killed in fighting this week. Russian weaponry, signals intelligence and logistical support may be contributing to the regime’s survival but Russia fears few comebacks from the international community. By contrast, Iran’s economy is being brought to its knees by the US-led international sanctions.
The reason Tehran is talking is not because it has a new, apparently more amenable president in Hassan Rowhani but because the entire rule of the ayatollahs is threatened by economic collapse. If the country’s coffers are empty and if it cannot afford to keep the poor happy with massive food and fuel subsidies, there will be trouble on the streets. If the hungry working classes join up with an already deeply disaffected middle class, then there will be a new revolution. That is why Rowhani has been authorized by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to launch his charm offensive and do as much as he can to end the sanctions and keep the regime in power, while protecting as much as possible of the country’s dubious nuclear program.
Yet surely the international community is missing an important opportunity here: Linking Iran’s vital support for the Assad dictatorship with sanctions? Why is the Obama administration content to treat the two issues as entirely separate, whereas in fact they are completely interlinked?
The fighting in Syria will not end until there are peace talks, and the Syrian opposition will not entertain any settlement that includes a role for Assad and his henchmen. Now, the question is, would the withdrawal of Iranian or Hezbollah support and Iraqi assistance be enough to force Assad to quit? It is arguable that it would. Russia is no more interested in putting boots on the ground in Syria than the Americans. In the end, Russian arms alone will not sustain the Syrian dictatorship.
Thus regardless of what President Putin may think, Washington should be pressing to link the lifting of sanctions on Tehran with its withdrawal of support to Assad. It will of course create new tensions between the Kremlin and the White House but their relations could hardly be much worse anyway. Russia is, in any event, no more interested in having a nuclear-armed Iran on its doorstep than all the countries in the Middle East, not least here in the Gulf.
It is very surprising that this option has not already been advanced by foreign policy experts in Washington. Extending sanctions to embrace Iranian support for Syria, would have the same support from the international community (save Russia and China) as over the nuclear program. Moreover it would enable Obama to sustain his reluctance to become involved in Syria with anything more than fine words. Here surely is a win-win opportunity for the White House. Will it grab it?
Editorial: Extend sanctions on Iran for supporting Assad
