The Objective: a Regional “Iranian Umbrella”

In the last few years, Iran has endeavored to establish itself as a regional hegemony in the Middle East. For this purpose, it attempts to establish protectorate-like relations with Arab countries undergoing an internal crisis, like Syria and Iraq. If this process is allowed to continue, it will pose a threat to Israel's national security

The Objective: a Regional “Iranian Umbrella”

Iranian President Rouhani reviews a military parade outside Tehran (Photo: AP)

The Gordian knot spun between Iran, Russia and Turkey, which currently dictates their operations in the Syrian theater, embodies a series of particular interests that stem from different aspirations and worldviews. Obviously, the disintegration of Bashar al-Assad's rule served as fertile ground for each of those three powers to promote different interests in that theater.

Russia, constituting the most dominant element in the disintegrated country, set a goal of reinstating itself as a global power, set forth the game rules for the Middle East and challenge the West generally and the USA in particular. Russia's aspirations to provide an alternative for the old agenda is not free of economic considerations, notably the desire to control the European energy market. Moreover, the change in US policy (since the end of President Obama's tenure) has enabled Russia to change the game rules in her favor and specify the additional players that take part in the newly-evolved fabric.

Unlike Russia, Turkey opposed Bashar al-Assad's continued rule, arguing against its legitimacy. Turkey currently operates in the Syrian theater with the objective of weakening the Kurdish minority, fearing that its increased strength will affect the national aspirations of the Kurds in Turkey. The trilateral understandings between Russia, Iran, and Turkey led to the issuance of a green light to the Turkish President to launch an unrestrained attack on Afrin, in the Aleppo Governorate of Syria.

Apparently, the Turkish aspirations stem, in part, from the personality of Erdogan, who aspires to promote his status and image as the leader of the Muslim world. So, in line with the new agenda that emerged in Syria, countries that are disputed with regard to the core issues of the conflict find themselves involved in a process of cooperation with the intention of implementing a series of interests whose maturation was made possible owing to the vacuum left by the "limited intervention" policy of the government in Washington.

Tehran's Protectorates

The Iranian policy is essentially different and associated directly with the lessons Iran had derived from its policy in Lebanon and Iraq. In the context of the activist line Iran implements through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it strives to turn sovereign nation-states undergoing a crisis into protectorates of the revolutionary government. Admittedly, the Iranian presence in Syria is also affected by the collective Iranian memory that etched into the Iranian national consciousness the fact that Syria was one of the few countries that agreed to assist Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, which exacted a heavy toll in casualties and material damage. At the same time, Iran's current operations stem from geopolitical and geo-strategic considerations associated with the fact that Syria is conceived as a strategic asset for Iran and used as a vital bridge for Iran's connections with the "Cedar Country," Lebanon, and its presence near the border of the State of Israel.

The origin of Iran's hostility toward Israel is directly associated with the line outlined by the instigator and mastermind of the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose worldview combined both Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist motifs. This loyalty remains, for the time being, a dominant element of the Iranian political doctrine and dictates Iran's behavior patterns and the consolidation of the "axis of resistance" of the present era. No one should ignore the fact that Iran uses the hostility toward Israel as a tool in expanding the scope of its influence within the Muslim realm, but her declarations, which are backed up by operative measures, must not be taken lightly. Accordingly, the three-legged attack should also be analyzed in the context of the Iranian-Israeli conflict. An analysis of the attack objectives points to the fact that some sources in the west maintain that Iran's presence in the Syrian theater is a problem for Israel alone.

A peek into the Iranian model could help understand the operative line Tehran has maintained for a while now, which includes a multilayered process that combines "soft power" models with "proxy" models. An advanced stage of this process involves the integration of the fighting force in the local political mechanism for the purpose of initiating a change from within, in accordance with the policy dictated by Tehran. The final stage combines three poles – the military, political and economic poles – that operate in harmony for the purpose of expanding Tehran's scope of influence and enforcing its will. The establishment of the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon and the integration thereof, along the time axis, in the Lebanese political domain constitutes a faithful representation of the Iranian method.

The Iranians positioned Hezbollah as the most influential element in Lebanon for a very good reason: it enabled the decision makers in Tehran to influence the political, diplomatic, military and economic agenda in the "Cedar Country." The success of the Iranian model enabled the organization to reposition itself: from a local player it evolved into a regional player that operates throughout the Middle East. Some observers went as far as referring to it as an entity that evolved from an organization within a state to a state within an organization.

As this is being written, an essentially similar process is taking place in Iraq. That process is intended to integrate the organization "Al-Hashd al-Shaabi" in the local political system and establish it as a significant player in the forthcoming elections. As evidence, the establishment of the Fatah Alliance, representing the Shi'ite militia organizations in the coming elections, was intended to merge the organization into the future political structure of Iraq. Hadi al-Amiri (the leader of the Badr organization) has recently announced that he hoped the Fatah Alliance would take a substantial part in the process of assembling the next government. It is not inconceivable that if al-Amiri's hopes were to materialize, the voice of the decision makers in Tehran would be heard in Baghdad very clearly.

Paradoxically, the Iranian model that set itself a goal of expanding the scope of influence of the Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East achieves results that are identical to those against which the instigator of the Iranian revolution had preached so passionately. While Khomeini's assertions according to which the US and the West endeavor to weaken the Islamist countries and turn them into protectorates still echo in the hearts of the revolution loyalists; and while the term "Gharbzadeji" (= Western-Struck) coined by Jalal Al-e Ahmad still serves as an important element in the revolutionary narrative, Iran operates in similar ways, but uses a different terminology.

A Warning Light for Jerusalem

The upheavals that shook the Middle East in recent years have led various countries to establish cooperative alliances based on mutual interests that converge on the fundamentals of the realist school of thought. This philosophical pattern stands at the very heart of the current contexture of interests between Tehran and Moscow in Syria. On the one hand, the deployment of the Iranian forces on the ground in Syria enables Russia to focus on controlling the airspace, thereby reducing its involvement on the ground. On the other hand, Russia's air umbrella and technological capabilities, with the emphasis on cutting-edge Radar systems, imbue a substantial dose of confidence among the Iranian forces and the militia forces operating under their guidance. Admittedly, a substantial difference exists between the sets of interests of the two countries. One regards itself as a global superpower that determines the new agenda, while the other aspires to establish itself as a regional hegemony while endeavoring to turn sovereign nation-states into protectorates, thereby establishing a transnational setup that operates according to its dictates.

The present state of affairs is an outcome of a process that began a long time ago, but has only recently matured into a situation that is not convenient for the State of Israel. In view of this reality, it is difficult to contain the version claiming that the land corridor within which Iran operates "is not the real story." As far as Israel is concerned, the Iranian presence in this theater is not an acceptable fait accompli, and even more so in view of the latent message received during the attack. An examination of the Iranian model, which is based on the military-political-economic triangle whose sides operate in harmony for the purpose of accomplishing the hegemonic goals of Tehran, along with Iran's achievements in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, must serve as a warning light for Jerusalem.

***

Dr. Doron Itzhakov is a senior research fellow specializing in Iran at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University