Iran Shall Respond to an Attack on Syria

Following this week’s use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict, talk of a US and NATO military strike against the country has heightened to the point that reports indicate a credible imminent military strike against Syria. The central question in Tehran is how the Islamic republic of Iran would respond. Iran is one of the staunchest backers of Bashar Assad and the current Syrian regime. Will Iran support, oppose or be neutral to such an attack? This is particularly important because of the recent remarks by Iran’s deputy chairman of the joint chief of staff General Masoud Jazaeri who said such an action was a red line for the Islamic republic. Earlier, another Revolutionary Guards member  Mehdi Taeb, the commander of the Ammar military base, also had said that Syria was more important to Iran than Iran’s Khuzestan province, something that two members of Majlis’ foreign policy committee echoed in their talk with Rooz and added that the Islamic republic viewed Syria as part of its vital interests and that Iran would most certainly respond if Syria was attacked.

But what kind of response would the Islamic republic engage in remains the question. Will it confine its actions to public opposition and behind the scenes consultations or will it actually use force in support of Assad? Nozar Shafii and Mohammad Ismaili, two members of the national security and foreign policy committee of Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, told Rooz that the decision on how to respond would come from the head of the regime and so is response would be unpredictable.

Shafii specifically said, “Iran views Syria as parts of its vital interests and such interests are not negotiable and any country would fight for it.” He further said that Syria’s importance was even more than that of Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which border Iran.

In response to a question about how Iran would respond specifically, he said, “Obviously the priority would be to use diplomatic tools. Iran has no interest in entering a war or entering into unforeseen situations and doing something whose outcome and results are not clear. This is the rational behavior of any country but whether it is obliged to respond or not is another issue. The Americans should not undertake actions that disrupt the configurations of the region and force countries to choose the only alternative.”

When asked what he meant by the “only alternative”, Shafii said, “Iran will definitely respond and its response will remain unpredictable,” and added that the level of response falls within the “decision making authority of the head of the state but there will certainly be a response. Syria is very important for us from a geopolitical perspective. Even though Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are part of Iran’s sphere of influence, this influence remains spiritual. Regarding Syria, Iran will not allow actions to take place that will be to its detriment in areas which are under its influence, where it has a sense of attachment and ownership and which are parts of areas that increase its geopolitical influence.”

When Rooz asked whether the committee has met to discuss the issue, Shafii said, “Obviously the position of the Majlis will be opposition to this but no meeting has taken place at the committee until this moment and no decision has been made. As I said earlier, the head of the state and the leadership will make a decision on this.”

Mohammad Ismaili, another member of the committee confirmed that no decision had been made by the committee but that its members closely followed the developments in Syria. Speaking about a possible US and NATO strike against Syria, he said, “It appears that the current actions are part of a psychological warfare. But one cannot rule this [a military strike] out a hundred percent. Perhaps the Americans are caught in an Israeli quagmire who may have been pushed into this corner. If the Americans undertake such an action and they make a mistake, then the Syrian people and government will not easily surrender to it and they will resist. The Islamic republic too would not abandon the Syrians if this happens because Syria is the axis of resistance and has for years supported the resistance forces. Through talks with our neighbors such as Turkey and others that are involved in this issue we shall not allow something like (military strike against Syria) to take place. And even if they happen, the Islamic republic will most certainly not abstain from providing material and moral support.”

When Rooz asked what he meant by “material and moral” support, he said, “One cannot now say anything with certainty. We must see whether the Syrian people and government are prepared to defend themselves or not. If there is need for support, it is the duty of all countries of the world to support them. If the enemies of the Islamic revolution, enemies of Islam and enemies of Islamic countries and the region undertake such an action (a military strike) it is the duty of all Islamic countries to defend the Syrian people.”

When asked about the death of 300 people and wounding of over 3,000 in last Wednesday’s chemical attack and the options for ending this conflict, Shafii said, “We believe that the Zionists and Americans are behind every murder that takes place not only in Syria but anywhere in the Muslim world. They do not like peace and security to prevail in the Islamic world. So I believe people in the Islamic world must act with much more alertness. Because the Americans are hostage to the Zionists, they are behind every crime that takes place in the region.”

When asked about a Western humanitarian intervention, Shafii said, “Because the Zionists and Americans are behind these events, it is they who must be punished as the violators of human rights. They are using the instrument of human rights against the Muslim world and Muslims. This should not be acceptable to Islamic countries that Americans, who have committed the worst crimes throughout history, should now to be defenders of human rights. At least the Muslim world does not accept such a claim by them.”

Iran’s new foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif has spoken with his German counterpart about the issue and while condemning the use of chemical weapons, warned about the consequences of military action against Syria and called for the avoidance of any premature reaction. On August 6^th Rowhani also said, during après conference, “We denounce any foreign intervention and the civil war in Syria and believe in a political and not military solution to the problem. All Syrian groups should talk to the government. Ultimately, elections should be held and what is important is democracy and the will of people. If the neighboring countries help, this issue will be resolved quicker.”

On August 24, Rowhani condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria and asked the international community to use all its means to prevent the use of chemical weapons anywhere, particularly in Syria.

In last Wednesday’s chemical attack in Syria, both the government and people of Syria accused each other of using chemical weapons against the other. Russia has claimed it has evidence that Syrian opposition used chemicals weapons while the White House spokesperson announced there was no doubt that the Syrian government was behind the attack.