Juan Cole: Can Obama make a grand bargain with Iran over Syria?
Speaking in Israel a few days before the Geneva II talks on Syria, the US Secretary of States John Kerry suggested that Iran may have a role to play in the talks. It is hard to know if this was a thought-through proposition or an impromptu thought-bubble. Kerry is gaining a reputation for the latter, ala the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons to avert US military action. The suggestion that Iran could be involved in Syria talks caused a major backlash and the idea was promptly withdrawn.
Kerry’s suggestion that Iran could play a role in the international efforts to address the deadlock in Syria is grounded in two key assumptions. It is an acknowledgement that Iran has a stake in Syria and, more importantly, that Iran could work constructively with the West. These are contested assumptions of course, especially the latter. Critics of US-Iran rapprochement dismiss the notion that Rouhani is genuine about repairing relations with the United States and Iran’s neighbours and accuse him of being a wolf in sheep’s skin – a rouge to ease sanctions. It may be too early to pass judgement on Rouhani’s intentions and his ability to bring such radical change, given the nature of the Iranian regime. But his government has suggested that Iran is not wedded to Bashar al-Assad and this is big news, just as big as the advances in nuclear talks.
Two key issues may help make sense of the new Iranian position. The Syrian civil war has descended into sectarian warfare. This is a dangerous turn that has spilled across the region and brought death and destruction on Muslims by the hands of other Muslims. The Sunni Islamist groups portray the conflict in terms of jihad against the Shia and the Alawites and are supported in that claim by Wahhabi clerics. The civil war in Syria resembles a proxy war where Iran’s military support for the Assad regime is presented as a Shia campaign against the Sunni population. In turn Saudi and other Arab Sheikhdoms’ support for the rebels is presented as holy war against the Shia. This sort of blatant sectarianism and the not-so-hidden conflict with Saudi Arabia and other Arab Sheikhdoms does not serve Iran. Traditionally, Iran has claimed to represent all Muslims, hoping to transcend the sectarian divide. This approach is even more important to the Rouhani government as he has taken a much more conciliatory approach to Iran’s neighbouring states.
And this brings us to the second point. Rouhani has done very well to re-set Iran’s relations with the United States and would be keen to extend an olive branch to its own region. This is very much in line with his efforts to repair some of the damage done to Iran’s international standing under his predecessor. He is conscious that open hostility and antagonism towards Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will put US-Iran rapprochement at risk. Indeed, how can the two mend fences if Iran continues to threaten Saudi interests? Improving Iran’s regional standing and building confidence, therefore, are parts of a bigger picture. In that picture, Iran stands as a benign power, recognised for its contribution to civilization and regional stability. The reality, however, is far removed from that idealised picture and Rouhani’s government has a way to go towards it. Unfortunately for him, the challenges are not all external.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/grand-bargain-syria.html
Interesting. Could another 'off-the-cuff' remark from Kerry lead to progress in Syria? Of course, even if Iran agreed to a 'grand bargain' regarding Assad Putin is still out there. Nothing will get settled without Russia's support.
