An Anti-Iranian Wave Has Been Created Among Muslims

Rooz Online

While the major powers have come to some agreement on disarming Bashar Assad’s regime of chemical weapons, a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) force said that Iran’s policies of supporting Bashar Assad have resulted in hate against Iran among Arab states.

Speaking about the Syrian conflict, a former IRGC commander Hossein Alai said last week, “Americans and Russians are looking for a formula to replace Bashar Assad and predict that he will be around no longer than the 2014 elections. Events in that country have provided foreigners the opportunity to intervene in Syrian events, as Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also jumped in it to control the developments there. The US and Israel too prefer that their allies stay engaged in the developments in Syria so that no concerns arise for Israel’s security.”

He continues his analysis with these words: “Iran entered the field when developments in Syria expanded. As a country that desires the status quo, Iran proposed the idea of free Syrian elections without foreign interference. This is because the Islamic Republic believes that events in Syria are not just a social issue for democracy but that as soon as public protests began, other players jumped in to advance their own interests. Unfortunately an anti Iranian wave grew as soon as Syria was engulfed in public protests. So the question is this: if you are supportive of democracy then why do you support the Syrian regime? This is a question that those who have been involved in the recent developments in Arab countries in the last three years have been asking. The issue has resulted in a considerable loss of Iran’s influence in the Arab world.”

At the same time as this former Guards commander questions Iran’s support for Bashar Assad, Iran’s new centrist president Hassan Rowhani has expressed his fear about the Syrian opposition forces and has warned Assad’s opponents about resorting to chemical weapons and calls this the gravest danger for the security of the Middle East. “Arming extremist and denounced groups, and particularly equipping them with chemical weapons, is the greatest danger for peace and security in the region. All plans and solutions must be considered,” he has said. He calls the Syrian crisis a “humanitarian catastrophe” and has stressed that the solution to the problem can only be attained “politically and through negotiations between the Syrian government and its opponents.”

Prior to these remarks, Masoud Jazaeri, the head of the defense propaganda bureau of the IRGC had said that if Assad’s regime were attached, Washington and its allies would be attacked. “Signs indicate that in line with the defense of national security if Syria were attacked then American interests and those of its allies would be attacked.”

Last week, Iran’s top leader ayatollah Khamenei made public comments on US’s position against Syria and said, “We hope that the new American policy on Syria is serious, empty of deceit and is a real change from the recent unilateral and wrong polices of the recent weeks.”

His remarks were a reference to US President Obama’s announcement that he had asked Congress to halt its vote on attacking Syria and allow the US and the UN to test the diplomatic channel. Obama had at the same time stressed that if that channel failed to produce results, the military attack would go ahead.

Prior to Obama’s announcement, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov had asked the Syrian government to transfer its chemical weapons to the international community as a way to avoid war. Following that, the Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem announced that his country was prepared to stop the production of chemical weapons and disclose the locations where these weapons were stored to representatives of the “UN, Russia and other countries.”

Last week, Rowhani announced through a televised statement that, “Syria played an important role in the region. This country is at the resistance front. Conditions there have resulted in a civil war. We see tribalism, extremism, terrorism and foreign intervention there. The US and its allies are now presenting pretexts. We denounce the use of chemical weapons in any country and under any conditions but they wanted to use this to start a war. If a war is begun we see this as a very dangerous development and the war will first and foremost involve all those who start it and we have also said that we too will provide friendly support to the Syrian people.”

Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif also stressed that, “A military attack on Syria will not end with a limited strike, but it will start a movement in the Islamic world and the Middle east region which will not necessary be under the control of the US which is to the benefit of the hardliners, and to the benefit of those groups that desire conflict and tension. They may try to change the power of balance inside Syria which is again in the interests of those countries and groups which have until now disrupted the balance of power by supporting extremist groups. So they are now searching for a pretext to create a change in the field. I think all of these will fail at the end of the day because they are operating in an impractical paradigm.”

He labeled an attack on Syria to be a “trap” set up for Obama and said, “Hardliners are forcing the US into a war and MR Obama is falling into a trap set up by various groups who have an interest in conflict but I think reason, common sense, America’s interests, Obama’s interests and those of his administration require that that he not fall into this trap and try to find a political solution for Syria because war is not the solution.”

A number of other Iranian officials had said earlier that if Syria were attached, the whole region would witness many conflicts. Jaafar Shajooni, a member of the conservative Jame Rohaniayt Mobarez group, for example, had said that if the US attacked Syria, “Russia would attack Saudi Arabia and Hezbollah and Iran would hit Tel Aviv. Israel would be eliminated from earth. What will the US do then? So our government is not averse for this to happen. If it does, we will also be seriously hurt but the issue will end with Israel’s annihilation.”