Irans postAssad scenarios
Iran’s post-Assad scenarios
TEHRAN – After years of stagnation in northern and southern Syria, marked by the inaction against terrorists backed by a coalition of Hebrew, Arab, Turkish, and Western powers, we are witnessing a renewed wave of attacks by these groups. These actions have led to the destabilization of Syria, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the country's future and the broader region.
Regardless of what unfolds in Syria and how its neighbors and international actors like Russia might react, a crucial question remains: what will be Iran's course of action? This comes as Iran is also facing other challenges, including sanctions, occasional attacks on its scientists and allied political leaders, and a regime that’s constantly threatening to strike its nuclear sites.
Given the current situation in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran appears to have three general strategic options. Each of these scenarios carries costs. Any of these options could be chosen in an effort to halt the escalating pressures against Iran’s interests and mitigate the existing threats.
1. Adopting a regional agreement and abandoning the Resistance
This involves agreeing to implement a regional agreement similar to the JCPOA nuclear deal, withdrawing advisory, intelligence, and operational forces from West Asia, and ultimately abandoning the resistance strategy.
Implementing this scenario, and consequently severing ties with the Axis of Resistance in the region, would lead to a loss of Iran's strategic depth. The Shia populations across West Asia, from India to Greece and North Africa, would be subjected to massacres, genocide, aggression, and encroachment. Iran would be contained and isolated within its own borders. Its potential to act as a powerful and influential force on the regional and world stage would be significantly diminished. Furthermore, Iran would likely face internal issues such as separatism, terrorism, and widespread unrest.
2. Engaging in protracted regional conflict
This entails remaining in West Asia and engaging in a prolonged, attritional battle with terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and other areas. Given the superior economic, political, military, and security capabilities of the United States, which is backing these terror outfits, this conflict would likely continue until Iran is completely exhausted or severely weakened, draining its resources and power.
While a variation of this strategy could involve deploying significantly more military and security forces, assigning clear objectives across all fronts, and aiming to eliminate terrorism more quickly, the fundamental outcome of both approaches remains the same: the weakening of Iran's economy, war casualties, and, crucially, the failure to neutralize the threats facing Iran.
3. Targeting the primary actors and their interests
There is a strong and prevalent understanding regarding Israel's role in Iran's internal and external challenges. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel has consistently been a primary actor, either directly or indirectly, in Iran’s domestic and international crises. This involvement spans from sanctions, wars, and coups to cultural and economic aggression, and even extends to security sabotage and terrorist acts. This perspective is supported by considerable evidence, and, at times, Israel has even officially acknowledged its actions.
Those who subscribe to this perspective argue that a decisive solution to Iran's internal and external crises involves directly targeting Israel and its interests. Their rationale is that if Israel plays a direct role in these crises, it can be pressured to retreat and de-escalate the situation. Alternatively, if Israel's involvement is indirect, its powerful lobby and influence can be leveraged to pressure other actors to reduce tensions and curtail pressure on Iran, thereby indirectly containing the crises. The anticipated outcome of this strategy is the effective mitigation of Iran's challenges both domestically and abroad.
This perspective further contends that the conflict between Iran and the United States, as explicitly stated by the late General Qassem Soleimani, is not merely a matter of posturing or hyperbolic claims, but rather a deep-seated, existential, and identity-based confrontation. Consequently, it argues that Iran should avoid being drawn into conflicts with American proxies, such as Russia and the situation in Ukraine, which are ultimately distractions leading to prolonged and exhausting engagements. Instead, similar to the strategy employed in Yemen, Iran should directly target the United States, Israel, and their interests, aiming to impose significant costs on its primary adversaries and compel them to reassess their actions.
While the involvement of the United States, Israel, and specific West Asian nations is clearly evident in the prevailing regional developments and the renewed emergence of terrorism, concentrating solely on countering the proxy terrorists of America and Israel constitutes a strategic miscalculation. Such a tactic would be analogous to addressing only the branches of a tree, rather than targeting its underlying roots.
Furthermore, directly attacking the main actors and orchestrators of the challenges Iran faces by targeting the interests of the United States and Israel does not constitute neglecting or abandoning the fight against regional terrorism; rather, it suggests that Iran would simultaneously address both the symptoms and the root causes of its problems.
In this scenario, Iran would be in conflict with the United States, Israel, and terrorism. However, this strategy prioritizes addressing the primary instigators of the issues rather than solely engaging with their proxies and other terrorist groups. This avoids depleting Iranian power by only focusing on those groups.
source: tehrantimes.com