for involving itself in the Syrian turmoil, while the Islamic Republic appeared to be having second thoughts about its unqualified support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The EU sanctions will have no economic impact on Iran. Their significance lay in the fact that the EU was tabbing Iran for its close ties to a government that has lost all support from governments around the world except for Iran.
The main reason for the EU sanctions was presumably to paint the Islamic Republic as further isolated from mainstream political opinion in the world and, especially, as acting contrary to public opinion in the Arab world, where Iran was once popular because it was seen as democratic and anti-Israel. Now it is widely seen as undemocratic, since the 2009 post-election protests, and acting within the Arab world primarily to push a Shiite agenda in Bahrain and Syria.
The EU cited the Qods Force, the branch of the Pasdaran that operates abroad, saying it has “provided technical assistance, equipment and support to the Syrian security services to repress civilian protest movements.”
In Tehran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast called that “baseless” and a “sheer lie.”
The actual sanctions freeze any assets the Qods Force might have in Europe and bars the issuance of visas to Qods Force members.
Some Syrian opposition figures and Iranian opposition groups have charged that the Pasdaran have sent troops into Syria to gun down protesters. There have been news reports asserting that Syrian protesters have heard troops speaking Farsi.
However, the EU did not accuse Iran of posting troops to Syria. Similarly, the United States has said Iran provides advice and riot control gear, but has not found any truth to the tales of Iranian troops in Syria.
In fact, there are reports from Iran that some in the government are exasperated by the Syria tactic of shooting blindly into masses of peaceful protesters. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi drew much attention around the world with a statement saying the Syrian government must open a dialogue with its opponents and negotiate reforms.
That was taken as evidence that Iran was trying to distance itself from Assad. But Salehi’s remarks were only slightly different from past comments—though they did hint at exasperation with Assad.
For months, the Iranian government has defended Assad, pointing out that he has offered dialogue to the opposition and was promising reforms, which Iran repeatedly said were needed. The difference last week was that Salehi gave a hint of pushing Assad to actually do something after six months of mouthing promises of political change.
There were also rumors that the Islamic Republic has ceased providing aid to Assad. But those were only rumors. There was no evidence. Furthermore, Salehi’s remarks did not include any diminishment in Iran’s support for the Assad government.
Salehi said Sunday, “A government should answer to the demands of its people, be it Syria, Yemen or other countries. The people of these nations have legitimate demands, and their governments should answer these demands as soon as possible.” Salehi was careful to phrase his remarks as applicable worldwide and not addressed merely to Syria.
The day before, however, Salehi was unstinting in his support for Assad. Salehi then focused on slamming President Obama for calling on Assad to leave office. “Syria is an independent country. International conventions do not allow countries to adopt an interfering stance toward another country,” Salehi said. He did not name what international convention he was citing because there is none. Iran constantly calls critical verbal comments “interference,” but words are not rated as interference. For that matter, Iran often makes critical remarks about other countries despite saying that violates international law when others do it.
Salehi said Obama’s remarks “should not be take seriously.… America still lives in a unipolar world, thinks it is a world gendarme and, unfortunately, makes such statements.”
Obama said August 18: “Assad’s calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing and slaughtering his own people. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Republican critics in the United States had been complaining for weeks that Obama had declined to make such a call for Assad’s departure.
While many analysts thought they saw a major shift in Iranian policy in Salehi’s remarks about reform in Syria, others suggested Iran was not changing policy but just trying to better position itself if Assad does fall.
One analyst said, “With Qadhdhafi’s fall, Tehran is re-thinking how far it has extended itself rhetorically to back a dictator in Syria whose regime may be crumbling. I expect Tehran to be making more statements to try to appeal to Arabs who oppose Assad—but that rhetoric doesn’t mean Iran will reduce its actual backing for Assad one bit.”
There was further evidence of such an effort to appeal to Arabs broadly. The same day Salehi spoke of the need for Assad to adopt reforms, Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Ahmad Musavi, charged Israel with meddling in Syria to try to topple the man most critical of Israel in order to compensate for the loss of Israeli allies in Egypt and Tunisia. In reality, however, most Israelis are fearful that Assad’s fall may be bad for Israel since Assad has used his anti-Israel rhetoric to cover up the fact that he does nothing threatening to Israel.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic continues to issue constant denunciations of what it says are western plans to intervene militarily in Syria. There is no lobbying anywhere in the West for such intervention, but Tehran seems to see intervention as a real option, raising yet more questions about its ability to understand how the Western world functions.