September 06-13
Although the United States is debating whether to go to war against Syria, Iran is very much in the foreground of the American debate.
Meanwhile, in Tehran Syria is the dominant issue in the media as politicians of almost every stripe line up to condemn any US military action against Syria. The main theme heard is that a US attack on Syria would cause the whole Middle East to explode.
But others scoff at the attack threat and say the US is incapable of pulling off such an attack, an odd line of reasoning given that it could be proven false this very month. However, many of these critics speak as if the United States were contemplating an invasion along the lines of the attack on Iraq in 2003, rather than a simple raid by hundreds of missiles.
Still others are arguing, like President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, that President Obama’s pause to await a vote in Congress displays American softness and weakness. Again, many saw that as an odd line of reasoning since it will carry no water if an attack is launched later this month.
Another popular theme is that the United States would be the main loser in any attack on Syria. From the standpoint of the Islamic Republic, that would seem to be an argument for encouraging Washington to attack. But it is used as an argument against an attack.
Perhaps the oddest argument heard was the one that said a US attack on Syria would be further proof that the United States is allied with Al-Qaeda. Major General Hassan Firuzabadi the highest ranking officer in the Iranian armed forces as chairman of the Joint Staff, said, “The US, which has invaded countries in the region under the big lie of battling Al-Qaeda following the September 11 attacks, is now fighting in favor of Al-Qaeda in Syria.”
The almost uniform observation in Iran is that the chemical weapons found in Damascus were used by the rebels fighting Assad. There have been two notable exceptions. President Rohani has condemned the use of chemical weapons—but he has been silent on who used those weapons. And former President Rafsanjani has publicly said the Syrian government used the chemical weapons. (See separate story in this week’s issue.)
But in Washington, Iran was a central part of the administration argument for why the United needs to attack Syria.
In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “I will tell you, there are some people hoping that the United States Congress doesn’t vote for this very limited request the president has put before you. Iran is hoping you look the other way. Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention if not to put it to the test.”
Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also put Iran front and center in the debate, saying a refusal by Congress to authorize an attack on Syria would simply embolden the Islamic Republic by eliminating any fear it may have had in the past about an American attack on Iran.
Iran also came up in Germany. The weekly news magazine Der Spiegel said Germany’s spy agency had intercepted a telephone call between a senior official of the Lebanese Hezbollah and an Iranian diplomat. In that call, the Lebanese said Assad had snapped and made a huge mistake in authorizing the use of chemicals against his own people. Iran was probably less concerned about the substance of the call than about the fact that an Iranian diplomat’s conversation was being tapped by the Germans.
Several Iranian officials proclaimed in recent days that Iran had warned the United States that terrorists in Syria were importing chemical weapons. Defense Minister Hossain Dehqan complained that Washington “ignored Iran’s warnings eight months ago about sarin gas being taken to Syria and practically paved the way for chemical attacks in Syria.”
Meanwhile, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman arrived in the Arabian Sea to replace the USS Nimitz in duty off Iran. But the Nimitz was told it couldn’t go home. Instead it has sailed to the Red Sea to be on call for possible involvement in an attack on Syria.
Iran’s new foreign minister, Mohammad-Javad Zarif, used a different line of logic in addressing the debate in the US Congress. “He said, “Congress cannot authorize strikes and such an attack would be in violation of international law. Only the Security Council, under certain conditions, can issue authorization” for the use of force.
He did not address the Security Council resolutions ordering Iran to cease uranium enrichment and imposing sanctions on it for failing to do so. The Islamic Republic calls those resolutions illegal.
