Use: the road of change inevitably passes through Iran

(To Giampiero Venturi)
07/02/17

Among the first highly anticipated moves of the new US administration in terms of foreign policy is the tightening of the tone with Iran.

In light of the relations between the two countries over the past thirty-eight years, this is nothing new.

Let's start with why. Beyond the official American retaliation for Tehran's late January missile tests, the United States urgently needs to restore a special relationship with Israel after the disastrous Obama experience. After swallowing the nuclear deal and almost eight years of frost between the two governments, Tel Aviv was waiting for a concrete revival to follow the declarations of intent of the US election campaign. Trump immediately opened for Jerusalem as the capital but has niche on the new settlements in the Territories, displacing not a little the Jewish state on the future of the strategies in the region. In order to reassure the ally, a strong American stance against Tehran was in the air.

The crux, however, is the geopolitical weight of current Iran and above all the role it plays in the complex regional balances. Speaking to the ayatollahs as we were in the years' 80 in fact, would no longer make much sense.

Shiite Iran is Assad's main Syria ally and a strategic reference for Putin's Russia. If the same government is there today in Damascus six years ago, it is essentially due to Tehran and Moscow.

Syria is one of the first pieces that the Trump administration must put in order, a variable out of control after years of blind support given by Washington to the Islamist rebels. The future of relations with Russia, to which the new US government says it wants to aim, first of all passes through the closing of the tap on the Sunni rebel front and the customs clearance of Assad. Thinking of doing so without a tacit agreement with Iran seems difficult at present. Nobody imagines that Hezbollah and the United States may one day go hand in hand, but serving God and Mammon is not always possible: if it is decided to file off relations with Syrian rebel militias and therefore to stem the Saudi projects supported by Clinton, it is inevitable to foresee greater flexibility with Tehran. More than useful, in this sense Iran is necessary. 

The road to Persia also passes through Egypt, another piece of the Middle Eastern mosaic that has escaped from Washington's hands in the last five years. From a pro-Western bastion, Cairo has become a treacherous ally for the United States. Al Sisi's operations in Libya in conflict with President Al Sarraj, the joint exercises with the Russians, the support for Moscow's intervention in Syria and above all the re-establishment of relations with Iran after half a century of darkness, were a more than explicit signal.

It is precisely Iran that seems to have a significant impact on the choices of Cairo, also as a possible variant of the historic energy dependence on Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian withdrawal from the Arab Sunni coalition in the war in Yemen should suffice by itself as an indicator of Iran's growing political influence in the region.

Speaking of Yemen: Americans support the increasingly uncomfortable Saudi military adventure against Shiite rebels. A few days ago the news of the death of a navy seal, involved in ground operations. Against the rebels Houthi and the militias of former President Saleh are also at the forefront of the Sunni jihadists of AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), an offshoot of the organization raised by Saudi Bin Laden. As confirmed by the BBC in February 2016, Sunni fundamentalist terrorism shares many objectives with Riyadh also on an ideological level. If today Iran arms and supports those who fight the Sunni global jihad, the question arises: who should the US blame? who is the most dangerous enemy?

If it were Al Qaeda, the US and Iran must reconnect at least from a strategic point of view and in this case the mediation of Russia would be essential; if they were Hezbollah and the pro-Iranian Yemeni militias, on the other hand, there is the risk that nothing will change compared to the previous administrations.

The weight of relations between Israel and the US in this regard is decisive. Tel Aviv prefers Riyadh to Tehran, there is no doubt about this. In order to make a real change to the balance in the Middle East, Trump's US will be forced to make a choice. There are even fewer on this. 

Photos: (Navy Seals - Fardanews)