What an attack on Syria will mean for US-Iran relations A strike on Assad would abort the recent "testing

of the waters" between US and Iran since Rouhani's election.

If President Barack Obama does indeed attack Syria, with or without congressional approval, he will forfeit an opportunity to make headway with Iran over its nuclear programme and risk allowing Tehran once again to reap the greatest benefit from Washington's military excesses in the Middle East. (WRIGHTER THINKS THAT INTERVINING IS A GOOD IDEA) The more reasonable minds among Iranian political elites, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and his protege, President Hassan Rouhani, have publicly condemned Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. In doing so, they have become targets of Iranian hardliners, who voice unconditional support for Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Even though Rouhani's rare, pragmatic messages from Tehran have caught the attention of the US, they should not be interpreted to mean that Iran would sit on the fence, if a strike is launched at Damascus. WHY WOULD THAT HELP If an attack occurs, Rouhani and company either will be pushed to the sidelines or be forced to join the chorus led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). As Major General Qasem Soleimani, the brilliant tactician inside the IRGC, said this week: "Some ask why we help Syria ... why we need to. Syria is part of our axis of resistance, and we are responsible for the defence of all Muslims." These words are all too familiar to Western ears, but they indicate that in Iran, where the IRGC wields enormous economic and political power, the Guards will likely have more to say than the politicians on how to react to an attack on Syria. AMERICA SHOULD ETHER STAND BEHIND THERE WORD TO BE THE WORLD PALICE OF GET THERE NOSES OUT OF ALL OTHER COUNTRIES Thus, an attack will empower Iran's hardliners at a rare time when the US could engage more moderate leaders on a host of issues from Syria to Iran's problematic nuclear programme. And it might marginalise Rouhani and the technocrats in his new cabinet, who are aptly being called part of a "modern right" faction, for the foreseeable future. As Rouhani has stated on several occasions, his priority is lifting the severe sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the US, the European Union and the United Nations. In other words, Iran might just be ready to negotiate on the nuclear programme. I DONT AGREE WITH THIS STATMENT Spotlight In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria As the idea of an attack is debated inside the US Congress, at the United Nations, and across Europe, it is becoming clearer that the only outcome of a limited attack would be to "punish", not damage, Assad. The strategy, as outlined by Obama, would not tip the balance in the war - nor would it even eliminate Assad's stockpiles of chemical weapons. If the attack is limited, as Obama has promised, Iran's options would include: At first, conduct an antiAmerican/anti-imperialist propaganda campaign in the Middle East. Washington will have created the perfect script. Syrian civilians will undoubtedly be killed, allowing the Iranians to argue that the US is

hypocritical: Washington would have attacked Syria on "moral grounds", in the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, but in the process killed innocent people. An attack would surely move those sitting on the fence to sympathise with Assad and broader Shia communities in the Middle East, who would be given more evidence - at least in their minds - that the US is trying to guarantee the defeat of the Shia in order to establish Sunni-led governments in the region. As part of this public relations campaign, Iran could aid those harmed in a potential American attack. Rouhani said last week: "An American attack will create more problems. We have done the most we can in the last few days to prevent an attack." According to some Iranian officials, evidence was provided to the Americans to show that the chemicals came from the rebels, not Assad. "However, if there is an attack on Syria, Iran will provide medicine and food to Syrians," Rouhani said. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is largely responsible for Iran's Syria policy, would likely side with the IRGC, not the moderates, and others are already accusing the US of duplicity. "The current situation [a potential US military intervention] in Syria started with the excuse of chemical weapons," Khamenei said last week. "The Americans manipulated words to make it seem as if they have humanitarian objectives. Americans talk about humanitarian issues, but they opened Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, they were silent when Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians.

On September 6, Ahmad Khatami, a conservative Friday prayer leader, made a convincing argument that the US, having supported an opposition movement that has led to the killing of tens of thousands of Syrians, is now planning to attack because it lost the war through other means. "Why is America pursuing humanitarian objectives now after 30 months?" he asked. "They have supported the opposition to overthrow Bashar Assad all along, but failed." These are powerful words that will have great meaning across the Middle East, further inflaming Arab and Iranian sentiment toward Washington. If a unilateral US attack is more extensive, and destroys Syria's infrastructure, such as its chemical stockpiles and communications facilities, this could give the green light to Iran's hardliners to launch their own targeted attacks - not on Israeli territory, but in more clever ways. For Iran's political elites, serious damage from a unilateral attack cannot go unanswered. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, US officials are concerned that Iranian operatives or their sympathisers will retaliate by bombing the US embassy in Baghdad. The US has much to lose, and Iran has much to gain, if Obama authorises a unilateral attack - even if the attack has international backing. Not only will Iran appear to be justified in whatever action it takes, but US aggression will also empower the hardliners across the Middle East and in Iran by providing a credible ideological, anti-colonialist argument for increasing violence. Just as importantly, the indirect "testing of the waters" that has been going on between Washington and Tehran since Rouhani became president a month ago would be quickly aborted. A symbolic strike on Assad - one that would do nothing to change the dynamics of the war - seems far too risky, given the likely consequences for the US. Geneive Abdo is a fellow at the Stimson Center and Brookings Institution.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Obama Defends U.S. Engagement in the Middle East

UNITED NATIONS President Obama on Tuesday laid down a retooled blueprint for Americas role in the strife-torn Middle East, declaring that the United States would use all of its levers of power, including military force, to defend its interests, even as it accepted limits on its ability to influence events in Syria, Iran and other countries. DOCUMENT: Text of Obamas Speech at the U.N. DOCUMENT: Text of Rouhanis Speech at the U.N. MULTIMEDIA FEATURE: Timeline on Irans Nuclear Program
Related News Analysis: Obamas Evolving Doctrine (September 25, 2013) Obama and Rouhani Miss Each Other, Diplomatically, at U.N. (September 25, 2013) As the New Iranian Leader Gets a Warm Reception, Israel Calls for Caution (September 25, 2013) Related in Opinion Editorial: President Obama at the United Nations (September 25, 2013) Todd Heisler/The New York Times President Obama told the General Assembly on Tuesday that American isolationism would leave a vacuum in world leadership. nlarge This Image

Todd Heisler/The New York Times President Hassan Rouhani of Iran passed on a much-anticipated handshake with Mr. Obama. Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times President Obama said the United States was committed to the Mideast for the long haul, adding that despite war weariness, to disengage would be a mistake. Enlarge This Image

Richard Perry/The New York Times President Hassan Rouhani of Iran spoke after Mr. Obama. Readers Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (405) In a wide-ranging speech to the General Assembly that played off rapid-fire diplomatic developments but also sought to define what he called a hard-earned humility about American engagement after 12 years of war, Mr. Obama insisted that the United States still played an exceptional role on the world stage. Turning inward, he said, would create a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.

Mr. Obama embraced a diplomatic opening to Iran, saying he had instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to begin high-level negotiations on its nuclear program. He called on the Security Council to pass a resolution that would impose consequences on Syria if it failed to turn over its chemicals weapons.

And he delivered a pitch for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, talks that have restarted at the prodding of Mr. Kerry. Hours later, Irans newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani, echoed the call for diplomacy, telling the General Assembly that we can arrive at a framework to manage our differences. But Mr. Rouhani said Iran would insist on its right to enrich uranium, and he warned Mr. Obama to resist influence from warmongering pressure groups. Mr. Rouhani, who had mounted an aggressive charm offensive in the weeks before arriving in New York, also declined a chance to shake hands with Mr. Obama avoiding a much-anticipated encounter that would have bridged more than three decades of estrangement between the leaders of Iran and the United States. In their speeches, both leaders balanced their ideals as statesmen with their imperatives as politicians. But for Mr. Rouhani, a handshake may have proved too provocative for hard-line constituencies back home. At the end of a day of drama and dashed expectations at the United Nations, the spotlight swung back to the grinding work of diplomacy that awaits both nations. In the morning, it was a somewhat diminished American leader who faced a skeptical audience of world leaders here. After first threatening, then backing off, a military strike against Syria, and now suddenly confronting a diplomatic opening with Iran, Mr. Obama has employed a foreign policy that has at times seemed improvisational and, in the view of many critics, irresolute. The president acknowledged as much, saying his zigzag course on military strikes had unnerved some allies and vindicated the cynicism of many in the Middle East about American motives in the region. But he said the bigger threat would be if America withdrew altogether.

The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage, Mr. Obama said. I believe that would be a mistake.

Despite a war-weary public and its declining reliance on Middle Eastern oil, the United States would continue to be an active player in the region, Mr. Obama insisted, defending its interests; advocating for democratic principles; working to resolve sectarian conflicts in countries like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain; and, if necessary, intervening militarily with other countries to head off humanitarian tragedies. We will be engaged in the region for the long haul, Mr. Obama said in the 40-minute address. For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation. For a president who has sought to refocus American foreign policy on Asia, it was a significant concession that the Middle East is likely to remain a major preoccupation for the rest of his term, if not that of his successor. Mr. Obama mentioned Asia only once, as an exemplar of the kind of economic development that has eluded the Arab world. Much of Mr. Obamas focus was on the sudden, even disorienting flurry of diplomatic developments that began after he pulled back from the brink of ordering a strike on Syria last month. He said Irans overtures could provide a foundation for an agreement on its nuclear program, but he warned that conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. Referring to the moderate statements of Mr. Rouhani, and an exchange of letters with him, Mr. Obama sounded a cautiously optimistic tone about diplomacy. The roadblocks may prove to be too great, he added, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. Similarly, Mr. Obama pushed negotiations at the Security Council on a Russian plan to transfer and eventually destroy President Bashar al-Assads chemical weapons. But he faulted Russian and Iran for their support of Mr. Assad, saying it would further radicalize Syria. And he claimed it was only the American threat of military action against Syria that had set in motion these diplomatic efforts. Without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all, the president said. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. The president spoke immediately after Brazils president, Dilma Rousseff, delivered a blistering denunciation of the United States over reports that the National Security Agency monitored e-mails, text messages and other electronic communications between Ms. Rousseff and her aides. Last week, Ms. Rousseff canceled a state visit to Washington to signal her displeasure with the N.S.A. surveillance, the most significant diplomatic fallout from revelations that have also strained relations with other allies, like Mexico and Germany. Mr. Obama took note of these grievances, saying the United States was rethinking its surveillance activities as part of a broader recalculation that included restricting the use of drones, and transferring prisoners out of the military prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and ultimately shutting it down. His words echoed a speech he delivered last spring on the need for the United States to get off perpetual war footing.

Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, the president said, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his support for another perennial American project: bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. With talks starting again between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Obama appealed for support. The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace, he said. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. Mr. Obama also sent a warning to Egypts military-backed government that it would lose American support if it continued to crack down on civil society. His message was viewed positively by the Egyptian state news media, despite the criticism, because they claimed he credited the government with taking steps toward democracy. We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people, he said. But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypts progress in pursuing a democratic path.

For all his caveats, Mr. Obama left no doubt that the United States would use its political, economic and, if necessary, military power in the Middle East. Acknowledging that his position on Syria had prompted uneasiness in the region, he insisted that the United States would still act to protect its interests. The president also issued a fervent call for countries to intervene when necessary as the United States did in Libya, but conspicuously did not do in Syria. Sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter, he said. Reporting was contributed by Somini Sengupta from the United Nations, Michael R. Gordon and Rick Gladstone from New York, and David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 24, 2013

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of former President Jimmy Carters wife. She is Rosalynn Carter, not Rosalyn.