BEIRUT// Last week’s groundbreaking preliminary nuclear deal with Iran raised optimism internationally that it could be the first step toward a broader rapprochement between the United States and the Islamic republic.
But across the Middle East’s battlefields, Iran’s proxy forces remain dominant, key actors fighting for gains that run sharply counter to US ambitions — and analysts say this is unlikely to change even if a final nuclear deal is signed.
“Qassem Suleimani was not at the negotiation table in Lausanne,” said Randa Slim, a political analyst with the Washington-based Middle East Institute. She was referring to the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, a man frequently seen rallying Shiite militiamen on the front line in Iraq.
“He is the person in charge of Iran’s policy in many of those proxy areas, be it Yemen, be it Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.”
In the power struggles in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, Iran and the US have different ideas of who should be in charge and have backed forces accordingly. In Syria and Yemen, proxies are actively fighting one another. In Iraq, the US and Iran have found a common enemy in ISIL, but the US seeks to check Iranian ambitions in that country. Calming those battles for influence is a difficult path that is not yet on the table.
“Both the Americans and the Iranians, each with their respective reasons, made sure there was a firewall between the negotiations and the [regional] fight,” said Ms Slim, adding that the sides did not want to complicate the process of reaching a nuclear deal.
Iran’s most renowned proxy, the Lebanese militant group Hizbollah, laid out its position on the nuclear deal and how it would affect the Middle East on Monday evening. Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah lauded the deal as a victory for Iran, saying that it would make the country and its allies stronger and allow Tehran to further help the Palestinian cause.
Also, he voiced optimism for the deal ensuring peace in the region.
"The agreement, God willing, rules out the spectre of regional war and world war," Mr Nasrallah said in an interview with Syria's Al Ekhbariya television station.
But Mr Nasrallah also reaffirmed Hizbollah’s commitment to fighting on the side of government forces in Syria, saying that the group knew the war there would be “long and harsh”.
Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland who focuses on Shiite militant groups in the Middle East, said Iran had little interest in ceding the dominance and influence it has won in the region through its proxies.
“We have to look at this in a regional picture,” he said. “Ideologically speaking and also power projection-wise, the Iranians do not want an American presence in the region.”
Just because a preliminary agreement has been cut and the US and Iran may be perceived as having a mutual foe in the extremist group ISIL “it does not necessarily mean that translates into partnership, success on that end, or even more stability”, Mr Smyth said.
In Iraq, the US and Iran have so far been forced to fight on the same side against ISIL and, to a certain degree, cooperate.
The recent battle for Tikrit showed the difficulty for US-backed or Iranian-backed forces to fight and win on their own. In Iraq, the US has pushed for Iraqi government forces to lead the fight against ISIL with the help of coalition air strikes. But Iranian-backed Shiite militias currently vastly outnumber the Iraqi army’s ranks and have shown greater aptitude in spearheading offensives.
But when Shiite militias attempted to lead the assault on the largest ISIL-held city recaptured so far, they made quick gains before getting bogged down by snipers and booby traps. It was only after the US-led coalition launched air strikes on ISIL positions — which Shiite militia leaders vociferously rejected — that the city fell.
Planned offensives to retake Anbar province and Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, could force another joining of efforts. But hostility between the two spheres of influence remains.
In Beirut’s Hizbollah-dominated southern suburbs on Thursday, supporters of the party expressed optimism about the nuclear deal, echoing their leader.
“This is better than going to war, we had to do it,” said a 36-year-old man who identified himself as Hussein. Like many in Hizbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon, he declined to be identified by his surname.
He said the deal could be the first step towards resolving differences between Iran and the US — and potentially the US and Iranian allies such as Hizbollah.
Even Hizbollah’s stance on the US could change, Hussein said, if a deal was struck and the US no longer took a hostile stance towards the group, which it currently considers a terrorist organisation.
“We feel the Iranians got everything they wanted,” said Mohammed, a 36-year-old Hizbollah fighter who works in the same metal shop as Hussein. “It was a victory for Iran. And they did not compromise their allies.”
Nearby, a man working in a car repair shop was less enthusiastic and feared that the negotiations with the West could mean Iranians softening their support for regional allies.
“If Iran starts to take sides with the Americans, that means they will have to leave some of their allies,” said a 52-year-old man who identified himself as Hamada.
foreign.desk@thenational.ae
