Wednesday, March 21st | 5 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

April 2, 2015 5:43 pm

Analysis: Nations Reach Deal With Iran as Islamic Republic Continues Mideast Power Play

avatar by Alina Dain Sharon /

Email a copy of "Analysis: Nations Reach Deal With Iran as Islamic Republic Continues Mideast Power Play" to a friend

P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Iran and P5+1 reached an agreement on a preliminary nuclear deal two days past the original March 31 deadline. Secretary of State John Kerry posted on Twitter that negotiators “now have parameters to resolve major issues on nuclear program,” and that both sides will now turn to the drafting of the deal.

This agreement remains just a precursor to a final deal that must be agreed upon by June 30. Meanwhile, Iran is forging ahead with its quest for dominance in the Middle East region. How might the negotiations’ final outcome affect Iran’s regional ambitions, and what is the current extent of the Islamic Republic’s power play? spoke with experts for a snapshot of Iran’s influence in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza.


Judging from images appearing in Iranian media of airplanes loaded with humanitarian aid headed for Yemen, and of Shi’a-Muslim Houthi rebels being shipped to Iran for medical treatment, it seems that Iran is making little effort to hide its affinity for the Houthis, said Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

While it is not necessarily possible to verify precisely what materials are being shipped from Iran to Yemen, Ottolenghi described “a track record of Iran sending ships of aid”  containing weapons.

“We’ve seen it in shipments to Gaza [and] shipments to Lebanon,” Ottolenghi told

The establishment of direct flights between Iran and Yemen by the Iranian carrier Mahan Air is another indication of Iran’s interest in the Yemenite conflict. That airline has coordinated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) by “secretly ferrying operatives, weapons, and funds on its flights,” U.S. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen said in 2011.

Gregory Gause, head of the International Affairs Department at the Bush School of Government and Public Service of Texas A&M University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, said the Houthis are the more interested party in the Iranian-Houthi relationship.

“The Houthis are aligned with Iran, but they’re not the creation of Iran. They have more  so thrown themselves at the Iranians than the other way around,” Gause told

Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi—a professor of planning and public policy at New Jersey-based Rutgers University and a candidate in Iran’s 2013 presidential race—argued that while the Houthis are Shi’a Muslims, as is the Iranian regime, the Houthis should not be equated with Hezbollah, a Shi’ia terror group that has much closer ties to Iran.

“Iran’s strategy toward Yemen is not a military strategy because Yemen is too far away from Iran,” Amirahmadi told

Yet Reuters has reported that Iran provided significant military and financial support to the Houthis before and after their takeover of Sana’a (Yemen’s capital) last September, quoting an anonymous senior Yemenite security official as saying, “Before the entrance into Sana’a, Iran started sending weapons here and gave a lot of support with money via visits abroad.”

Lebanon and Syria

Amirahmadi said that unlike Iranian-Houthi ties, the relationship between Iran and Lebanon-based Hezbollah is “brotherly.”

In Lebanon, it has become clear that Hezbollah “is willing to do whatever the Iranians ask them to,” said Gause.

“The fiction that Hezbollah was only a Lebanese nationalist organization whose whole mission was in Lebanon, and confronting Israel from Lebanon, has been disproven by the fact they’re willing to fight so directly in the Syrian civil war,” Gause said.

In Syria, he added, Iran “supports [President Bashar] Assad in every possible way by supplying the Assad regime with cheap oil… They supply the Assad regime with direct military support through the [IRGC-QF] force.”

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst who teaches contemporary Iranian politics at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya college in Israel, believes the Assad regime in Syria would not have survived without Iran’s influence.

“If it wasn’t for the fact that Hezbollah and Iran are supporting Assad militarily, his dictatorial regime would have been finished,” Javedanfar told


Gause said that from the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran had established close relations with a number of Iraqi political actors and militias. Today, Iran is “the most important foreign player in Iraqi politics,” he said.

“In the 2010 election the Iranians intervened directly to help keep then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power. It was the Iranians who [then] basically told Maliki in 2014 that he had to go,” said Gause.

According to Ottolenghi, “both the political and military levels of the Iraqi Shi’a militia are very close to Iran, and the Shi’a political parties take much of their leads from Iran.”

Iran exerts additional influence over Iraq through “business, trade, investments, people-to-people programs, religious pilgrimages, access to the holy sites of Shi’a Islam,” and more, Ottolenghi explained. That influence, he said, has contributed to the current sectarian violence in Iraq.

“For all intents and purposes… there’s a civil war going on within Iraq as well,” Ottolenghi said.

In the meantime, the rise of the Islamic State terror group in Iraq and Syria has become a major problem for Iran. In addition to threatening Iran’s Shi’a proxies in the Iraqi government, Islamic State threatens the regional government in Iraq’s Kurdish region, which has been a significant trade partner for Iran, noted Ottolenghi. Islamic State could also eventually threaten the long-term viability of the Assad regime in Syria.

Iran has made it clear that it is not going to allow its “allies in Bagdad to be pushed out of power by an [Islamic State] blitzkrieg,” Gause said.


The Hamas-Iran relationship more closely resembles Iranian-Houthi ties than the Iran-Hezbollah relationship.

Gause said Hamas and Iran have been “allies of convenience” since 2007, when Hamas took over Gaza, “because the Iranians were willing to support them and Hamas was happy to get support from anywhere.” Ever since last summer’s war with Israel, Hamas—a Sunni-Muslim Palestinian terror group—”remains dependent on Iranian financial support by and large,” Ottolenghi said.

Hamas has benefited from training and equipment from Iran, especially during last summer’s Gaza war. There have been reports of Hamas fighters being sent to Iran for training, and the sophistication of the tunnels that Hamas terrorists built under the Gaza-Israel border indicates that they might have received training from the engineering corps of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

But Gause said Iran’s involvement in the Syrian civil war “has made it harder for Sunni groups like Hamas to be openly aligned with the Iranians… because [the war in Syria] really polarized sectarian sentiment in the region.”

Impact of the nuclear deal

Amirahmadi said he believes Iran will be more aggressive in the region if, despite the newly reached framework, the nuclear negotiators ultimately fail to produce a final agreement by June. With the deal in place, Iran is likely to behave more moderately, he said.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Turkey—though the latter country has been relatively quiet on the issue—all do not believe that any deal will stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

“The issue is not the number of centrifuges or the amount of enrichment. It’s the trust. [Such countries] say [Iran’s] regime is a cheater… [that] they will go behind the backs of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S., and everyone else to build a bomb,” Amirahmadi said.

Gause said Saudi Arabia—a Sunni-Muslim rival of Shi’a Iran—has failed in its “efforts to roll back Iranian influence in the region.” The Saudis and some other Gulf states fear that Iran “will try to disrupt their domestic politics by trying to activate links with Shi’a communities,” he said. Bahrain, for instance, has a Sunni monarchy but a Shi’a-majority population. Countries like Saudi Arabia, said Gause, have “come to the conclusion that the U.S. isn’t going to take the lead in trying to block Iran’s regional games, and if that’s not going to happen, then they are going to have to do it.”

Javedanfar believes that if the newly agreed-upon framework falls apart before June, Iran will seek to wreak havoc in the Middle East in order to strengthen its future negotiating position.

“[Iran] will make chaos in the region, and they will make it so bad that they will try to convince the Americans that no security will exist in this region without Iran,” Javedanfar said. “They will create chaos in order to force the Americans to sit down and deal with them.”

Even with the deal, preliminary or final, there is still “going to be instability in this re-gion, because Iran is going to have more money—because some of the sanctions will be removed—and [Iran] will give it to all kinds of extremist groups in Iraq or the Assad re-gime, Hezbollah, and probably to the Houthis,” he said.

Furthermore, signs are already emerging that other Middle East countries are likely to react to the new framework, especially if it is later finalized, by expanding their own nuclear programs. Last week, Jordan already signed a $10 billion deal with Russia to build its first nuclear power plant.

“The pushback against Iran’s success will be to match Iran’s recognized nuclear capabil-ity with programs that these countries will now start,” said Ottolenghi, who added that even with no nuclear deal in place, “as long as there is no pushback… Iran will continue to interfere” in other Mideast countries’ affairs.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Yale

    The 64 trillion dollar question is whether the nuclear negotiations are a tactic to keep Western powers from responding to Iranian aggression in these places, or whether the aggression is intended to provide leverage in the nuclear talks. As long as Obama continues to feel obligated to make nice to Iran they win whichever strategy they’re following.

  • Julian Clovelley

    Surely in relation to any nation there are only two possible opposition paths one can take if persuasive pressure fails. They are sanctions or military action.

    Sanctions work on two presumptions. One is that the deprivation caused by sanctions will in turn make the Government internally unpopular, leading to its removal by general election, or by Palace Revolution, or Coup d’Etat. It is not a presumption with an enormously good track record of success. It might have helped bring down Apartheid. Mostly it deprives innocent people of livelihood and makes regimes cross. That is why I don’t support BDS

    The other is that the loss of money supply sanctions cause will limit the speed and range of Government activity. That is hardly a case in nations where what are considered vital projects can be continued using vastly underpaid, or conscripted, labor.

    So it really comes down to negotiations or military action. Where the Right sabotages the ability to negotiate and make deals it is effectively pressing the military option

    That, I fear, is the present situation in the eyes of many – including the Iranians.

    What then is the likely response to such threat? – Well there is a precedent in the Middle East. Israel dealt with it by constructing nuclear weapons

    Israel’s present belligerent posture is promoting the likelihood of Nuclear Weapons development rather than the delay of such projects. What is really needed is de-escalation and that means withdrawal to within internationally respected borders. I suggest that is what Israel should be aiming to do

    • A Zionist

      Either you do not understand the situation with Iran or you, like Obama and Kerry, are living with a delusion.

      According to you, it is not Iran that is behind terrorism. It is not Iran that is taking over the Middle East. It is not Iran who has managed, with little effort, to castrate America and the EU. It is not Iran who is building nuclear facilities. It is not Iran who has caused thousands of deaths, mistreat their own people, promotes hatred hatred of the West and especially “the Zionist entity” and has said that the anihilation of Israel is “non-negotiable”.

      You and Obama (and the useful idiots of the EU) can congratulate themselves in what they have done. Chamberlain was naive: Obama and the EU are not. All they see is potential $$$$$$$$ is business and therefore Israel is expendable.

      Despite all the evidence and despite all the experts, you claim that the problem is “Israel’s belligerence”. What you mean is “How dare those Jews defend themselves! It is as if those darned Jews believe they have the right to self-determination! They should immediately surrender and allow themselves to be killed.” This was, after all, the advice of Ghandi.

      As for “internationally respected borders” – do tell! I suspect you mean the 1967 lines”, which are the “1949 Armistice Lines” which are called the Auschwitz Lines because they cannot be defended. No country can defend a border that is 9 miles wide. But, this is what you want.

      Those who used a pen to draw the infamous “Green Line” made it clear: they are NOT borders, nor should be taken for borders.

      Iran and the Arabs have one aim: to eliminate the Jews. How do I know? Read the Hamas Charter and read the PLO Charter. Like Iran, both Hamas, the PLO and Hezbollah are honest in what they want. They do not want a 23rd Arab state. They want the Jewish State.

      Just like the Nazis, Iran is behind all the terror in the Middle East and Africa. Just like the Nazis, Iran has to be stopped in order for all of us in the West to live and be free.

      • Shalom,
        Very well said !
        But one point, the enigma which is Obama, so in reality who is he?
        A rise to president with minimal politically experience, to the highest office at best Strange.
        Without a doubt he is a Muslim, his allegiance to Islam is first.
        Look on youtube to see a historical first, Obama upon meeting the King of Saudi Arabia, BOWED before him !
        Both house should vote on a platform of ” no confidence” if that passes then, he is impotant, also a door to impeachment.
        Shabbot Shalom

      • zadimel

        I agree with your above statements and support your criticism of Julian Clovelley. Unfortunately, people like Clovelley ape the attitude of much of Muslim Europe, Middle East and Asia in promoting hatred of the Jew and Jewish Nation. No logic, no reasoning will change their disgusting,virulent bitterness and hatred.

  • Fred

    One should not forget the same scenario in the 1930 with the Hitler – Chamberlain Pact of “Peace in Our Time “now it has become a re run with Obama / Kerry , Iran & P5+1 the “No Nukes on our Watch “. Meanwhile Iran is stoking the fires everywhere it can and proclaims openly the destruction of Israel and can’t help laughing at the stupid world that believes what it is told.