What did General Mohammad Ali Jafari want to say to the people of the region and the major powers? Did he mean to affirm that Iranian presence in Syria and Lebanon is a matter of life or death for his country? Or to stress that Iran will go in this conflict to the end, even if it turns into a civil and regional war? Did he want to say that keeping Syria in the resistance alliance is worth taking risks such as expanding tensions, threats and even confrontations? Or did the Iranian general intend to declare that Tehran, not Moscow, is the only true protector of the Syrian regime on the ground, and that therefore, all those involved in the Syrian issue should realize that “overthrowing the Syrian regime is a red line"? Pundits following up the Iranian onslaught in the region believe that the Iranian regime cannot afford to lose its Syrian ally. Neither the Supreme Leader nor the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) can afford this. Therefore, the cost of defending the Syrian regime, no matter how high, remains much lower than the price of losing the Syrian regime. For one thing, losing Syria would also mean Hezbollah becoming a local player unable to launch or deter war. It was remarkable that General Jafari, the Supreme Commander of the IRGC, admitted that a number of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, while claiming that this did not constitute "a military presence". Instead, he said, their role is limited to providing counsel and advice, and even financial assistance. Yet, he said that Iran would indeed provide military support if Syria comes under attack, and also confirmed the presence of advisers in Lebanon. The presence of the Iranian advisers was no secret, whether in Syria or Lebanon. But this is the first time that Iran has officially and publically confirmed this. To be sure, this announcement was no slip of the tongue. It is a message to the Syrian opposition and its supporters in the region and the world, who are calling for political transition in Syria. A closer examination of the timing of the Iranian announcement would produce several observations. Iran made the announcement at a time when the region is preoccupied with the repercussions of the offensive film, and the targeting of U.S. embassies, especially in the countries of the Arab Spring. The announcement also came after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rebuked Iran because of its failure to cooperate. It also followed President Bashar al-Assad's reception of the UN-Arab envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who believes that political transition necessarily means Assad stepping down, regardless of when this would happen. We can also say that the announcement took place on the eve of the supposed meeting of the regional quartet, proposed by Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi. Mursi's positions and calls on Assad to step down may have dealt a blow to the quartet before it saw the light of day, but the Iranian general's statements were the coup de grace. We cannot see Jafari's statements in isolation from those of General Yahya Rahim Safavi, Adviser to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic adviser for military affairs. He said, “If the Zionist regime does anything against us, resistance groups—especially the Lebanese Hezbollah—as our strategic defensive depth, will give a response to this regime more easily". If Iran assigns such a role for Hezbollah's arsenal, then how can it possibly allow any change in Syria that would sever its supply line to this arsenal, which Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah maintains is capable of inflicting heavy damage on Israel and tens of thousands of Israelis? We are facing a terrible bloody stalemate in Syria. The regime can no longer back down after everything it has done. The opposition cannot back down after all the sacrifices it has made. Iran will not back down, nor will those calling on Assad to step down. The express statement that the Syrian regime enjoys the protection of the umbrella of the IRGC and its advisers will attract more volunteers and jihadists to Syria, especially since this umbrella has Lebanese and Iraqi extensions. In the end, Kofi Annan could not manage more than adding a chapter to his memoirs. We do not wish for Brahimi's mission to meet the same fate, but all hints suggest that the suffering of the Syrian people will only worsen.
