It was not the first time in which leaders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, or other Iranian officials, made statements about Lebanon or other countries in which Tehran has direct influence. And it was not the first time in which Iranian officials deny these statements, as soon as they are issued. Most likely, both the statement and the denial have their functions in the context of the regional crisis, either in terms of Tehran's relationship with the United States and western countries, or in terms of Iranian-Arab relations, which are tense because of the ongoing struggle over influence, and in light of the continuing Israeli threats to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Or, it could be part of the Syrian crisis, in which Tehran has adopted the defense of the Syrian regime until the end, while western countries and most Arab states are biased toward the Syrian uprising, believing that the solution will come with President Bashar Assad's stepping down. The commander of the Quds Brigade, General Qassem Soleimani, stated in January that Iran was present in South Lebanon and Iraq, and that Tehran could organize any movement leading to the formation of an Islamic government "in order to combat (western) arrogance." As soon as Soleimani made the statement, a denial was issued by the Iranian ambassador in Lebanon, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, who knows Lebanon well and understands the sensitivity of such remarks for Lebanese groups, especially Hezbollah, before its rivals. Roknabadi said, diplomatically, that Soleimani meant "the degree of great inspiration in countries of the region, among them Lebanon and Iraq, for the idea of the Iranian Revolution.'" The ambassador did not want to embarrass the party's current partners in government, and Iran is seeking to reduce the impact of threats to the Cabinet, which threaten its unity from time to time. However, the denial does not cancel out the objective behind what was said, just as four days ago, when the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Marshal Mohammad Ali Jaafari, spoke about the Guards' presence in Syria and Lebanon "as advisers who offer advice, money and ideas." Once again, Roknabadi was obliged to put forward a denial. The matter of advice and consultation is hidden from no one. The Iranians talk about it with no embarrassment in closed meetings, and in their public stances; during the first months of the crisis some Syrian officials did not hide from their Lebanese allies that General Soleimani was visiting Damascus nearly weekly, to offer advice. These allies spoke about the positive advice: the need for Assad to speed up reforms, or avoiding killing people in suppressing demonstrations, and use rubber bullets, tasers, tear gas and truncheons, instead of live ammo and rockets, as the Iranian leadership did in 2009, etc. This advice was not acted on. However, Iran and its allies have no option but to support the regime, because losing the Syrian card is a strategic issue, whatever the "mistakes" of this regime; thus, Tehran has moved to offering advice and consultation that is appropriate to a military solution. The Iranians did not deny subsequent Iranian statements, from those by the adviser to the Supreme Leader, Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati, to the adviser and Major General Yahya Safavi, that "if the Zionist entity takes any step against us, the groups of the resistance, and especially Hezbollah, as the depth of our strategic defense, will respond." Moreover, it was openly said by Hezbollah leaders that their arsenal was ready to defend Iran, and that this arsenal was a "gift" from the Iranians. This was earlier affirmed by the party's secretary general, when he spoke about repaying favors. Needless to say, this arsenal requires "consultation" in training, storage, use and targeting, and thus requires experts on the ground. It is difficult to de-link Iran's "maneuver" in making statements or hints about its direct presence in Syria and Lebanon, and what is awaited from its influence in Iraq, followed by the denial of some of these statements, from the "maneuvers" by western countries in their ongoing confrontation with the Iranian leadership. The latest incident, which began Monday and will last until the 27th of the month, involves large-scale naval maneuvers, led by the American military and with the participation of 30 countries, in safeguarding the freedom of navigation in Middle Eastern waters, through mine-clearing exercises. Talk about Iran's direct presence in Lebanon and Syria has other functions, certainly. With every threat against Tehran, Israel is reminded that Iran has a reach into Israel's surrounding areas, and is warning it against supporting the Syrian opposition with weapons. There were also Jaafari's comments about advisers in Syria and Lebanon, which coincided with the western naval maneuvers, requiring a re-statement of the threat to strike the Strait of Hormuz. Some people are asking the following question: is the objective of Iran's suggestion, during the meeting of the Syria Contact Group (made up of it, Egypt and Turkey, with Saudi Arabia staying away) in Cairo two days ago, to send observers to Syria from these countries, meant to legitimize the presence of its advisers who are already there?
