No one was surprised by Hezbollah's revelation of its participation in the fighting alongside the Syrian regime. One would even say that its non-participation would have come as a surprise, considering that since its formation at the beginning of the 1980s by the Iranian Islamic intelligence apparatuses and following the "disciplinary" standoff it had with the Syrian army in Beirut, the party practically became under the command of a Syrian-Iranian coordination committee to prevent any clash of interests between Damascus and Tehran, and ensure the adoption of public and secret decisions in agreement with the executive command in the Southern Suburb of Beirut. This coordination constituted the foundation of the course of political and security developments in Lebanon throughout the past decades, and continued at the same pace without being affected by the exit of the Syrian army following Al-Hariri's assassination. This even constituted a qualitative turning point in the way the joint committee managed the Lebanese situation, later embodied in the coup against the national unity government and the monopolization of power by one team. The relations between the two sides constituting the regional command of the party sometimes witnessed troubles, due to the wish of each of them to arrange the bank of targets in accordance with its own priorities, until the revolution in Syria erupted and clearly revealed that the decision-making balance was evidently tilting in Tehran's favor. And since Iran's assessment of the current crisis in Syria deems it necessary for Bashar al-Assad's regime to stay in power, as its political, security and sectarian dimensions constitute a strategic necessity for the Islamic Republic, all possible means were mobilized to defend it, including Hezbollah's human and military capacities. But the party, which used to keep its support to the Syrian regime with fighters and experience in street wars a secret – although it repeatedly defended it in public – has now relinquished its reservations, is blatantly proclaiming the death of its elements and leaders while performing their "Jihadist obligation" on Syrian soil, and is organizing crowded funerals for them in a clear confirmation of further involvement in the heated Syrian civil war and the accusations and fears of the Syrian oppositionists and the Lebanese. But why this overtness featuring some sort of showmanship? In reality, an order for that purpose was issued by Iran itself. It thus triggered the first spark when leaders in the Revolutionary Guard issued intentional statements about the deployment of their elements in Syria and Lebanon, which quickly prompted the party to cooperate and start announcing the names of the dead in its ranks while praising their actions. Clearly, Iran's revelation of its role in protecting Al-Assad's regime aims at serving a series of goals, the first of which being the threat to turn the Syrian domestic conflict into an open Arab-Iranian war, after it figured out that the prolongation of the conflict and Al-Assad's inability to settle the confrontation militarily, are factors threatening his army and regime which will not be able to tolerate for much too long this increasing frailty. Hence, the possible expansion of the conflict might push the Arab sides supporting change in Syria to accept a settlement allowing the Syrian regime to catch its breath. Tehran also believes that the Americans and Europeans, who are rejecting direct intervention in Syria, might be forced to exert pressures to ensure a settlement if they were to detect a real threat caused by the expansion of war to other states or the triggering of regional war. Syria's daily and intentional provocation of Turkey falls in that context, along with the tensions generated by Ankara's obligation to respond and the obligation of its allies in NATO to humor it. Moreover, the dispatch of the unmanned reconnaissance drone to the Israeli airspace also falls in that context, in order to provoke a reaction that would increase the regional tensions. In the backdrop of Iran's threat to expand the conflict in Syria as well, there is an attempt to disengage from the American isolation policy, after this policy has started to impact its monetary and economic situation and threaten its domestic stability, through the opening of a gap to engage in dialogue with the West by announcing its direct responsibility for the Syrian file and the fact that it is the side responsible for negotiating over it.
