Why Is Iran's Military Role in the Region Giving Way to Politics?

“The revolutionary Tehran faded into the background, making way for Iran as a nation to take center stage.” This was the reality during recent events in Syria, which ended with the opposition seizing control of the country and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime after 13 years of revolution. During this time, Assad depended on Iranian generals and troops to quell the uprising.

On December 9, 2024, Russia officially announced that Assad had arrived in Moscow after fleeing the Syrian capital, Damascus. President Vladimir Putin granted him and his family “humanitarian asylum.”

Two Interconnected Phases

Since launching Operation Deterrence of Aggression on November 27 until Assad's ousting on December 8, no Iranian military figures were notably active in Syria. Instead, Iran’s diplomatic arm, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, took center stage.

This contrasts sharply with Iran's approach during the early days of the Syrian revolution in 2011. At that time, Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of the Quds Force, was a dominant figure on the ground in Syria, frequently moving between Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to support Assad's regime.

Araghchi himself attributed the absence of Iran's generals—particularly Esmail Qaani, the current commander of the Quds Force—and the reliance on diplomacy to the Syrian government's choice. He said Iran would “consider sending troops” if requested by Assad.

“In fact, diplomacy and the field complete each other. Diplomacy is incapable without field and power, and field can find its way with the help of diplomacy, ultimately providing national dignity in total.”

“We firmly support the Syrian army and government,” Araghchi added.

“Iran has always supported the government and people of Syria. According to what Damascus asks, we will continue this support.” However, the Iranian Foreign Minister emphasized that the form and scope of this support are determined by Damascus and the options at hand.

As Syrian opposition forces advanced, Abbas Araghchi visited Damascus on December 1, where he met with Assad. He reaffirmed Iran's unwavering support and readiness to provide all forms of assistance, emphasizing the need to firmly confront what he described as “terrorists.”

The next day, Araghchi traveled to Ankara to meet with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, who dismissed any foreign intervention in Syria, asserting it was a “domestic matter.” He also rejected Iran's allegations that the armed Syrian opposition was operating with Israeli and American support.

On December 6, Araghchi visited Baghdad, meeting with his counterparts from Syria and Iraq. The discussions resulted in what was described as a “vague” statement, focusing solely on diplomatic consultations and warnings about the dangers of the ongoing situation, without mentioning any military support for Assad.

On December 7, just hours before the regime's fall, Araghchi was in Doha, participating in a meeting with the foreign ministers of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkiye, and Russia. The group issued a statement calling for a “political solution and a halt to military operations.” However, the opposition's swift takeover rendered these efforts moot.

A New Approach

Explaining the absence of Tehran’s generals, Iraqi academic and researcher Muaid al-Douri said, “After Hezbollah’s defeat and the heavy losses it suffered in its war with the Israeli Occupation, Iran could not send any high-profile military figure to Syria because they would become a target for Israel.”

“Iran is also trying to send messages abroad, particularly to Western countries, that it is acting within the frameworks of law, international norms, and diplomacy rather than through military means to address regional crises,” he told Al-Estiklal.

“Reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian represents the state rather than the revolution in Iran—a role traditionally embodied by the Revolutionary Guards and the Quds Force.” 

Al-Douri explained that the system of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist (Wilayat al-Faqih) is currently compelled to bow to the Western storm against it, particularly with the anticipated return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House, whose policies toward Iran are known to be uncompromising.

“Iran’s project in the region is facing its worst moment in half a century. Its arm in Lebanon was cut off after Hezbollah’s destruction, and now it is bidding farewell to its arm in Syria. Iraq and Yemen may be next. Therefore, the Iran of the revolution is no longer suitable for the current phase but may return once the threat it faces subsides.”

In this context, Palestinian media expert on Iranian affairs, Abdalqader Fayez, made what he described as “remarkable” observations regarding Iran’s approach to recent events in Syria and how Tehran has responded to the unfolding situation on the ground.

“Araghchi is leading the current phase. He is practically Iran’s only voice right now, speaking for both politics, the military, and national security, and moving strategically on the Syrian chessboard in its regional context,” he wrote.

“This is a decision and a point of consensus within decision-making circles.” Fayez also noted that “this move is not facing any real criticism inside Iran, especially in the press or some religious-political forums. Those who know Tehran well understand the significant importance of this.”

According to the expert, what’s happening is “the beginning of an Iranian approach that seems different in dealing with the developments in Syria.” 

“It is very difficult to believe that Tehran is adopting this approach without scenarios that serve its minimum national interests there.”

Iranian Concerns

When Araghchi visited Damascus days after the opposition factions captured Syria’s second-largest city of Aleppo, Assad claimed that “his retreat from Aleppo was tactical and that he remained in control,” an insider in Tehran’s government told Financial Times.

“Araghchi responded that Iran was no longer in a position to send forces to support him anyway. But we did not expect the collapse to come so quickly or expose such hollowness in his regime. This came as a shock to us, too.”

Iranian officials viewed Assad as increasingly unreliable, if not outright treacherous, while analysts and insiders accused him of failing to prevent Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in his country.

The insider said there had been long-standing frustration with Assad in Tehran. “For more than a year, it was clear his time had passed. He had become an obstacle, a liability — some even called him a betrayer. His inaction cost us dearly, and he aligned himself with regional actors who promised him a future that never materialised.”

On December 8, Araghchi confirmed in a television interview that Assad never asked Iran for military help, and he was “surprised” by the “speed” of the opposition’s attack and the Syrian army’s “inability” to repel it.

Araghchi explained that Iranian and Syrian security agencies were aware of the activity of the armed opposition in northern Syria, noting that Tehran had received information about movements in Idlib and passed it on to Damascus.

“What was surprising was, first, the Syrian army's inability to confront the situation, and second, the rapid pace of developments,” he said.

The Financial Times described the fall of Bashar al-Assad, who had ruled Syria for over five decades, as a “devastating blow” to Iranian foreign policy.

In response to the fall of Assad's regime, Araghchi said during a session of the Iranian parliament on December 9, that the goal was not for Iranian forces to replace the Syrian army or engage in a conflict with the opposition.

Asghar Zarei, an analyst close to the regime, said Assad had “misbehaved” since the “Hamas-Israel war” in October 2023.

“Unfortunately, everything we built over 40 years fell apart overnight,” he said on state television. “Rebuilding our position will be extremely difficult. We must ensure this does not happen in Iraq or Yemen. It’s time to tighten our belts elsewhere.”