Iran's international influence

In the background of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas there have been increasingly escalating tensions between the United States on one hand and a series of “Iranian proxies” on the other, chiefly the Ansar Allah party in Yemen (commonly known by the name of the group from which many of their members originate, the Houthi tribe). Without any context, it may seem confusing why Iranian backed groups strike Israel from Lebanon or American troops in Jordan, and it may seem illogical that striking back at Iran means bombing in Syria and Iraq. To understand why so many groups in so many countries can be described as “Iran-backed”, a pattern in Iranian foreign policy must be understood, one that brings both militant groups and entire regimes into an Iranian sphere of influence.

As both the United States and Iran’s supporters are continuing to bomb each other, it is very important to understand this pattern, both for policymakers and for the populations in the western world who keep them in power. The tensions have sparked fears of a “regional war” breaking out, and before the United States decides to launch a major escalation, they should first know exactly what fighting Iran means, as should America’s potential allies.

Iranian influence is most relevant in four other countries: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while also being influential in Bahrain and Palestine.[1] In Syria and Iraq both the regime and major regime-friendly militias are aligned to Iran, in Lebanon and Yemen Iran backs an armed group larger than the national army, and in both Bahrain and Palestine Iran backs major opposition forces. Overall this paints a picture of major Iranian presence in the Middle East.  

A map of Iranian influence in green. Self-drawn.

Hamas has been described in multiple media outlets as an Iranian backed group, the same term as has been used for Hezbollah, for example. This implies a greater degree of integration between Hamas and Iran than really exists (at least, greater than can be proven). Hezbollah is a major militia in south Lebanon that is by some reports larger than the Lebanese army. The group has always been dependent on both Iranian material and ideological support, and their founding document cites the grand Ayatollah in Iran as the organization’s supreme leader.[2] Hamas, on the other hand, has mostly received armed support from Iran, while a closer political relationship is still a hypothetical.[3]

Iranian ties with such armed groups are maintained and formed primarily by the Iranian Quds (Jerusalem) force, the foreign relations/special forces branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The main Iranian method of militarily backing their proxies is by supplying them with rockets.[4] Hamas’ rocket arsenal is mostly made up of domestically produced and Iranian designed weapons, with a small addition of more advanced Iranian-made rockets.[5]

Infographic of rocket models used by Hamas, by Fabian Hinz

The Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and some smaller militias in Syria and Iraq are already engaged in small-scale warfare with Israel and the US. The Hezbollah has exchanged fire across the Israeli-Lebanese border, risking an escalation of the war into Lebanon.[6] The Houthis in Yemen have attacked international shipping in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade.[7] Lastly, Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria have been launching strikes at US military bases in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.[8] This shows a wider picture of an already active armed conflict between the US and allies versus Iran with allies.

The groups already fighting the US would not be the greatest threat in case of a regional war breaking out. Iranian influence in Syria amounts to both a close strategic alliance with the regime and a myriad of pro-government militias that are more reliant on Iran than they are on Assad’s regime.[9] Similarly, Iran has both immense influence with Iraqi government and militias.[10] As in Lebanon, the governments of Iraq and Syria may see themselves forced to respond to the threats against their sovereignty that attacks against Iranian-backed groups may bring. Unlike Lebanon, both Syria and Iraq may be more willing to do so.

While still being influential all over the Middle East, Iran is less unpopular with other countries than was the case a few years ago. Importantly, Iran’s major regional rival, Saudi Arabia, has been normalizing relations with Iran under Chinese mediation, with a non-aggression pact on the table.[11] This normalization has already had significant effects, with the civil war in Yemen having reached what may be its final ceasefire agreement,[12] which is only possible because the two main sponsors of the war are committed to ending it.[13] During the Persian gulf crisis of 2019-2020 there was open speculation of a war between Saudi-Arabia and Iran.[14] Without Saudi-Arabia opposing Iran, the US military could stand without any major regional allies in the feared “regional war”.

The Middle East is going through a precarious time, and with growing violence it’s not easy to say exactly where it will end, without either side necessarily wanting an escalation. Iran’s deceptively wide network of allied organizations both makes it hard to restrict the conflict in scope and makes the prospects of an all-out war much more severe. In such a situation it is very important for politicians, strategists, and voters to know what is going on.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The regime’s greatest protector and greatest threat: military policy in Tajikistan

Image
Every state needs an army, and Tajikistan is no different. In Tajikistan, the army is made up of multiple military and paramilitary branches, which all serve to protect the dictatorial regime of Emomali Rahmon from internal and external threat. This army js Rahmon's most important tool to keep power, but also the seems to be the greatest current threat to that same power.  History and origin of the armed forces In most post-soviet states, the current structure of the armed forces is based on, at least originally, Soviet armed formations. In the Tajik SSR, the main armed formation had been the 201 st motor rifle division, which it follows should have been the backbone of the new military of the independent Tajikistan. Tajikistan was, however, not granted control of the division, which remained under Moscow’s command as a Russian foreign military installation. [1] The 201 st had participated in the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where Central Asians notably were kept away
Read more

A study of the failures of Russian foreign policy in Georgia

Image
  A study of the failures of Russian foreign policy in Georgia The history of Georgia since independence can serve as a demonstration of every Russian method of exercising power in the Near Abroad. [1] Georgia has been a victim of Russian-backed separatism, misinformation campaigns, invasion, and partial occupation. Despite this, Georgia proper has remained outside of the Russian sphere. This serves as the first puzzle of modern Georgia: why have all Russian methods of influence exertion failed, while countries have stayed in the Russian sphere with far less meddling from Russia? It is easy to divide Georgia since independence into two periods, one before the Rose Revolution in late 2003 and one after. The Russian view of the Rose Revolution is as a pro-western foreign-planned coup. [2] This misses a very important point, which is that Georgia was not particularly pro-Russian on the eve of the revolution in 2003, and therefore Russian foreign policy in Georgia must have failed with
Read more