Iran Trims Military Presence in Syria

File photo of Iranian military leaders in eastern Syria (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)
File photo of Iranian military leaders in eastern Syria (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)
TT

Iran Trims Military Presence in Syria

File photo of Iranian military leaders in eastern Syria (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)
File photo of Iranian military leaders in eastern Syria (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)

Iranian forces have pulled out of bases in Damascus and southern Syria, moving away from the border with the Golan Heights. This suggests Iran might be stepping back from its confrontation with Israel, but it's not clear if this is a temporary move or part of a bigger regional shift.

The withdrawal follows strikes targeting key figures in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Iran says it’s a precautionary move after recent attacks it blames on Israel.

In early April, a missile attack, which Tehran accuses Israel of mounting, hit the Iranian consulate, killing seven Revolutionary Guard members, including senior commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the highest-ranking Iranian military official in Syria.

Iran responded with a drone and missile strike on Israel, its first direct assault. Israel reportedly retaliated with strikes inside Iran.

This shift marks a change in Iran’s military presence in Syria, potentially signaling a new approach to the region’s dynamics.

Recent reports, some citing Iranian sources, suggest Iran is reducing its presence in Syria. However, Iraqi politicians, including a key Shiite leader, reject the idea that Iran is giving up on Syria’s strategic importance in its conflict with Israel.

One politician suggests that Iran’s presence in Syria has always been limited, despite talk of Iraqi militants filling the gap left by Iranian forces.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat under the conditions of anonymity, the Iraqi politician said that “despite Iraqi militants’ readiness to fill the void left by Iranian military personnel, the operation could be a camouflage.”

They also pointed out that “Iran's presence – in the commonly understood field sense – has been limited from the start.”

According to a source close to the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, fighters from the group and Iraq have replaced Iranian forces in areas around Damascus, Daraa, and Quneitra.

Two other sources familiar with Iraqi factions say Iran has asked for fighters with Syrian experience, but it’s unclear if they’ve been sent yet.

“Kataib Hezbollah and the Popular Mobilization Forces have received requests from Tehran to send fighters with previous field experience in Syrian territories,” the sources, who requested anonymity, told Asharq Al-Awsat.

These discussions raise questions about Iran’s intentions in Syria.

A former Iraqi official, familiar with Syrian affairs and who had met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad several times between 2015 and 2019, says Iran suspects that Syrian security officers collaborated against Iranians and leaked their movements to others.

The official told Asharq Al-Awsat that “Iran is investigating, and tis close to a conclusion,” but “is taking precautionary measures,” noting that “the reduction in military presence only involves high-ranking figures openly linked to the Revolutionary Guard.”

On April 13, Iranian media quoted Gen. Morteza Qorbani, a senior advisor to the Revolutionary Guard commander, saying that an investigation was ongoing into whether the whereabouts of Zahedi had been leaked.

“Spies are rampant in Syria and Lebanon, and enemies can track individuals through satellites and communication networks (...) It only takes one infiltrator to pass information to enemies,” said Qorbani.

Iran’s suspicions focus on 18 commanders assassinated in attacks attributed to Israel.

According to Bloomberg, a Syrian defector claimed to have spoken with an Iranian official about this.

The defector’s statement suggests that Iran and Syria are jointly investigating security breaches. At one point, Iran conducted a separate investigation with Hezbollah to avoid dealing with Syrian intelligence.

An Iraqi official told Asharq Al-Awsat that Iran admits to facing challenges in Syria. Iraqi groups have been advised by Tehran to enhance phone security or shut them down completely, a tactic also used by Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Despite suspicions of Syrian security betraying Iran, it’s not prompting Iran to leave Syria.

“Assad offers little strategic value except Syria’s position, crucial for affecting Israel’s security. Iran won't give that up, even if Assad asks them to leave,” revealed the official.

Reports suggest Assad was unaware of security breaches targeting Revolutionary Guard leaders. Iranian forces started withdrawing from Syrian provinces earlier this year, with recent acceleration.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Iranian advisors left various areas, including Baniyas, in March.

Iran still has forces in Aleppo (north) and Deir Ezzor (east), key areas of its influence in Syria.



UN Resolution 1701 at the Heart of the Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire

An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
TT

UN Resolution 1701 at the Heart of the Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire

An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)

In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah armed group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border.

But while relative calm stood for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced.

Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a US-brokered deal that brought a ceasefire Wednesday.

In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion. As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, UN and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict.

Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon.

Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to reinvigorate the document.

What is UNSC Resolution 1701? In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a UN-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in Syria. UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeepers increased their presence along the line of withdrawal.

Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and UN peacekeepers.

Up to 15,000 UN peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military.

The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes.

The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them.

“It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.”

Has Resolution 1701 been implemented? For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops.

Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict.

“You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.”

UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah, of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure.

Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state.

The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal.

Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence.

How do mediators hope to implement 1701 almost two decades later? Israel's security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office. The ceasefire began at 4 am local time Wednesday.

Efforts led by the US and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation.

International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place.

It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with.

The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution's viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then.

“You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.”

Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.