Irans Foreign Policy Syria Crisis

I.

Introduction Starting from a man setting fire to himself to spark an protest in Tunisia in 2010over

economic hardship and political restrictions, countries in North Africa following by those in Middle East have been experienced both large and small scale of uprising for regimes changes. These include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. In all cases yet Syria case, the protestors accomplished their goals; dictators were toppled and new governments were elected. Moreover, all cases which contained mass killings on civilians were received many attentions from the international community. The involvement of international community especially the West ranked from bilateral pressures in general to military intervention with authorization from the Security Council as in Libya as particular. The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, which started in March 2011, has also no different causes to the crisis in countries mentioned above. By seeing the liberations trench in their neighbors uprising, Syrian people followed the path and started their demonstration firstly in form of very small protest. However, Al-Assads government at that time did not have intention to solve the problem; rather took hard measure against protestors. The small protests has transformed into uprising when the protestors received external assistance and took up arms against the security forces. And the result is Syria crisis have reached its twenty one-old of civil war in which at least 30,000 people including both soldiers and civilian were believed to have been killed (Reuters). Along with this twenty one-month-old crisis with no differences from Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, Syria crisis also receives deep attention from the international community. However, in Syria crisis, the series of international efforts to cope with the uprising has been taken place in two different forms; one side supports rebels and other side supports Damascus regime. This ranks from regional players (such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) and regional/global organizations (such as Arab-Leagues and the United Nations). However, those efforts have been failed so far and the civil war is still ongoing in a stalemate.

Syria crisis involves both actors playing on the ground and on the table of global security organ which is the UN Security Council. As can be seen, there have been two Resolutions on Syria crisis that have been repeatedly blocked by dual-veto in UN Security Council. The next resolution might have the same end as its formers. By the way, the ground actions played by supporters of both sides are much more dangerous and unpredictable. For instant, the continue support from Iran, as regional player, aligned with its armed-group allies (Hezbollah and Hamas) is somehow viewed as a strong force in keeping Syria crisis at its current stalemate. Indeed, this term paper is going to investigate the possible reasons behind the move of Iran supporting the President Bashar al-Assads government in Syria. The paper will look at making process of Iran foreign policy toward Syria crisis by focusing on its international, governmental, and domestic contexts. The paper will take into account the analysis bases on rationality image, political image, and psychological image in Irans foreign policy making process. In the same time, Irans capacity, actors, instruments, and results of its implementation of foreign policy of supporting Syrias government will also be examined.

II.

Iran Foreign Policy: Syria Crisis Iran Supports Al-Assads Regime The uprising in Syria started since in March 2011 brought a concern to a form of civil

war when Syrian government took heavy military responses and the rebels get supply from some pro-Western countries. Western countries view the President Al-Assad is killing its own people with heavy weaponry and urge Al-Assad to follow the Syrian peoples want. In contrast to the Western belief, the uprising is viewed by Iran as the U.S.s ploy to break the axis of resistance (Iran, Syria, and armed groups Hezbollah and Hamas)which is what that Iran will never allow to happen. In June 2011, the Telegraph published a report consists of a credible information that Tehran supported the Syria regime by providing riot control gear and paramilitary training to Syria security forces (Kirkup, 2011). In July 2011, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, confirmed to support Al-Assad (Abdo, 2011). Moreover, the visit of the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, to Damascus in August 2012 was also a visible symbol of the support (Blair, 2012). Moreover, in September 16, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the army commander of Irans

Revolutionary Guards, has confirmed that Iran has its forces in Syria helping Al-Assads government in crush the rebels or terrorists as both countries claim (Black, 2012). Irans Foreign Policy Arena: the Contexts Despites Cold War was ended, the Middle East located Iran, where the majority of the countries are Irans enemies than friends, is continuing to be instable because of the variety of conflicts and wars including the uprising for regime changes. It is no coincidence about this. The regions resource rich of oil is one of the major cause of conflict between regional players combined with influences from the external powers. Since the 1979 IranianRevolution, Iran has survived as one of regional powers due to its geopolitical setting, strong political system, and pragmatic foreign policy. The Irans foreign relations can be explained by the three G forces: geopolitics, geostrategic vulnerabilities, and globalization (Webber, Smith, 2002).Among the three Gs, the first two are the most relevant to the causes of supporting Al-Assads regime by Iran. In term of geopolitics, Syria, which shared borders to Israel and Lebanon, is the defenses front line of Iran against Israel and the United States. If Syria goes down and Syria borders were closed, Iran will find difficulty to supply Hezbollah and Hamas which serve as Irans second front line (Abdo, 2011).The loss of former front line will result the loss of the later front line. And therefore, when the axis of resistance is down, Iran will be at great danger posed by its stronger enemies: Israel and the United States. Another implication of geopolitics on Irans security threat via Syria crisis is that the crisis might be provoked by the United States to destabilize the region. First, as can be seen, pro-western countries including Arabia-Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey continue to supply Syrian oppositions against Al-Assads government and the battlefields between governments forces and Syrian rebels have not only happened inside Syrian territories, but also spread to Turkish Syrian border, so does affect to Turkey Security. Second, it is to remember that Turkey is a member of North Atlantic Organization (NATO). It implies that the US through its security pact with West Europe (NATO) can deploy its troops in Turkey for the sack of Turkish Security as a reason, and to circle Iran, and keep USs influence in Middle East as the most important reason. It is also to notice that US have withdrawn its troops from Iraq, and also plan to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. Thus, Syria crisis might be considered as another opportunity for the US to takes advantage of in order to station its troops in Middle East. Furthermore, Iran must have understood that logic. That is why Iran tries to support Syria as its ally to survive.

In term of geostrategic vulnerabilities, Irans Islamic religious regime has few friends, but many enemies. The only Irans friend located in Middle East is Syria. Syria and Iran became strategic allies since the Iranian revolution in 1979. During the last three decades, these two countries share a common threat posed by Israel and the United States. In term of cooperation, Iran and Syria have developed their bilateral relation not only economically, but also military cooperation the mutual defense-security pact. Base on this security pact, Iran will provide military assistance to crush the anti-Assad uprising if Syria asks for it (Iran said to supply Syria with elite force, 2012). Furthermore, both Iran and Syria are part of the axis of resistance, the Middle Easts anti-Western powers. In the era of globalized world, the force of globalization more or less shapes foreign policy-making process of Iran. The drop down value of Irans rial in September was a result of economic globalization. During this currency crisis, Irans Central Bank took restrict measurement on unofficial traders by not allow them to buy or sell rial for foreign currency. Moreover, the measurement also includes the forbidden to unnecessary imports in order to keep foreign currency circulate and stabilize the situation. On the other hand, the force of globalization seems to be out of question why Iran supports Al-Assad regime. In the time economic hardship at home, the currencys drop down and the devastating cut in oil revenues because of Western sanctions, Iran is still believed to continue supporting Al-Assads regime. The Guardian on July 2012 quoted a speech of a diplomat served in Irans embassy in Damascus that Iran would pay the price if it continue to encourage violent crackdown on Syrian people (Dehghan, 2012). Next, the paper will examine three images of Irans foreign policy-making process whether they contribute to the understanding of the reasons why Iran supports Syria. Rational Image Rational model of choice can contribute to foreign policy analysis, and it concludes with suggestions for system design that can improve foreign policy decision-making, in rational decision-making process, people should be logical and orderly. It does not claim to explain the belief and expectation which lead to choice, and leave out most of what is important in explaining foreign policy, so rational decision makers resolve the conflicts they face that find the best outcome. Iran support Syria not only bilateral relationship but also its self- interest, as we can see clearly, Syria may not the rich oil country, but its key location would likely make it a very convenient transit country to central Asian gas and Iranian oil of

the former of Soviet Union (Janssen, 2012). In fact, Western government and NATO are proud of the successful point of intervention in Libya where colonial Gaddafi and killed him, thus they want to intervene Syria also in the Syria crisis which is the clearness to make Iran still support Syria because even if Syria has fate as Libya, and President Bashar al-Assad would have been killed by them, Iranian government is 100% of the next target of them during they claimed that the issue in Iran (Iran Nuclear Program). Irans financial aid is the hopeful of Al-Assad that keep the middle class in Damascus and Aleppo from rising against him while the growing international sanctions in Tehran which imposed on nuclear program that lead to Ayatollahs regime trust on Assad and his government can survive the uprising. Iran embrace the Syria crisis where Assad remain in office long enough to see his power and effectiveness, and Iranian leader are now looking at what Iran will lose if Sunni Muslim rebel succeed in overthrow Assad while the loss of cost of anti-Israel alliance need to increase security ability to protect the facing of becoming the enemy of Western government, US and their allies where Iran has strong ties with Assad at that point of conflict of accusing of armed Assads security forces (Hawkins, 2013). Tehran continues to provide Assad with economic and public support including military assistant as well, Iran's security chief has told President Bashar al-Assad that Syria is part of a vital regional alliance that Tehran will not allow to be broken. The decline of al Assad solves the major problem. It also increases the sense of vulnerability in Iran. If the al Assad regime were to survive and were to be isolated from the West, it would be primarily dependent on Iran, its main patron. Iran had supplied trainers, special operations troops, supplies and money to sustain the regime. For Iran, the events in Syria represented a tremendous opportunity. Iran already held a powerful position in Iraq, not quite dominating it but heavily influencing it. If the al Assad regime survived and had Iranian support to thank for its survival, Syria would become even more dependent on Iran than was Iraq. This would shore up the Iranian position in Iraq, but more important, it would have created an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an Iranian ally; moreover, China and Russia provided political cover, opposed sanction against Iran and trade opportunity as well. The events in Syria appear to be simply about the survival of the al Assad regime, it showed the limiting of Irans power, creating local balance of power and freeing the United State to focus on global issues (Friedman, 2012).While it is true, despite the contradiction, to say that Iran supports al-Assad with money, oil, arms and even fighters.

Overall, the Iran is irrational focus on the first criterion, the regime is calculating in its decision-making because Iran decision-maker was guided by a cost benefit approach less than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs; especially Iran support Syria crisis, it would become enemy of Western and United State, and might be one day Iran will be invaded as Iraq and Libya as well. Political Image This second type of image in foreign policy-making process assumes that the policy making is the outcome of political activities, debates and bargaining process among interest groups and individuals that influence the government. Those groups and individuals represent the element of power of the country (Mark Webber, Michael Smith, 2002). The most dominant approach in this type of foreign policy image is government or bureaucratic politics. Where you stand depends on where you sit (as cited in Webber, Smith, 2002). In Iran, is there such bureaucratic bargaining process in its foreign policy-making process concerning the Syrias crisis? To answer this question, we need to look at the body of foreign policy-making of Iran. Webber and Smith (2002) view the Iran political system in the post- revolution is embedded with the feature of factionalism and institutional competition among variety of tendencies and blocs built around powerful personalities. The intra-elite power is the main catalyst for foreign policy-making process in Iran. In Iranian constitution, there are three branches in Iranian political system. First, The President heads the executive branch in the government and represents his nation in conducting international relations. Second, the Majlis which is the legislative branch in Iran has the power to approve all international agreement, contracts, and treaties. Third, the Faqih leaded by Iranian the supreme leader is the highest authority in Iran. The supreme leader is the commander-in-chief of the armed and police force and the leader of the countrys judiciary system. In Faqih, there are three different hierarchy bodies. First, the Guardian Council is the body of 12 jurists decides which legislation is permissible under Islamic law and which candidates may run for president or parliament. Next, the Assembly of Experts which consists of experts and scholars is supposed to oversee the activities of the supreme leader. The third body is Expediency Council. This body was supposed to resolve disputes between the Guardian Council and the Majlis, but in practice it functions an advice role to the supreme leader (Johnson, n.d.).

Irans foreign policy making process is formulated in another council called Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) headed by the President. The council consists of two representatives from Faqih, heads of the three branches from the government (Majis, Judiciary, executive), minister of foreign affairs, interior, intelligence, and defense, and the commander of regular and revolutionary military sections. The SNSC formulates foreign, military, security policies of Iran. But the decisions in SNSC must be confirmed by the supreme leader before getting into effect (The structure of power in Iran, n.d.).This complex political system as a mix of Theocracy with democracy in Iran reflects its factionalism and institutional competition claimed by Mark Webber and Michael Smith (2002). Now we look at bureaucratic competition in Iran concerning Syria crisis. As mention in previous texts, Iran seems to make clear that it supports Al-Assads cause to crush the rebels or terrorists. However, since the ongoing crisis in Syria reaches its stalemate with repeated-failed resolutions in the UN Security Council on the table and the non-stop fighting on the ground, Iran has shifted its position and played two roles in the same time in Syria due to its bureaucratic competition inside Irans ruling structure. First, on the ground, the revolutionary guard continues to support Al-Assads regime. As can be seen, the revolutionary guard continues to support Al-Assads regime as in the statement of the army commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari in September 16. However, Jafari claim that this did not constitute "a military presence in Syria. The Irans force in Syria called the Qods force includes elements of Special Forces, and intelligence gathering for Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Qods force was stressed by Iran only there to provide "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria (Black, 2012). Second, on diplomatic channel, Iran is playing a role as a regional power to host conferences to solve Syria crisis. For instant, in August9, 2012, Iran hosted a meeting of regional and other countries in total of 30 countries including China and Russia to find ways to resolve the civil war in Syria (Erdbrink, 2012). Even though there were no pro-opposition nations invited to join the meeting, but there were still no conclusions or declarations by the participants. Three months later, on November 18, 2012, Iran hosted another conference. This second conference aimed to reconcile Syria's government with opposition factions and end the country's civil war that has lasted for 20 months (Karimi, 2012).

The shifting position and Irans two roles are not occasionally happens.It is the result of bureaucratic politics within interest groups around Irans leaders especially between the President and Irans supreme leader along with theeconomic hardship at home including devastation of oil export and currencys drop down, and an international isolation in diplomatic relations. As quoted in the Wall Street Journal in July 11, 2012, the Mohamad Ali Sobhani, Iranian diplomat, said in the public on Syria in Iran that The entire world is against Syria and we are standing here defending Syria, a country accused of crimes against humanity....We are not playing this game very well (Fassihi, 2012).This contrast to statement by Iranian Supreme Leader in July 2011 that Wherever a movement is Islamic, populist, and anti-American, we support it (Abdo, 2011). Another speaker in the debate which is Irans foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi represented the Iranian government encourages all conflict parties should make efforts to help find the best way out of the problem. He also said Iran supports democratic transition in Syria and Mr. Assad should transit out of power in 2014 elections [not by other means].Inthe contrary, the nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, took a strong position backing Al-Assads regime by urging to stop the arm transfer to rebels. (Fassihi, 2012). Also, concerning the public debate on Syria, the Guardian wrote in its titles as In Iran, two opposing pictures of Syria. (Dehghan, 2012).These two different pictures of Syria refer to the overlapping roles between executive branch leaded by the Iranian President, and the Guardian Council leaded by the Iranian Supreme Leader. The President makes and conducts foreign policy while the Supreme Leader controls the Guardian military and approves the foreign policy made by the executive branch. In short, the complex political structure of Iran is behind the move of Iran to support Syrian government. The revolutionary guard takes security and its allies as a priority in their foreign policy-making while the foreign minister wants to tell the international community that Syrian crisis shall be solved by Syrian people and opposes any interventions from external players especially the United States and its allies. Next, the paper will go to examine the role of key decision maker in Iran foreign policy-making process which is Irans supreme Leader and his stand on Syria crisis.

Psychological Image Psychological images is one among others theory that help explaining the decision making and foreign policy of Iran on supporting Syria by looking at the religious relation, family or regime trait or background of the leaders of the two nations, and the perception of the two. On religious view, Iran and Syria leaders seem are connected since Syrian leader family, the Assad family, comes from the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that comprises an estimated 12 percent of the Syrian population while Iran is predominantly Shiite (Pan, 2012).The share of belief in one god and religious ideology, it might bring the two countries to side with each other to fight for its own religion against those western thought in other god, Christian countries such as US since the US take main role in fostering the international intervention referring to the Syria case. This kind of religious connection may push the Iran leader decided and engaged to support Syrian leader. On the other sides, the similarity of the regime of the two is also another possible factor lead the Iran support Syrian Government. The Iran regime and Syrian regime have shared common traits since they are both authoritarian and defiantly independent (Goodarzi, n.d.), even at a political or economic cost. If Syria gets reformed by the rapidly changed and pushed to democratic by the international community including US, it will also threat to Iran as well. The movement to change would be followed and happened in Iran. Thus, supporting on Syria government is might be one thing that Iran government need to do. The same perception and political thought of the two leaders is another possible reason that keeps Iran supporting the Syria. The perception of standing to against US

influence in Middle East is very common among the two as, since 1979 till now, the alliance between these two has had significant impact in both shaping Middle East politics and thwarting the regional goals of the United States, and they are also the two parties most responsible for spoiling U.S.-backed peace efforts between the Arabs and Israel in order to promote their own Arab and Islamic interests. For instance, since Irans 1979 revolution, Iran and Syria governments have pooled political power and military resources to enhance their position, build a network of surrogate militias and frustrate the plans of opponents. Together they ensured Saddam Husseins Iraq, which bordered both countries, would not become the predominant regional power, and they later on forced US peacekeepers out of Lebanon in 1984 (Goodarzi, n.d.).

The last possible reason that Iran support Syrian government might be because of the concern of Iran government on death and huge damage in Syria would happen. Iran might see the previous case with Libya during 2011 which at that time the intervention of US military operation caused a huge death and much changed to Libya drastically, and a threat to authoritarianism also comes rapidly as well. Iran might not want to see this kind of change happen again. In short, some possible reasons including the common perception in containing the influence of US in the Middle East, and by trying to shape its political power and ideology within the region and sharing in similar religious ideology and the fear of spread of movement of people for democracy in the regions and within its country, Iran government engages itself to support Syrian government.

III.

Conclusion Syria crisis is another important development of the world politics of warfare. It is not

only a mere uprising for regime change for its internal politics, but it also embedded subversion policies of the outsiders in the international politics. Syrian oppositions receive support from pro-Western countries and Syrians government receives support from China, Russia, and Iran. Indeed, Iran as one important player supports Syrias government with military assistance and consultation and also economic help. Moreover, both sides involve great powers and each share their own interests in Syria crisis, so it is hard to predict that Syria crisis would be resolved in a short term. Iran as a particular player in Syria crisis also has its interests in the crisis. Irans foreign policy toward Syria crisis can be understood by two opposing pictures. First, Iran needs to survive its ally. Second, in the same time Iran needs the crisis to solve peacefully through diplomatic channels that would present lower cost on itself. Indeed, the two opposing pictures of Irans foreign policy are the results of bureaucratic competition inside Irans government and leaders beliefs. Hence, political image and psychological image might be appropriately used to explain Irans foreign policy toward Syrian crisis. The context that includes geopolitics of Middle East on Iran, and geostrategic vulnerability of Iran also contributes to foreign policy making process of Iran on Syria crisis. The anti-American sentiment still embedded in the mind of Irans supreme leader. When Iran

has fewer friends and many enemies in the region, Iran has no choice but to survive a friend in danger. Irans foreign policy implementation in Syria crisis is other important features to understand the crisis. Iran can be seen to have full capacity to supply Syrias government wi Irans Foreign Policy Syria Crisis

IV.

Introduction Starting from a man setting fire to himself to spark an protest in Tunisia in 2010over

economic hardship and political restrictions, countries in North Africa following by those in Middle East have been experienced both large and small scale of uprising for regimes changes. These include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. In all cases yet Syria case, the protestors accomplished their goals; dictators were toppled and new governments were elected. Moreover, all cases which contained mass killings on civilians were received many attentions from the international community. The involvement of international community especially the West ranked from bilateral pressures in general to military intervention with authorization from the Security Council as in Libya as particular. The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, which started in March 2011, has also no different causes to the crisis in countries mentioned above. By seeing the liberations trench in their neighbors uprising, Syrian people followed the path and started their demonstration firstly in form of very small protest. However, Al-Assads government at that time did not have intention to solve the problem; rather took hard measure against protestors. The small protests has transformed into uprising when the protestors received external assistance and took up arms against the security forces. And the result is Syria crisis have reached its twenty one-old of civil war in which at least 30,000 people including both soldiers and civilian were believed to have been killed (Reuters). Along with this twenty one-month-old crisis with no differences from Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, Syria crisis also receives deep attention from the international community. However, in Syria crisis, the series of international efforts to cope with the uprising has been taken place in two different forms; one side supports rebels and other side supports Damascus

regime. This ranks from regional players (such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) and regional/global organizations (such as Arab-Leagues and the United Nations). However, those efforts have been failed so far and the civil war is still ongoing in a stalemate. Syria crisis involves both actors playing on the ground and on the table of global security organ which is the UN Security Council. As can be seen, there have been two Resolutions on Syria crisis that have been repeatedly blocked by dual-veto in UN Security Council. The next resolution might have the same end as its formers. By the way, the ground actions played by supporters of both sides are much more dangerous and unpredictable. For instant, the continue support from Iran, as regional player, aligned with its armed-group allies (Hezbollah and Hamas) is somehow viewed as a strong force in keeping Syria crisis at its current stalemate. Indeed, this term paper is going to investigate the possible reasons behind the move of Iran supporting the President Bashar al-Assads government in Syria. The paper will look at making process of Iran foreign policy toward Syria crisis by focusing on its international, governmental, and domestic contexts. The paper will take into account the analysis bases on rationality image, political image, and psychological image in Irans foreign policy making process. In the same time, Irans capacity, actors, instruments, and results of its implementation of foreign policy of supporting Syrias government will also be examined.

V.

Iran Foreign Policy: Syria Crisis Iran Supports Al-Assads Regime The uprising in Syria started since in March 2011 brought a concern to a form of civil

war when Syrian government took heavy military responses and the rebels get supply from some pro-Western countries. Western countries view the President Al-Assad is killing its own people with heavy weaponry and urge Al-Assad to follow the Syrian peoples want. In contrast to the Western belief, the uprising is viewed by Iran as the U.S.s ploy to break the axis of resistance (Iran, Syria, and armed groups Hezbollah and Hamas)which is what that Iran will never allow to happen. In June 2011, the Telegraph published a report consists of a credible information that Tehran supported the Syria regime by providing riot control gear and paramilitary training to Syria security forces (Kirkup, 2011). In July 2011, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, confirmed to support Al-Assad (Abdo, 2011). Moreover,

the visit of the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, to Damascus in August 2012 was also a visible symbol of the support (Blair, 2012). Moreover, in September 16, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the army commander of Irans Revolutionary Guards, has confirmed that Iran has its forces in Syria helping Al-Assads government in crush the rebels or terrorists as both countries claim (Black, 2012). Irans Foreign Policy Arena: the Contexts Despites Cold War was ended, the Middle East located Iran, where the majority of the countries are Irans enemies than friends, is continuing to be instable because of the variety of conflicts and wars including the uprising for regime changes. It is no coincidence about this. The regions resource rich of oil is one of the major cause of conflict between regional players combined with influences from the external powers. Since the 1979 IranianRevolution, Iran has survived as one of regional powers due to its geopolitical setting, strong political system, and pragmatic foreign policy. The Irans foreign relations can be explained by the three G forces: geopolitics, geostrategic vulnerabilities, and globalization (Webber, Smith, 2002).Among the three Gs, the first two are the most relevant to the causes of supporting Al-Assads regime by Iran. In term of geopolitics, Syria, which shared borders to Israel and Lebanon, is the defenses front line of Iran against Israel and the United States. If Syria goes down and Syria borders were closed, Iran will find difficulty to supply Hezbollah and Hamas which serve as Irans second front line (Abdo, 2011).The loss of former front line will result the loss of the later front line. And therefore, when the axis of resistance is down, Iran will be at great danger posed by its stronger enemies: Israel and the United States. Another implication of geopolitics on Irans security threat via Syria crisis is that the crisis might be provoked by the United States to destabilize the region. First, as can be seen, pro-western countries including Arabia-Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey continue to supply Syrian oppositions against Al-Assads government and the battlefields between governments forces and Syrian rebels have not only happened inside Syrian territories, but also spread to Turkish Syrian border, so does affect to Turkey Security. Second, it is to remember that Turkey is a member of North Atlantic Organization (NATO). It implies that the US through its security pact with West Europe (NATO) can deploy its troops in Turkey for the sack of Turkish Security as a reason, and to circle Iran, and keep USs influence in Middle East as the most important reason. It is also to notice that US have withdrawn its troops from Iraq, and also plan to withdraw its troops from

Afghanistan. Thus, Syria crisis might be considered as another opportunity for the US to takes advantage of in order to station its troops in Middle East. Furthermore, Iran must have understood that logic. That is why Iran tries to support Syria as its ally to survive. In term of geostrategic vulnerabilities, Irans Islamic religious regime has few friends, but many enemies. The only Irans friend located in Middle East is Syria. Syria and Iran became strategic allies since the Iranian revolution in 1979. During the last three decades, these two countries share a common threat posed by Israel and the United States. In term of cooperation, Iran and Syria have developed their bilateral relation not only economically, but also military cooperation the mutual defense-security pact. Base on this security pact, Iran will provide military assistance to crush the anti-Assad uprising if Syria asks for it (Iran said to supply Syria with elite force, 2012). Furthermore, both Iran and Syria are part of the axis of resistance, the Middle Easts anti-Western powers. In the era of globalized world, the force of globalization more or less shapes foreign policy-making process of Iran. The drop down value of Irans rial in September was a result of economic globalization. During this currency crisis, Irans Central Bank took restrict measurement on unofficial traders by not allow them to buy or sell rial for foreign currency. Moreover, the measurement also includes the forbidden to unnecessary imports in order to keep foreign currency circulate and stabilize the situation. On the other hand, the force of globalization seems to be out of question why Iran supports Al-Assad regime. In the time economic hardship at home, the currencys drop down and the devastating cut in oil revenues because of Western sanctions, Iran is still believed to continue supporting Al-Assads regime. The Guardian on July 2012 quoted a speech of a diplomat served in Irans embassy in Damascus that Iran would pay the price if it continue to encourage violent crackdown on Syrian people (Dehghan, 2012). Next, the paper will examine three images of Irans foreign policy-making process whether they contribute to the understanding of the reasons why Iran supports Syria. Rational Image Rational model of choice can contribute to foreign policy analysis, and it concludes with suggestions for system design that can improve foreign policy decision-making, in rational decision-making process, people should be logical and orderly. It does not claim to explain the belief and expectation which lead to choice, and leave out most of what is

important in explaining foreign policy, so rational decision makers resolve the conflicts they face that find the best outcome. Iran support Syria not only bilateral relationship but also its self- interest, as we can see clearly, Syria may not the rich oil country, but its key location would likely make it a very convenient transit country to central Asian gas and Iranian oil of the former of Soviet Union (Janssen, 2012). In fact, Western government and NATO are proud of the successful point of intervention in Libya where colonial Gaddafi and killed him, thus they want to intervene Syria also in the Syria crisis which is the clearness to make Iran still support Syria because even if Syria has fate as Libya, and President Bashar al-Assad would have been killed by them, Iranian government is 100% of the next target of them during they claimed that the issue in Iran (Iran Nuclear Program). Irans financial aid is the hopeful of Al-Assad that keep the middle class in Damascus and Aleppo from rising against him while the growing international sanctions in Tehran which imposed on nuclear program that lead to Ayatollahs regime trust on Assad and his government can survive the uprising. Iran embrace the Syria crisis where Assad remain in office long enough to see his power and effectiveness, and Iranian leader are now looking at what Iran will lose if Sunni Muslim rebel succeed in overthrow Assad while the loss of cost of anti-Israel alliance need to increase security ability to protect the facing of becoming the enemy of Western government, US and their allies where Iran has strong ties with Assad at that point of conflict of accusing of armed Assads security forces (Hawkins, 2013). Tehran continues to provide Assad with economic and public support including military assistant as well, Iran's security chief has told President Bashar al-Assad that Syria is part of a vital regional alliance that Tehran will not allow to be broken. The decline of al Assad solves the major problem. It also increases the sense of vulnerability in Iran. If the al Assad regime were to survive and were to be isolated from the West, it would be primarily dependent on Iran, its main patron. Iran had supplied trainers, special operations troops, supplies and money to sustain the regime. For Iran, the events in Syria represented a tremendous opportunity. Iran already held a powerful position in Iraq, not quite dominating it but heavily influencing it. If the al Assad regime survived and had Iranian support to thank for its survival, Syria would become even more dependent on Iran than was Iraq. This would shore up the Iranian position in Iraq, but more important, it would have created an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an Iranian ally; moreover, China and Russia provided political cover, opposed sanction against Iran and trade opportunity as well. The events in Syria appear to be

simply about the survival of the al Assad regime, it showed the limiting of Irans power, creating local balance of power and freeing the United State to focus on global issues (Friedman, 2012).While it is true, despite the contradiction, to say that Iran supports al-Assad with money, oil, arms and even fighters. Overall, the Iran is irrational focus on the first criterion, the regime is calculating in its decision-making because Iran decision-maker was guided by a cost benefit approach less than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs; especially Iran support Syria crisis, it would become enemy of Western and United State, and might be one day Iran will be invaded as Iraq and Libya as well. Political Image This second type of image in foreign policy-making process assumes that the policy making is the outcome of political activities, debates and bargaining process among interest groups and individuals that influence the government. Those groups and individuals represent the element of power of the country (Mark Webber, Michael Smith, 2002). The most dominant approach in this type of foreign policy image is government or bureaucratic politics. Where you stand depends on where you sit (as cited in Webber, Smith, 2002). In Iran, is there such bureaucratic bargaining process in its foreign policy-making process concerning the Syrias crisis? To answer this question, we need to look at the body of foreign policy-making of Iran. Webber and Smith (2002) view the Iran political system in the post- revolution is embedded with the feature of factionalism and institutional competition among variety of tendencies and blocs built around powerful personalities. The intra-elite power is the main catalyst for foreign policy-making process in Iran. In Iranian constitution, there are three branches in Iranian political system. First, The President heads the executive branch in the government and represents his nation in conducting international relations. Second, the Majlis which is the legislative branch in Iran has the power to approve all international agreement, contracts, and treaties. Third, the Faqih leaded by Iranian the supreme leader is the highest authority in Iran. The supreme leader is the commander-in-chief of the armed and police force and the leader of the countrys judiciary system. In Faqih, there are three different hierarchy bodies. First, the Guardian Council is the body of 12 jurists decides which legislation is permissible under Islamic law and which

candidates may run for president or parliament. Next, the Assembly of Experts which consists of experts and scholars is supposed to oversee the activities of the supreme leader. The third body is Expediency Council. This body was supposed to resolve disputes between the Guardian Council and the Majlis, but in practice it functions an advice role to the supreme leader (Johnson, n.d.). Irans foreign policy making process is formulated in another council called Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) headed by the President. The council consists of two representatives from Faqih, heads of the three branches from the government (Majis, Judiciary, executive), minister of foreign affairs, interior, intelligence, and defense, and the commander of regular and revolutionary military sections. The SNSC formulates foreign, military, security policies of Iran. But the decisions in SNSC must be confirmed by the supreme leader before getting into effect (The structure of power in Iran, n.d.).This complex political system as a mix of Theocracy with democracy in Iran reflects its factionalism and institutional competition claimed by Mark Webber and Michael Smith (2002). Now we look at bureaucratic competition in Iran concerning Syria crisis. As mention in previous texts, Iran seems to make clear that it supports Al-Assads cause to crush the rebels or terrorists. However, since the ongoing crisis in Syria reaches its stalemate with repeated-failed resolutions in the UN Security Council on the table and the non-stop fighting on the ground, Iran has shifted its position and played two roles in the same time in Syria due to its bureaucratic competition inside Irans ruling structure. First, on the ground, the revolutionary guard continues to support Al-Assads regime. As can be seen, the revolutionary guard continues to support Al-Assads regime as in the statement of the army commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari in September 16. However, Jafari claim that this did not constitute "a military presence in Syria. The Irans force in Syria called the Qods force includes elements of Special Forces, and intelligence gathering for Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Qods force was stressed by Iran only there to provide "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria (Black, 2012). Second, on diplomatic channel, Iran is playing a role as a regional power to host conferences to solve Syria crisis. For instant, in August9, 2012, Iran hosted a meeting of regional and other countries in total of 30 countries including China and Russia to find ways to resolve the civil war in Syria (Erdbrink, 2012). Even though there were no pro-opposition

nations invited to join the meeting, but there were still no conclusions or declarations by the participants. Three months later, on November 18, 2012, Iran hosted another conference. This second conference aimed to reconcile Syria's government with opposition factions and end the country's civil war that has lasted for 20 months (Karimi, 2012). The shifting position and Irans two roles are not occasionally happens.It is the result of bureaucratic politics within interest groups around Irans leaders especially between the President and Irans supreme leader along with theeconomic hardship at home including devastation of oil export and currencys drop down, and an international isolation in diplomatic relations. As quoted in the Wall Street Journal in July 11, 2012, the Mohamad Ali Sobhani, Iranian diplomat, said in the public on Syria in Iran that The entire world is against Syria and we are standing here defending Syria, a country accused of crimes against humanity....We are not playing this game very well (Fassihi, 2012).This contrast to statement by Iranian Supreme Leader in July 2011 that Wherever a movement is Islamic, populist, and anti-American, we support it (Abdo, 2011). Another speaker in the debate which is Irans foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi represented the Iranian government encourages all conflict parties should make efforts to help find the best way out of the problem. He also said Iran supports democratic transition in Syria and Mr. Assad should transit out of power in 2014 elections [not by other means].Inthe contrary, the nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, took a strong position backing Al-Assads regime by urging to stop the arm transfer to rebels. (Fassihi, 2012). Also, concerning the public debate on Syria, the Guardian wrote in its titles as In Iran, two opposing pictures of Syria. (Dehghan, 2012).These two different pictures of Syria refer to the overlapping roles between executive branch leaded by the Iranian President, and the Guardian Council leaded by the Iranian Supreme Leader. The President makes and conducts foreign policy while the Supreme Leader controls the Guardian military and approves the foreign policy made by the executive branch. In short, the complex political structure of Iran is behind the move of Iran to support Syrian government. The revolutionary guard takes security and its allies as a priority in their foreign policy-making while the foreign minister wants to tell the international community that Syrian crisis shall be solved by Syrian people and opposes any interventions from external players especially the United States and its allies. Next, the paper will go to examine

the role of key decision maker in Iran foreign policy-making process which is Irans supreme Leader and his stand on Syria crisis. Psychological Image Psychological images is one among others theory that help explaining the decision making and foreign policy of Iran on supporting Syria by looking at the religious relation, family or regime trait or background of the leaders of the two nations, and the perception of the two. On religious view, Iran and Syria leaders seem are connected since Syrian leader family, the Assad family, comes from the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that comprises an estimated 12 percent of the Syrian population while Iran is predominantly Shiite (Pan, 2012).The share of belief in one god and religious ideology, it might bring the two countries to side with each other to fight for its own religion against those western thought in other god, Christian countries such as US since the US take main role in fostering the international intervention referring to the Syria case. This kind of religious connection may push the Iran leader decided and engaged to support Syrian leader. On the other sides, the similarity of the regime of the two is also another possible factor lead the Iran support Syrian Government. The Iran regime and Syrian regime have shared common traits since they are both authoritarian and defiantly independent (Goodarzi, n.d.), even at a political or economic cost. If Syria gets reformed by the rapidly changed and pushed to democratic by the international community including US, it will also threat to Iran as well. The movement to change would be followed and happened in Iran. Thus, supporting on Syria government is might be one thing that Iran government need to do. The same perception and political thought of the two leaders is another possible reason that keeps Iran supporting the Syria. The perception of standing to against US

influence in Middle East is very common among the two as, since 1979 till now, the alliance between these two has had significant impact in both shaping Middle East politics and thwarting the regional goals of the United States, and they are also the two parties most responsible for spoiling U.S.-backed peace efforts between the Arabs and Israel in order to promote their own Arab and Islamic interests. For instance, since Irans 1979 revolution, Iran and Syria governments have pooled political power and military resources to enhance their position, build a network of surrogate militias and frustrate the plans of opponents. Together

they ensured Saddam Husseins Iraq, which bordered both countries, would not become the predominant regional power, and they later on forced US peacekeepers out of Lebanon in 1984 (Goodarzi, n.d.). The last possible reason that Iran support Syrian government might be because of the concern of Iran government on death and huge damage in Syria would happen. Iran might see the previous case with Libya during 2011 which at that time the intervention of US military operation caused a huge death and much changed to Libya drastically, and a threat to authoritarianism also comes rapidly as well. Iran might not want to see this kind of change happen again. In short, some possible reasons including the common perception in containing the influence of US in the Middle East, and by trying to shape its political power and ideology within the region and sharing in similar religious ideology and the fear of spread of movement of people for democracy in the regions and within its country, Iran government engages itself to support Syrian government.

VI.

Conclusion Syria crisis is another important development of the world politics of warfare. It is not

only a mere uprising for regime change for its internal politics, but it also embedded subversion policies of the outsiders in the international politics. Syrian oppositions receive support from pro-Western countries and Syrians government receives support from China, Russia, and Iran. Indeed, Iran as one important player supports Syrias government with military assistance and consultation and also economic help. Moreover, both sides involve great powers and each share their own interests in Syria crisis, so it is hard to predict that Syria crisis would be resolved in a short term. Iran as a particular player in Syria crisis also has its interests in the crisis. Irans foreign policy toward Syria crisis can be understood by two opposing pictures. First, Iran needs to survive its ally. Second, in the same time Iran needs the crisis to solve peacefully through diplomatic channels that would present lower cost on itself. Indeed, the two opposing pictures of Irans foreign policy are the results of bureaucratic competition inside Irans government and leaders beliefs. Hence, political image and psychological image might be appropriately used to explain Irans foreign policy toward Syrian crisis.

The context that includes geopolitics of Middle East on Iran, and geostrategic vulnerability of Iran also contributes to foreign policy making process of Iran on Syria crisis. The anti-American sentiment still embedded in the mind of Irans supreme leader. When Iran has fewer friends and many enemies in the region, Iran has no choice but to survive a friend in danger. Irans foreign policy implementation in Syria crisis is other important features to understand the crisis. Iran can be seen to have full capacity to supply Syrias government wi Irans Foreign Policy Syria Crisis

VII.

Introduction Starting from a man setting fire to himself to spark an protest in Tunisia in 2010over

economic hardship and political restrictions, countries in North Africa following by those in Middle East have been experienced both large and small scale of uprising for regimes changes. These include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. In all cases yet Syria case, the protestors accomplished their goals; dictators were toppled and new governments were elected. Moreover, all cases which contained mass killings on civilians were received many attentions from the international community. The involvement of international community especially the West ranked from bilateral pressures in general to military intervention with authorization from the Security Council as in Libya as particular. The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, which started in March 2011, has also no different causes to the crisis in countries mentioned above. By seeing the liberations trench in their neighbors uprising, Syrian people followed the path and started their demonstration firstly in form of very small protest. However, Al-Assads government at that time did not have intention to solve the problem; rather took hard measure against protestors. The small protests has transformed into uprising when the protestors received external assistance and took up arms against the security forces. And the result is Syria crisis have reached its twenty one-old of civil war in which at least 30,000 people including both soldiers and civilian were believed to have been killed (Reuters).

Along with this twenty one-month-old crisis with no differences from Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, Syria crisis also receives deep attention from the international community. However, in Syria crisis, the series of international efforts to cope with the uprising has been taken place in two different forms; one side supports rebels and other side supports Damascus regime. This ranks from regional players (such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) and regional/global organizations (such as Arab-Leagues and the United Nations). However, those efforts have been failed so far and the civil war is still ongoing in a stalemate. Syria crisis involves both actors playing on the ground and on the table of global security organ which is the UN Security Council. As can be seen, there have been two Resolutions on Syria crisis that have been repeatedly blocked by dual-veto in UN Security Council. The next resolution might have the same end as its formers. By the way, the ground actions played by supporters of both sides are much more dangerous and unpredictable. For instant, the continue support from Iran, as regional player, aligned with its armed-group allies (Hezbollah and Hamas) is somehow viewed as a strong force in keeping Syria crisis at its current stalemate. Indeed, this term paper is going to investigate the possible reasons behind the move of Iran supporting the President Bashar al-Assads government in Syria. The paper will look at making process of Iran foreign policy toward Syria crisis by focusing on its international, governmental, and domestic contexts. The paper will take into account the analysis bases on rationality image, political image, and psychological image in Irans foreign policy making process. In the same time, Irans capacity, actors, instruments, and results of its implementation of foreign policy of supporting Syrias government will also be examined.

VIII. Iran Foreign Policy: Syria Crisis Iran Supports Al-Assads Regime The uprising in Syria started since in March 2011 brought a concern to a form of civil war when Syrian government took heavy military responses and the rebels get supply from some pro-Western countries. Western countries view the President Al-Assad is killing its own people with heavy weaponry and urge Al-Assad to follow the Syrian peoples want. In contrast to the Western belief, the uprising is viewed by Iran as the U.S.s ploy to break the