Today Iran experiences one of the gravest consequences of the “Arab spring”: the anti-governmental movement, which started in Syria in spring, more and more resembles civil war and president B. Assad is losing his ground. The regime change in Syria and overthrowing of B. Assad may become a massive blow for Iran as today Syria is the only ally of Iran in the region. Syrian government for Iran Strange as it may seem Syria most of the population of which are Sunnites and which is governed by the socialist and secular “Baas” party, which sister party in Iraq headed by S, Hussein used to be the main regional enemy of Iran, today is the only ally of Tehran in the Middle East. Though recently “Hezbollah” has become the main and most influential political power in Beirut, Lebanon, as a state, still continues to carry out partially anti-Iranian policy, voting from time to time for the anti-Iranian resolutions in the UN General Assembly. The significance of Syria for Iran is conditioned by a number of circumstances: Over the recent 25 years Syria has provided strengthening of the positions of the pro-Iranian “Hezbollah” in Lebanon; it was a kind of bridge between Iran and “Hezbollah”. Together with Iran Syria is working on curbing consolidation of Saudi positions in the region, thus restricting Er-Riad’s strengthening. Syria and Iran are the only states, the territories of which can be used by Iran for delivering strikes at Israel in case if the later takes a decision to strike at the nuclear objects in Iran. Taking into consideration situation in Iraq and issues aroused for Turkey by the fact of existence of Iraqi Kurdistan, Syria is the main Arab neighbour of Ankara and establishing control of it can provide Ankara and “moderate Islam” “exported” by it with access to the entire Arab Middle East, thus restricting Iranian influence there, establishing of which has been Tehran’s goal for the recent 30 years. Syria is the main “office” of the Iranian special services in the Middle East. With its help Tehran arranges its activity with “Hamas”, supplies arms to Palestine, Lebanon; before the Egyptian revolution it was in Syria that Iran held talks with “Muslim Brothers” – the most active anti-Mubarak force. Taking into account all those circumstances we can mention that overthrowing of the incumbent Syrian authorities, which, as the events in Egypt and Libya came to prove, means collapse of the state and chaos in the country, may be vital for the regional policy of Iran. In this aspect preserving of Syria’s positions and, preservation of Assad’s regime, if it is possible, is the regional priority for Iran. It should be underlined that if Iran manages to preserve Assad’s regime, it will open up new opportunities for Tehran. The point is that the current developments in Syria have strained the relations of Damascus with the regional adversaries of Iran. The most important factor for Tehran is probably the fact that Turkey has become the main critic of Syria and started working actively against Damascus. This fact, in its turn, spells the death of the positive progress observed in the Turkish-Syrian relations over the recent years, blocks the flow of the Turkish capital to Syria and undermines the prospects of Damascus to become the main regional partner of Ankara. If B. Assad manages to preserve his power, Syria will be receiving support from Iran regardless whether it wants it or not, taking into consideration political or even economic blockade by most of the Arab world and Turkey. Syria will try to restore the military and political alliance with Iran which has considerably weakened after the fall of S. Hussein’s regime and rectification of the American-Syrian relations in 2003. Thus, it is good opportunity for Iran to consolidate Iran-Iraq-Syria anti-Sunnite “crescent”, which drives a wedge between still mostly pro-American Arab countries and closes the way of Turkey and its “moderate Islam” to the Middle East. In this context Tehran stirred up its policy in the region. In autumn Iran made an important assignment – new ambassador of Iran to Syria Mohamad Sheibani delivered his credentials to the president of Syria on October 20, 2011. It should be mentioned that that before the assignment M. Sheibani was the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran and he resigned from his major post to leave for Damascus. Before leaving for Syria, M. Sheibani met the spiritual leader of Iran A. Khamenei and president M. Ahmadinejad from whom he most probably received instructions concerning his mission in Syria. M. Sheibani is not a common diplomat; he is an old pro who used to cooperate with the Army of Guardians of Islamic Revolution, and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs he coordinated relations with Lebanon and “Hezbollah”. His assignment may be an indirect proof that Tehran decided to use the forces of the Army of Guardians and “Hezbollah” for preserving the B. Assad’s regime. On the other hand, Tehran eagerly tries to help Syria to avoid regional blockade: it is already known that the sanctions imposed on Syria by the Arab League will not be implemented by Lebanon and Iraq and their borders with Syria will remain open. All these are proved by two important statements: On November 20, leader of “Hezbollah” H. Nasrola stated that Lebanon would remain Syria’s friend and would not take part in the blockade of the neigbouring country. Taking into consideration dominating position of “Hezbollah” in Lebanese parliament and in ruling coalition, H. Nasrola’s statement can be considered as state statement. Let us also mention that the leader of “Hezbollah” warned in his statement that any military interference into the domestic affairs of Syria would “blow up” the region, thus affirming the prospects that “Hezbollah” and Iran could directly interfere into the military actions. On December 4 the prime-minister of Iraq N. al-Maliki stated in his interview to a state TV channel that his state did not support any sanction against Syria and it was not going to join any anti-Syrian coalition. At the same time Maliki mentioned that he was ready to negotiate with the Syrian opposition in order to build bridge between a part of the society and authorities, thus promoting implementation of reforms “corresponding to the national interests”. It should also be underlined that Iran adopted the policy of negotiations with the Syrian opposition either. But, unlike Iraq, Iran has made definite steps in this direction. On November 14 in Syria new Iranian ambassador M. Sheibani held official talks with the leader of Syrian democratic opposition Kh. Manna, at which a possibility of starting active dialogue between opposition and authorities was discussed. The stance of the democratic opposition on the negotiations and dialogue has also changed. The leader of oppositional National Council B. Galyun today comes out for not for the resignation of B. Assad but for “the creation of new, democratic and civil society in Syria”. It should be mentioned that the democratic opposition is not the sole leader of the anti-government movement – the movement today is transforming into the Islamist one, oriented towards Turkey and Saudi Arabia. But the possible negotiations between the authorities and moderate democratic opposition are very important today. If B. Assad manages to withdraw moderate and democratic opposition from the movement, the political struggle in Syria will be purified – on the one side there will a state and the powers which demand for the changes in the country, on the other side – those who struggle for the creation of the Islamic state in Syria. Such an alternative may change the stance of the Syrian society on the processes taking place in the country. For the opposition defending secularism and democracy the dialogue with the authorities is a crying need. This opposition seems to be well aware that in case of overthrowing current authorities there are bare chances that they will get access to power: most probably and according to a simple logic those who are shooting at army and blowing up police stations will take the helm of state. They are not going to overthrow the authorities and then leave the power and formation of a new state to the adherents of parliamentarianism and secular democracy. The elections in Egypt and Tunisia demonstrated who wins at the post-revolutionary democratic elections – not the democrats but moderate or not so moderate Islamists. Acknowledging all those circumstances Iran tries to encourage the dialogue between the authorities and democratic opposition, as they realize that there is a great potential for cooperation between them. However, it should be mentioned that for Iran there is no alternative for B. Assad today in Syria. Tehran tries and will try to keep the current regime in Syria, whether by military means or encouraging negotiations. And if Tehran does not manage to do that Iran will appear in rather difficult regional situation.

---