Iran could not have foreseen the profound and perilous consequences triggered by the 7 October attack, which set off a domino effect far more devastating than anyone could have anticipated. What began as a localised Hamas operation against Israel, aimed at reviving global interest in the Palestinian cause, has spiralled into a complex web of repercussions endangering the entire Middle East and Tehran’s regional influence especially.

In response, Iran has sought to stabilise the situation in Syria through both diplomacy and military involvement. Iranian-backed militias, including Iraq’s Kataib Hizbullah and Afghanistan’s Fatemiyoun groups, have crossed into Syria to reinforce the Syrian forces struggling against insurgents in the north. Meanwhile, Tehran has intensified diplomatic engagement with key regional and international players, including Russia, Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon, in the hope of containing the crisis. 

Despite bolstering Al-Assad’s regime with advisers and resources, Tehran faces the daunting prospect of an open-ended commitment reminiscent of the gruelling years between 2012 and 2017. A loss in Syria would amount to a severe strategic setback, severing a vital link in Iran’s “axis of resistance,” which connects Tehran to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The reopened Syrian front also poses multidimensional challenges, since the interconnected nature of Middle Eastern conflicts will ensure that any escalation in Syria carries the potential to destabilise Iraq, a vital buffer and economic partner for Iran. Moreover, the burden of sustaining prolonged engagements could deepen internal dissent within Iran, where economic struggles and societal grievances are already simmering.

Turkey’s role in the Syrian conflict adds another layer of complexity to Iran’s calculations. Ankara has historically supported opposition groups in Syria but has recently sought to normalise ties with the Al-Assad regime. However, the rebel offensive, which includes Turkey-backed factions, suggests a recalibration of Turkish strategy.

That is why Iranian diplomats have engaged with their Turkish counterparts, to prevent further escalation. These talks are crucial for Iran, as Turkish actions could either exacerbate or alleviate the challenges facing Al-Assad. For Iran, the stakes in Syria and the broader Middle East have never been higher. A rebel victory in Syria could unravel Tehran’s regional strategy, weakening its ability to project power and threatening its alliances.

According to Iranian officials, prior to the unexpected assaults by armed groups on Syrian Army Forces, Tehran had been deeply engaged in high-level diplomatic efforts across the region and Europe.

These talks also extended to individuals with close ties to US President-elect Donald Trump’s inner circle, aiming to explore avenues for dialogue and diplomacy rather than escalation and entrenched hardline positions. During these exchanges, Iran adopted a tone and rhetoric markedly distinct from its customary approach.

This shift in language reflected a deliberate attempt to foster an environment conducive to negotiations. It signalled a willingness to pivot towards a more conciliatory and pragmatic stance. This nuanced diplomacy underscored Tehran’s recognition of the critical juncture at hand – where strategic recalibration could avert further conflict and potentially open the door to a more constructive regional dynamic.

“This is a deliberate strategic decision, one that President Masoud Pezeshkian articulated from the very outset of his presidency. His message to regional and international partners is both clear and urgent: a conflagration of the Middle East serves no one’s interests. Instead, he urges the collective pursuit of a different path, one grounded in diplomacy and mutual benefit,” an Iranian reformist politician close to the Pezeshkian administration told Al-Ahram Weekly.

Elaborating on this vision, he emphasised that this stance is “not a retreat but an appeal to reason in a volatile region.” By advocating for a de-escalation of tensions, Pezeshkian signals recognition of the diminishing returns of perpetual conflict. He is betting on the idea that even deeply entrenched rivalries can yield to pragmatic cooperation when the stakes of continued instability become unbearable.

This strategic pivot is also a subtle challenge to the zero-sum thinking that has long dominated Middle Eastern geopolitics. Pezeshkian’s approach reflects a broader aspiration to redefine Iran’s role – from that of a polarising force to a stabilising one. Such a shift not only seeks to protect Iran’s own interests but also to position the country as a credible mediator and stakeholder helping to shape a more sustainable regional order.

“The underlying question Iran is posing is: Can we afford to let the region burn, or will we dare to imagine a framework where security, development, and coexistence take precedence over destruction?” stated the Iranian politician. It is no coincidence that Mohammad Javad Zarif, the strategic adviser to the Iranian president, authored a compelling article published in the American magazine Foreign Affairs on Monday.

Written before the latest developments in Syria, the article outlines a pivotal message: Tehran is ready to turn a new page with Donald Trump, provided Trump is willing to reciprocate. The piece, widely discussed both within Iran and internationally, is seen by many as an attempt by Zarif to lay the groundwork for a new foreign policy outlook.

The article presents several intriguing ideas. It emphasises that Iran possesses the strength to confront its adversaries but also the wisdom and pragmatism to take a different path. Zarif argues that attempts to pressure Iran through sanctions continue to yield little for the US. Instead, he highlights regional coordination as the cornerstone of Iran’s defence strategy and asserts that Tehran’s vision resonates positively with neighbouring countries.

He critiques the Abraham Accords as an inadequate solution so long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved while proposing actionable steps Tehran is ready to support, such as a ceasefire, facilitating humanitarian aid, and establishing a political framework to determine the future of the Palestinians.

Most significantly, Zarif stresses that sustainable regional security is unattainable without Iran’s active participation. Tehran, he asserts, is offering its resources, relations and influence to foster regional stability and de-escalation. He concludes with a powerful proposition: “Although today’s Iran is confident that it can fight to defend itself, it wants peace, and it is determined to build a better future. Iran can be an able and willing partner, as long as its partnerships are based on mutual respect and equal footing. Let us not miss this opportunity for a new beginning.” His vision, according to Iranian sources, is as much a challenge to prevailing paradigms as it is an invitation to bold, transformative diplomacy. But the fundamental question remains: Will Trump react positively to Iranian initiatives?

Trump’s presidency from 2017 to 2021 was marked by a volatile mix of sanctions, military strikes and tentative attempts at diplomacy. As he prepares for his second term, Iran’s main question is whether a renewed Trump presidency will double down on this strategy or pivot towards a more restrained approach.

In Washington, the brewing conflict between neoconservatives and isolationists over US foreign policy adds another layer of complexity. Neoconservatives, aligned with hawkish views on Iran, favour continued sanctions and military posturing to counter Tehran’s influence. On the other hand, isolationists advocating Trump’s “Make America Great Again” vision emphasise reducing US involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts to focus on strategic competition with China.

Which faction gains Trump’s ear will have profound implications for Iran and the Middle East. A neoconservative-dominated approach could mean heightened pressure on Tehran and renewed support for Israel in its efforts to counter Iranian influence. Conversely, an isolationist Trump may deprioritise the Middle East, potentially creating space for Tehran to consolidate its regional position.

The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s return to the White House adds to Tehran’s anxiety. Iran hopes Trump will prioritise reaching an understanding over reigniting hostilities. However, Trump’s past approach – characterised by abrupt policy shifts and transactional diplomacy – offers little assurance. Tehran is likely to adopt a cautious strategy, preparing for both escalation and potential negotiations.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 December, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly