WANA (Dec 20) – Ali Akbar Ahmadian delved into the details of Iran’s advisory presence in Syria, discussing the logic behind it and its prerequisites, reasons for reducing this presence post-ISIS, differences between ISIS and other armed groups ruling parts of Syria, Iran’s approach to such groups in the past years, and its view of them. He also addressed why Iran refrained from military intervention in recent Syrian events and the impact of these developments on the resistance axis and support for it.

 

The Justification for Iran’s Role in Syria

The collapse of Syria’s government at the hands of armed invaders raised many questions. Adversaries of the resistance axis, who had long conducted extensive psychological and media campaigns against Iran’s presence in Syria, seized the moment to escalate their efforts. They propagated a wide range of allegations and fabrications regarding the resistance axis, Iran’s involvement in Syria, the reasons behind the country’s collapse, and related issues.

 

In a significant speech last Wednesday regarding events in Syria, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution shed light on “what has happened and what might be hidden from view,” elaborating on “our position, our movement, the region’s direction, and its future.”

 

National Security Through the Lens of Public Participation

When asked about the theoretical foundations of the Islamic Republic’s approach to national security, which aligns with its various security agencies, Ahmadian stated: “In our view, the people are the cornerstone of national security. The Islamic Revolution triumphed with the people, was established with the people, and endures with the people. All theories surrounding ‘national security’ revolve around the central pillar of the people. By ‘people,’ I mean all the citizens—because everyone participated in the revolution.”

 

Rejecting the notion that a specific group drove the revolution, Ahmadian emphasized that the collective efforts of the Iranian nation shaped its success. He added, “This belief is rooted in the theoretical and practical positions of the Leader of the Revolution, who recently reaffirmed that the Islamic Republic means nothing without the people.”

 

Iran’s Approach in Syria

Clarifying Iran’s role in Syria, Ahmadian said: “We did not install the Syrian government—it existed before us, was stable, and shared a notable common ground in opposing the Zionist regime and resisting the U.S. and Israel. These mutual interests forged reciprocal support. Another guiding principle is the Supreme Leader’s theory of ‘realistic idealism.’ Opposing the false dichotomy between idealism and realism, the Leader asserted that idealism without realism is delusion, while realism without ideals leads to stagnation.”

 

Addressing Iran’s military and advisory presence, Ahmadian underlined: “Iran’s presence anywhere, even when driven by idealism, follows fundamental principles. There might have been rare mistakes, but the overarching approach adheres to these principles:

 

1. Defending the Nation: Decisive protection of the country, its people, and national interests against foreign aggression.

 

2. Never Initiating Aggression: The Leader firmly upholds this rule, often preventing rash decisions that reach his level.

 

3. Non-Interference in Sovereign States: Even with our universalist ideals, Iran refrains from meddling in other nations’ affairs unless under specific conditions: A formal request from the legitimate government.

 

No conflict with the local populace. Clear alignment with national interests or overarching ideals, such as defending the oppressed.”

 

Ahmadian emphasized the advisory nature of Iran’s role: “In Syria and Iraq, our presence stemmed from official invitations. For instance, during the ISIS conflict, the Iraqi government formally requested our support. However, Iran ensures its involvement complements rather than replaces the efforts of local governments and populations.”

 

Historical Context of Iran-Syria Relations

Highlighting the long-standing ties between Iran and Syria, Ahmadian noted: “Syria has supported Iran since the Islamic Revolution. During the war with Iraq—despite the shared Ba’athist background between Syria and Iraq—Damascus stood firmly with us. This bond deepened due to shared resistance against Israel and the refusal of regimes like Egypt and Jordan to capitulate to Zionist pressures.”

 

Nonetheless, he acknowledged internal challenges in Syria: “While the Assad regime consistently resisted Zionism and defended Palestinian rights, some systemic shortcomings created rifts between the government and segments of Syrian society. Iran has always advocated for social cohesion and popular alignment, emphasizing the people’s pivotal role in governance and stability.”

 

In conclusion, Ahmadian stressed that Iran’s involvement in Syria remains rooted in strategic, principled, and humanitarian frameworks designed to uphold regional stability and counter aggression.

 

Ahmadiyan continued: “Later, a third phenomenon emerged there, which was the rise of ISIS—the ISIS sedition. We must differentiate between the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the ISIS era and the period prior to it. Yes, we decisively entered the war against ISIS, just as we fought ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Even today, if ISIS, with the same characteristics as before, appears around us in a way that poses a future threat, we will naturally suppress it there—of course, with the same conditions I previously mentioned.

 

But what were the features of ISIS that led us to this conclusion? Firstly, ISIS was a creation of intelligence agencies. We knew where these individuals were released from, which prisons, who worked with them, where they were taken, how they were shaped, and how they were given a seemingly legitimate image. In its early days, ISIS tried to present itself as legitimate and attempted to counterfeit the Islamic Revolution’s movement. Thus, ISIS lacked any genuine identity.

 

Secondly, ISIS had no homeland. This was a very significant point: ISIS did not belong to any territory. There was no place we could call their country or geography and recognize them as part of a nation. They were stateless. Hence, wherever we fought them, it was not their land.

 

Thirdly, they viewed every place as their own. They considered the lands of others their property, claiming Islamic countries and the region as theirs. Therefore, they were adversaries of all regional countries, including Iran.

 

Fourthly, they harbored a takfiri ideology against all Islamic sects. The foundation of ISIS was built on takfir, not just of Shia Muslims but of anyone other than themselves.

 

Fifthly, they practiced mass terrorism targeting civilians. ISIS was a terrorist group by any standard, as its main weapon was terror. Even today, this remains true. Their terrorism was not limited to political or military officials but was directed at the general population. The Kerman explosion is a notable memory. ISIS claimed responsibility, labeling it a successful martyrdom operation.

 

Currently, they are still pursuing such actions. Our security apparatus continuously intercepts various teams they send into the country, leading to a constant, hidden war. Sometimes, for example, 20 groups are arrested in the country.”

 

He added: “When ISIS emerged, there was no room for hesitation. Of course, some of the Syrian opposition forces indirectly contributed to the rise of such a movement, or later strengthened it by joining them, forcing us to confront them as well. From the start, however, we differentiated between ISIS and the opposition groups. By the grace of God, ISIS was eradicated through consistent operations in both Iraq and Syria.

 

Regarding the other opposition forces, such as those involved in Aleppo, Damascus, Eastern and Western Ghouta, Daraa, and Sweida, the Islamic Republic of Iran attempted to mediate between them and the government. Naturally, when we were attacked, we defended ourselves. For example, in areas where we were present to combat ISIS, such as Aleppo Airport or highways like Aleppo-Damascus, we had defensive lines. If someone attacked us, we had to defend ourselves or even push them back in some cases. However, we never aimed to uproot these groups like ISIS.

 

Even when they were besieged and it was decided to evacuate them, we ensured their safety to relocate to Idlib. In Aleppo, some of our comrades gave their lives to transfer the families of these opposition forces to Idlib. Later, in all political agreements, we supported initiatives for them to have a place to settle, creating de-escalation zones where no one would confront them.”

 

Ahmadiyan further noted: “After the end of the ISIS issue, the region was handed back to the Syrian Army, and our complete presence there was no longer relevant. Of course, the Bashar al-Assad government was under significant pressure due to Iran’s presence—from the Arabs, Israel, and the U.S.—accusing Iran of occupying Syria and similar claims. Consequently, most of our forces returned, leaving only those essential for resistance efforts or for assisting the Syrian Army or government.”

 

Regarding the recent movements by groups in northwest Syria, he said: “Each of these groups has different origins, views on Turkey, Syria, Iran, Shiites, and Israel. They are a disorganized mix, yet they had reached agreements for such actions. These movements were repeatedly reported to the Syrian government, which had its intelligence capabilities and was aware.

 

However, two points arose here. First, Syrian officials and the army didn’t believe these groups could launch a major operation. Second, they relied on their military and security forces, thinking that if these groups moved, it would just cause slight unrest but be manageable. Hence, the Syrian government never perceived these groups as a serious threat. They also didn’t anticipate the Syrian army’s capacity for collapse. Eventually, the operations began, and again, we repeatedly informed the Syrian army where they could hold positions to block the advances—because even if they wanted to negotiate with these groups, they needed to solidify a stance. However, there was no will to fight or resist within the Syrian army, leading to successive territorial losses, eventually reaching Damascus.”

 

Referring to accusations that Iran didn’t intervene directly against these advances, he said: “Iran was never meant to fight in place of the Syrian Army against forces that posed no direct threat to the Islamic Republic. If the capacity existed for troop and equipment transfers and the Syrian army resisted, we would have supported them. However, the Syrian government never requested such involvement from us until the very last days.

 

Another key point is that, following the defeat of ISIS, with the Syrian government’s agreement, we had withdrawn our forces, and operational presence wasn’t an option. Strengthening support would have been impossible unless the Syrian army resisted. Thus, when critics claim Iran abandoned the arena, there was no operational presence to abandon.”

 

Regarding claims from adversarial media about the futility of Iran’s past investments in Syria, he emphasized: “We are not regretful about our expenditures. This is not mere rhetoric; we are genuinely not regretful because our efforts and spending were for our security, and the expected outcomes were achieved. Had ISIS not been eliminated in Syria and Iraq, we would face far greater costs combating them within our borders today. No one doubts that if ISIS had established a state in Iraq and Syria, we’d be fighting them along our borders now.

 

Their objective, as they openly declared, was Iran. Eliminating ISIS was a significant achievement, completely thwarting the U.S.’s plans and rendering their years-long investment fruitless. While some may not grasp the details, they created an army and, as they claimed, built a state to counter the Islamic Revolution.

 

With Iran’s actions, their plan was dismantled, which alone justifies the expenses of our presence. Moreover, we strengthened Palestine and Hezbollah, empowering them to become independent. Today, Hezbollah is a fully self-reliant group. In Gaza, for example, rockets and missiles are locally produced. Hezbollah, with more extensive territory, is better equipped and has gained political and cultural influence. Despite all adversities, it enjoys significant support in Lebanon. These are the blessings and strategic depth of the Islamic Revolution.”

 

On the increased difficulties in supporting resistance efforts, he remarked: “Yes, it’s becoming harder. However, our work has faced challenges at many points and become easier at others. This is natural and has been the case from the beginning.”

 

The first point to note is that Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jihad today are not heavily reliant on our direct and physical support. Look at this: during this time, have we ever had direct contact with Hamas in Gaza? Never. Israeli barriers and its allies have always controlled the situation. Do we currently have a direct land connection with Yemen? Even its sea routes are under blockade. However, the Yemeni people themselves unveil new capabilities daily, building missiles with a range of over a thousand kilometers! This is truly astonishing. We ourselves went through a long process and took years to become missile producers, but Yemenis have achieved this in a very short time.

 

This is one of the blessings and honors of the Islamic Revolution, which, based on divine beliefs, wherever it steps, it nurtures the people of that country, making them mature and dignified. It does not make them dependent and weak, as Pharaoh used to do: “He made his people feel insignificant, and they obeyed him.” Pharaoh weakened his people to control them, which is exactly what the United States does with its satellites today. But the Islamic Revolution, like Prophet Moses and the divine prophets, fosters growth in others. How long was Syria allied with the former Soviet Union before us? A very long time, yet it was never given the technology to even manufacture a tank component independently! But thanks to its connection with the Islamic Revolution, it became a missile producer.

 

In any case, the Resistance does not depend on us for its survival. And Iran’s connection with the Resistance and Hezbollah will never be severed.

 

The Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council also addressed one of the major ambiguities, which revolves around Iran’s position in the region—a matter that sometimes reaches the level of accusing the Islamic Republic—and analyzing the current state as a “vicious cycle of weakening” for Iran. He stated: “This is the enemy’s psychological operation. Satan’s job is to frighten: ‘Satan threatens you with poverty and commands immorality.’ Israel’s strategy is to instill weakness and humiliation. Unfortunately, I see some within our country falling into this psychological operation, inadvertently doing exactly what Israel wants by consistently projecting weakness. This aligns with the enemy’s strategy.

 

Some individuals with ill intentions—or specific objectives—ask questions with destructive implications, like, ‘What happened to Operation True promise? Will you act now or later?’ Well, the matter is clear: such actions are based on military logic. We act when necessary and appropriate—when it causes the greatest pain for the enemy and when it serves our national interests. Operations cannot and should not be conducted impulsively. Between the first and second phases of Operation True promise, we analyzed the shortcomings of our initial strike and assessed the enemy’s capabilities. The subsequent operation was, therefore, improved. All of this is guided by rationality, prudence, and logic—exactly as I described earlier.

 

One of the psychological warfare tactics of the enemy is to apply pressure, claiming: ‘If you haven’t acted yet, it must mean you’re scared!’ Then, some among us begin accusing our country’s leaders—those who were on the battlefield of martyrdom yesterday, remain exposed to martyrdom daily, and are losing their lives continuously—of being cowardly. This isn’t valid critique; it’s unwittingly playing into the enemy’s psychological warfare, ultimately furthering their goal of creating an illusion of fear and weakness. If we were afraid, we would’ve followed the path of others, capitulating to Israel and the U.S., selling out our nation’s goals and interests.

 

Circumstances differ at various points in time; one must assess them accordingly and make appropriate decisions.”

 

He continued: “In my opinion, first, in the realm of psychological and media warfare, we should adopt an offensive approach instead of being defensive. Reality shows that if we were attacked today, even many of those who claim to oppose the system—or have disagreements with it—would take to the field to defend their country.

 

Second, strategically speaking, who has actually been defeated? Over these past 400–500 days since the ‘Al-Aqsa Storm’ operation, observe the situation of the Zionist regime. Israel, which once appeared as an illegitimate but globally recognized state, is now seen as an occupying, apartheid, and genocidal regime, with its prime minister under legal scrutiny. Conversely, the Palestinian people have emerged as the rightful inhabitants of this land and a liberation movement resisting occupation. Global public opinion, and even many official institutions, have been compelled to support the stance that Palestine belongs to Palestinians, while Israel has been committing acts of occupation for 70 years.

 

The reality is that today, Israel is desperate. Despite all its measures, it lacks security and legitimacy, its internal conflicts have escalated significantly, and its economic situation has deteriorated. Western officials now acknowledge that Gaza’s and Lebanon’s children either become Yahya al-Sinwar or Hassan Nasrallah. Therefore, the overall movement favors the victory of the Resistance front and the Islamic Revolution, strengthening the Islamic Revolution and witnessing Israel’s weakness and humiliation.”

 

Ahmadian concluded: “With your analysis of the Resistance’s power, are you implying that the Islamic Republic’s primary strategy against Israel is to empower the people, the Islamic world, and the Resistance—not merely military confrontation?”

 

He replied: “Yes, precisely. The Palestinian people must be empowered to defend themselves and respond to aggression. Israel, by its nature and essence, inherently has sufficient propensity for collapse. Israel cannot sustain itself because it is an artificial construct. Events over the past year clearly highlight this trajectory. Israel has collapsed in the global imagination, and international opinions have shifted. Today, there’s hardly anyone who doesn’t condemn Israel, nor anyone who fails to acknowledge its illegitimacy and Palestine’s legitimacy. Israel has lost its false legitimacy and acceptability, and its true face of occupation, genocide, and apartheid has been exposed. This is the general trajectory of events.”