The deal between the P5+1 powers and Iran was a historic diplomatic moment, but it also marked the beginning of a new phase in Middle East geopolitics. It is one in which an emboldened Iran is poised to play a significant role, particularly in Syria.
Perhaps in an effort to comfort exasperated regional allies after the nuclear agreement was reached, Barack Obama stressed that the deal’s chief objective was “to close off Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons”. But that does not mean other policy matters were not considered.
All of this arrives on the heels of concerning developments in Syria. Mr Obama’s programme to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels has so far only produced 60 vetted fighters, despite the goal of of 5,400. Making matters worse, after making meteoric gains in Syria and Iraq, ISIL’s onslaught appears as strong as ever.
Considering this, there is reason to believe that Mr Obama has adopted a policy of expediency, reasoning that the Syrian war must come to an end and that Iran is perhaps the best party for the job.
The US president has announced that Iran, which exercises influence in large parts of the region, could play a constructive role in combating sectarianism. Mr Obama has consistently expressed the opinion that Iran should be "part of the conversation”.
Furthermore, in a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr Obama declared that the best chance of "reducing the scope of conflict" in the Middle East is for "Sunni states to be at least in practical conversation with Iran". He also called on America's allies in the Arab world to do the same "to reduce sectarian divisions ... namely those in Syria".
Mr Obama said that while the US has to listen to its Saudi Arabian allies, it cannot “let them blame every problem on Iran”. Such unprecedented comments strongly indicate a willingness to accommodate Tehran’s voice. The president is starting to strike a tone that places his administration in the middle of the regional schism, rather than favouring one side over the other.
The president’s sudden open-armed statements to Iran are quite spectacular, considering the level of support Tehran has given to the Assad regime.
Iran has been keeping Bashar Al Assad's economy afloat by sending around 60,000 barrels of oil per day since the beginning of this year.
Mr Obama knows this, and he knows that the end of the sanctions regime will probably create a more geopolitically confident Iran. Put simply: unless Iran deviates from its path of almost unconditional support for Mr Al Assad, a stronger Iran will, probably, amount to a stronger Mr Al Assad in Syria.
Mr Obama is not alone in looking to Iran to take action in Syria. In a piece she wrote for Tehran Times, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said that an increased Iranian role in regional affairs could “help stop terrorism and bloodshed”, stating that this should “start from Syria”.
The Syrian government is also confident that the deal will not cause Iran to reconsider its support for it. Last month, the Syrian foreign minister lampooned “those who think the agreement will enable the West to influence Iran’s positions on the Syrian crisis”. He called it “delusional”.
Thus, the veiled implication of a US policy that helps Iran will also indirectly give Mr Al Assad assurances. These assurances will simply say that a policy focused on his ousting has, for now, been set aside.
The possible danger is that by emboldening Iran (and Syria), Mr Obama may, unwittingly, exacerbate the flames of sectarianism.
Furthermore, a policy that facilitates a rise in Iranian dominance could eventually cause Saudi Arabia to reconsider its loyalties to the US, and affect changes in the complex landscape of Middle East alliances.
After championing the success of the nuclear diplomacy with Iran, Mr Obama seems to be setting his sights on bolstering Iranian efforts to extinguish Syria’s war, but as the old saying goes: one should be careful what one wishes for.
Matthew Ayton is a freelance writer and researcher in the West Bank
