Syria in the US and Israeli debate on Iran

US, Iranian, and Israeli flag

Syria in the US and Israeli debate on Iran

By Shira Efron, Head of Israel Research Program at the RAND Corporation

With presidential elections in the United States underway in November 2020[1], the only possible scenarios for Washington in the Middle East are either continuation and solidification, or a change in its Iran policy, each with different potential impacts on the geopolitical conflict between the United States, Israel, and allied Arab countries on one side and Iran and its regional Axis-of-Resistance on the other. Analysing current convergences and divergences between the United States and Israel on Syria and Iran is important to anticipate potential changes in both countries’ positions following the US election, as such changes may impact the effectiveness and even the prospect of the continuation of the United States’ so-called ‘Maximum Pressure’ campaign. The policies of the two countries on Syria and Iran became varyingly intertwined as Iran entrenched itself deeply in Syria. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Israel and the United States differ in their approaches to tackling Syria.

This contribution attempts to assess the US campaign against Iran, the cost it is likely to have inflicted upon it in Syria, and the outlook of an agreement with Iran. Although we are considering US policy on Iran, the analysis here also includes the Israeli perspective. Private conversations with Israeli current and former officials have provided important insights into how Israeli officials see US policy in Syria and vis-à-vis Iran, and can add a unique contribution to the dialogue.

In this analysis, we sought to address several issues. First, whether there are any incentives for Iran to concede to US demands or reach a meaningful bargain, and whether under a Biden or Trump administration a new Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) could be renegotiated to include Iranian expansion in the region. We also examined the form and incentives structure that could entice Iran to offer a constructive contribution to the stability of Syria and the region. In addition, we assessed to what extent the Maximum Pressure campaign affects Iran, and whether targeting Syria with sanctions would incentivise both the Syrian government and the Syrian locals (who are working with Iran as fighters) to break with Iran. Finally, assuming that Iran is in Syria to protect its own interests, we question whether more threats to Tehran would lead to reduced presence in Syria.

 

The ideas expressed are those of the author not the publisher

Published in October 2020

All rights reserved to GCSP

Part of the Syria Transition Challenges Project 

[1] This paper was written before the US presidential elections of 2020.

Dr. Shira Efron is a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), head of the Israel Research Program at the RAND Corporation, and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. Dr. Efron specializes in policy analysis, research, and planning methods that can be applied in a variety of contexts. Her studies on Israeli-Chinese ties and their implications for Israeli and U.S. national security and the Israeli-Arab conflict were featured in leading international media outlets including Foreign Policy and The Wall Street Journal. Before joining INSS and RAND, Dr. Efron was a Middle East analyst at several think tanks in Washington DC including the Center for American Progress and Middle East Institute. She has a Ph.D. and M.Phil. in policy analysis from RAND’s Graduate School, an M.A. in international relations/international business from New York University (NYU) and a B.Sc. in biology (major) and computer science (minor) from Tel Aviv University. She is a member of the board of directors of Deborah Forum, which promotes women in the security establishment, and a fellow with Israel Policy Forum.