Out of all the foreign actors involved in the Syrian civil war, Iran has the most at stake in assuring President Bashar al-Assad’s regime is not toppled by hostile rebel groups; consequently, it has remained the Syrian government's closest ally throughout the conflict. The reasons for this are manifold; Assad represents a minority Alawite Shia religious sect in a country that is predominantly Sunni, according to the Department of State, and though Syria is ostensibly a secular government, Iran has interest in preserving Shia dominance in the region. Syria is often considered Iran’s greatest ally, and Assad’s regime has shown its willingness to support Iran in numerous ways throughout history. The countries have been close allies since the overthrow of the Shah and formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 due to the “alignment of strategic interests as well as ideological beliefs between the two countries,” according to a 2010 article in the Stanford Journal of International Relations. A focal point of their shared interests is the role of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East.

Additionally, Iran and Syria are allies of Hezbollah, as Hezbollah shares a similar ideology regarding the Western world, according to the Institute for the Study of War. Hezbollah is a well-established Shia Islamic militant group situated in Lebanon that rose to power in the 1980s in response to Israeli transgressions in Lebanon. Since its conception, it has received substantial support from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates as a proxy for the Iranian government, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. The alliance led to the formation of the Axis of Resistance; consequently, the U.S. Department of State labeled Syria and Iran state sponsors of terrorism in 1979 and 1984, respectively. The defense of Syria, due to its strategic location in the Middle East and close relationship with both Iran and Hezbollah, is considered paramount to the success of the Axis of Resistance against Western intervention. On Sept. 6, 2012, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, proposed that the Syrian conflict was a “conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world. Iran will not tolerate, in any form, the breaking of the axis of resistance,” according to an August 2013 report from the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. Thus, it is no wonder that Iran has remained so committed to the Assad regime, providing critical support throughout the duration of the conflict.

Through his retention of power, Assad and his allies can consider the conflict a victory for the Axis of Resistance against Western intervention. In response, the Trump administration has taken an aggressive stance regarding Iran, but by doing so, the U.S. risks further worsening relations and pushing Iran to align itself more closely with Russia. The relationship between these countries has reached a high point during the conflict, according to a Sept. 13, 2016 European Council on Foreign Relations article. These relations culminated in the trilateral peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan late last month wherein the Russian, Turkish and Iranian governments facilitated and discussed the implementation of a cease-fire, concluding that peace could only be achieved following the defeat of rebels deemed hostile, according to a Feb. 6 Al Jazeera article. While peace remains a distant goal, these talks improved the political and military cohesion among the three powers, which are united in their opposition of groups like the Islamic State.

Since long before the conflict began, Iran has had members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps operating in Syria, providing advising and training services to the Syrian military, according to the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies. By 2016, the number of Iranian troops in Syria was estimated to be nearly 10,000. In addition, Iran has sponsored both the Syrian forces and sympathetic Shia rebel groups, providing weaponry and other funding. Iranian ground forces were observed functioning in a military capacity, according to an Oct. 6, 2016 New York Times article. These contributions serve as evidence of Iranian commitment to the Assad regime which far surpasses that of other allies.

While the region seems to be moving in the direction of stability, President Donald Trump’s antagonism toward Iran could serve to threaten the potential peace. On the campaign trail, Trump continuously reiterated his staunch opposition to Iran and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Many high-ranking White House officials, such as Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, are outspoken opponents of Iran: Flynn claimed in a Feb. 3 press statement that “Iran … engages in and supports violent activities that destabilize the Middle East.” After Iran tested a ballistic missile last week, Trump imposed economic sanctions on 25 individuals and firms deemed to have connections to Iranian military activity in the Middle East, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. In addition, while the Trump administration claims these tests violated United Nations resolutions, in reality, the tests violate neither JCPOA resolutions nor U.N. strictures regarding the Iranian missile program, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Compounding these increased tensions is Trump’s immigration executive order, which would prevent immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Iran, from entering the United States. In response, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a speech in which he thanked Trump for “revealing the true nature of America.” Trump’s antics have the potential to backfire, as it is an election year in Iran, and while polling suggests the likely victory of incumbent Hassan Rouhani, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric risks fostering anti-U.S. sentiments that could influence Iranian policy henceforth. In response to threats made by Trump, Iranian foreign affairs advisor Ali Akbar Velayati told Al Jazeera on Feb. 9 that, in the event of U.S. military intervention in Iran, “Iran and its allies in the region would retaliate very hard. That will make America face dark days to come.” Due to the aggressive rhetoric pursued by the Trump administration, U.S.-Iranian relations have reached new lows after an apparent thaw following the JCPOA, and it is increasingly unclear what the future has in store for the region.

Trump has repeatedly extolled the dangers of “radical Islamic terrorism,” vowing in his inauguration speech to “eradicate [it] from the face of the Earth.” Trump sees the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations as existential threats to the U.S. and would like to enlist Putin as an ally against these dangers. While Trump may see in Putin an ally against ISIS, his hawkish views on Iran have the potential to worsen conflict in the region. It is unclear to what extent Russia is committed to Iran and whether lifting the economic sanctions that the U.S. has placed on Russia could persuade them to abandon its ally. Russia received economic sanctions due to the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty; Russia still maintains its righteousness in the affair. If Russia is not willing to cooperate with the U.S. and its Western allies, the easing of sanctions seems premature. Due to conflicting interests, Russia is not a compatible ally for the U.S., and although Trump may dream of driving a wedge between Iran and Russia, his antagonistic behavior may serve to do just the opposite.