As Syria’s political stability crumbles amid civil war in one of the biggest threats to President Bashar al-Assad since he took power in 2000, Iran-backed militias entered Syria overnight from Iraq.
Ready to support Assad's forces battling Islamist insurgents, they were heading to northern Syria according to Reuters, who spoke to two Syrian army sources.
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab British Understanding in London, told Iran International: “The whole situation is extremely fluid but Iran will be sure to shore up its position as it’s very conscious of losing ground across the region after Hezbollah has been politically and military degraded.”
In recent months, Israel has taken out swathes of the group's leadership in targeted strikes as well as at least 1,500 operatives in two days of synchronized explosions of the group's pagers and walkie-talkies.
Reuters reported that dozens of Iran-aligned Iraqi Hashd al Shaabi fighters from Iraq also crossed into Syria through a military route near Al Bukamal crossing.
"These are fresh reinforcements being sent to aid our comrades on the front lines in the north," a senior Syrian army source told Reuters, adding the militias included Iraq's Kataib Hezbollah and Afghan Fatemiyoun groups sent by Iran.
Doyle noted that this aligns with Iran's typical approach, leveraging its regional allies to bolster its influence and support.
“They prefer to do that than use uniformed Iranian military,” he added. “It will be a contest now between regional actors such as Iran and Turkey, Russia and the US and Israel. What will get lost in this is the agenda of the Syrian people.”
During the Syrian war, along with Russia, Iran sent thousands of Shi'ite militias to support Assad. However, the attack by multiple Islamist groups in recent days has shown the void left, resulting in the Syrian army retreating from Aleppo, where Iranian-backed militias led by Hezbollah, had a strong presence.
“The Syrian regime has been in close contact with the Iranians and it will want to recapture Aleppo. It’s negotiating by fighting, trying to change the front lines which were frozen for five or so years, to suit your allies and regional interests.
"Turkey has an interest in trying to push back against the Syrian regime and the Kurdish groups, and Iran will want to shore up Syria because it won’t want to lose out to external powers. Iran’s interest is maintaining the corridor from Iran to Lebanon and not having that interrupted by losing control and influence in Syria," Doyle said.
Amid the war in Gaza and ground offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, recent months have seen Israel step up its strikes on Iranian bases in Syria.
On Sunday, Israel forced an Iranian Mahan Air plane suspected of containing weapons for Hezbollah and destined to land in Syria to U-turn after an Air Force operation saw fighter planes circle the plane, according to Israel’s YNet.
It comes amid the US-France-brokered 60-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran’s largest regional ally. Israel has vowed that any efforts to rebuild and re-arm would be met with force.
The Iranian plane forced to turn around was in Syrian territory, believed to be delivering weapons for Hezbollah, which uses Syria as one of its major smuggling routes.
In the ceasefire agreement, it was stated that "the US is committed to cooperating with Israel to curb Iran's destabilizing activities in Lebanon, including preventing the transfer of weapons, affiliates and others from Iranian territory”.
In spite of the ceasefire, both sides continue to claim violations, with the Israeli military having carried out multiple air strikes on terror targets since last week.
Patel, a former prosecutor and senior intelligence official during Trump’s presidency, has been an ardent critic of the Biden administration’s policies toward Tehran, accusing them of empowering the Islamic Republic through financial and strategic concessions.
In an interview with Fox Business in March, Patel said, “President Biden gave Iran $7 billion and opened up the global financial oil trade sector to them to make another $80 billion.”
He was referring to Iranian funds blocked by South Korean banks that the US asked to be released and deposited in special accounts in Qatar after Iran released five Americans held in Iran for several years.
“This allowed all their foreign partners, like the CCP and Russia, to get in on the action," he said referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
"It’s an intentional dereliction of duty to allow Iran back into the global scene and allow Iran to re-enter their nuclear deal. Remember, this program, architected by Obama and Biden and pushed out by Harris, …is meant to give them a nuclear weapon on a timeline,” he added.
Patel, if confirmed, would replace Christopher Wray seven years before the end of his term, underscoring Trump’s willingness to reshape the FBI’s leadership to align with his administration’s priorities.
The FBI director typically serves a single 10-year term to insulate the agency from political influence. However, Trump’s firing of James Comey in 2017 signaled his readiness to exercise authority over the bureau's leadership.
Critics of Patel’s appointment have voiced concerns over the potential politicization of the FBI, noting his close ties to Trump and his outspoken stances on divisive policy matters.
A hawkish perspective on Iran
Patel’s track record suggests his leadership would bring a hawkish approach to countering Iranian influence.
Speaking in March, Patel criticized the Biden administration’s renewal of sanctions waivers on Iran, describing it as a form of appeasement. “You are either for the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran or you are against them,” he said in another Fox Business appearance.
“The Trump administration was wholly against them, withdrew from the JCPOA, used suffocating sanction to ensure they did not monetize their oil regime to enrich their weapons-grade nuclear program. That’s the ultimate deterrent.”
He further questioned Biden’s assertion that the funds released were intended for humanitarian aid, suggesting they indirectly financed groups like Hamas, which Patel called an Iran-funded organization.
Patel has also drawn attention for his allegations about pro-Islamic Republic operatives embedded within the Biden administration. He pointed to individuals like Robert Malley, Ariane Tabatabai, and Maher Bitar as examples of this influence, citing communications between Tabatabai and Iranian officials.
“Robert Malley, Biden's number one envoy, the guy that's supposed to be keeping us out of war in Iran, had his clearance, security clearance suspended by Chris Ray's FBI... You got to ask why they won't publicly release it.”
“Well, let me tell you why. Because an individual named Arianne Tabatabai, who, by the way, is currently running our special operations office at the Department of Defense was installed there by Robert Malley. Yes, the former presidential envoy to Iran installed this Iranian national to that position in DoD. And do you know what she did in 2014? She emailed the the foreign minister of Iran, Javed Zarif, and asked for permission as a US citizen to take a trip on behalf of the US government,” he added.
If confirmed, Patel could lead the FBI in intensifying its focus on Iranian activities within the US, including efforts to counter espionage, influence operations, and cyber threats.
For Iran, Patel’s nomination would likely signal a heightened US effort to counter its global influence, reinforcing Trump’s legacy of prioritizing Tehran as a primary adversary in American foreign policy.
A notable example of such remarks is former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement advocating for "wiping Israel off the map." Many believe this comment significantly escalated hostility between Iran and Israel, though it was rooted in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s stance toward the Jewish state.
Ahmadinejad is also known for dismissive remarks about the significance of UN resolutions against the Islamic Republic, which ultimately led to economic sanctions that severely affected Iranians' livelihoods for nearly 15 years.
Former reformist lawmaker Mohsen Mirdamadi has emphasized that Iranian officials must refrain from making such statements to support and advance diplomatic efforts with the West.
Although some Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, do not have official spokespersons, Iranian media often publish statements by lower-ranking officials that can undermine state affairs and disrupt the leadership's plans for advancing their agenda.
The absence of an official spokesperson for Khamenei recently sparked controversy in the Iranian parliament over whether Vice President Mohammad Javad Zarif should be dismissed, as demanded by his ultraconservative lawmakers. Earlier, Mehdi Fazaeli, a senior official in Khamenei's office, quoted the Supreme Leader as opposing challenges to Zarif's qualifications. However, ultraconservatives argued that Fazaeli was not an authorized spokesperson for Khamenei, casting doubt on the statement's credibility.
In 2018, the Iranian government under former President Hassan Rouhani went without a spokesperson for 179 days—just one day short of six months. At the time, the conservative Mehr news agency sharply criticized Rouhani, claiming that his failure to appoint a spokesperson signaled an unwillingness to be accountable to public opinion.
However, it is not clear is certain provocative statements are the result of bad judgement or are designed to give mixed signals to both the Iranian public and foreign audiences.
In a recent example of issuing statements seemingly at odds with the government's broader policies, Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, announced, "We have begun injecting gas into several thousand advanced centrifuges, which is part of the nuclear industry's development program, and have put them into operational circuits." This remark appeared to disregard the fact that it directly contradicted a recent IAEA resolution condemning Tehran for violating its international obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, and the government’s declarations that does not seek nuclear weapons.
The statement was made two days before a meeting with the United Kingdom, France and Germany to reduce the tensions between Tehran and European powers.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has an official public relations office led by a chief who acts as a spokesperson. However, various commanders frequently make incendiary statements that do not necessarily align with the policies of the government or the IRGC itself. In recent months, while Khamenei has occasionally been cautious to avoid provoking Israel or the West, IRGC officers have repeatedly issued threats. At times, total news blackouts on military or nuclear issues suggest that orders for silence may have come from higher authorities. Yet, these periods of quiet are often short-lived, as outspoken officers tend to make remarks at any moment.
In an interview, Mirdamadi emphasized that Iranian officials and military commanders should refrain from making costly remarks, particularly on foreign policy matters. He stated, "They often chant impractical slogans, leaving the nation to bear the heavy consequences of mistakes it did not commit. In the recent incident leading up to the IAEA resolution, some politicians made unnecessary but highly damaging statements."
Mirdamadi was referring to remarks like the one made by former deputy judiciary chief Mohammad Javad Larijani who suggested that Iran can make a nuclear bomb in 24 hours.
Mirdamadi also criticized Iran's approach, stating, "We should neither underestimate nor overrate the country's capabilities. We need to be realistic and recognize that Iran cannot singlehandedly change the world order. There are matters beyond Iran's power or authority, and it is not in our interest to define the country's priorities in a way that necessitates confrontation with other nations, particularly major powers."
Ironically, Mirdamadi himself was one of the leaders of the Iranian students who occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding over 50 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, an incident that set the country on its course of foreign confrontations.