The recent three-party conference held in Moscow with the participation of Russia, Turkey and Iran came to a significant end. With mainstream media emphasizing how the U.S. Administration was completely sidelined in talks that discussed the future of Syria, a different perspective also sheds light on how Iran was sidelined to an unprecedented degree. Considering that this session ended with a document signed by all three parties, one can take a hard look at the results.

This document emphasizes Syria’s independence and territorial integrity as a multi-racial, multi-religious, non-sectarian, democratic and secular state; underscores the necessity of reaching a political solution; welcomes joint efforts in East Aleppo to evacuate civilians and armed rebels; highlights the need to expand a ceasefire across the country and facilitate access to humanitarian aid; supports a possible agreement between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government; and accentuates continuing joint efforts against terrorism and especially the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), differentiating their forces from those of the armed democratic opposition.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (center) holds a joint press conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (left) and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu (right) in Moscow, December 20, 2016. (Image source: Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

A closer look brings us to a preliminary conclusion that most of the articles are clash Iran’s interests. For example, Iran was, and remains, fully against the safe evacuation of civilians and rebels from East Aleppo.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani went so far as saying, “Various Islamic states… are worried about the fate of terrorists and seek their safe exit from Aleppo.”

In this document, there is no mention of the Assad regime or any language discussing its remaining in power. And importantly, while Iran went to great lengths to massacre all dissidents and annihilate the entire Syrian opposition under the pretext of fighting ISIS, this document specifically differentiates and recognizes the separate nature of ISIS and the Free Syrian Army.

The Moscow conference also emphasized the role of the United Nations in resolving the Syrian crisis, highlighting the necessity to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. This resolution emphasizes the Security Council as the reference body, also enjoying support from the United States and Saudi Arabia. There is no reference to Assad’s future role; instead the resolution:

“expressed support for free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under United Nations supervision, ‘to the highest international standards’ of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians — including members of the diaspora — eligible to participate.”

Taking these factors into consideration, it appears that Iran literally gained nothing from the Moscow conference, meaning that its participation was merely of a ceremonial nature.

The conference outcome makes it clear that Russia enjoys hegemony over Iran in Syria, and that Moscow has imposed its interests and road map on Tehran, leaving the mullahs no choice but to submit to the status quo. This setback of its hegemony seems a major reason why Iran needed to parade Revolutionary Guards Quds Force General Qassem Suleimani in Aleppo: perhaps to boost an iota of morale in its dwindling base of support.

On the ground, Iran’s hordes of Shiite militias relied completely on Russian air power to take even one step forward. This provides a clear picture of the road ahead.

To bring an end to Iran backing Assad’s atrocities, the international community and Middle East states need to begin fundamentally to cooperate in establishing a coalition, parallel to implementing economic and political pressures on Tehran. Companies investing in Iran should also recalculate their priorities.

Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, went even further to provide a solution for Syria and ISIS:

“The regime in Tehran is the source of crisis in the region and killings in Syria; it has played the greatest role in the expansion and continuation of ISIS. Peace and tranquility in the region can only be achieved by evicting this regime from the region.”

Iran may have enjoyed tactical gains in Aleppo. However, Russia apparently has separate, long-term interests in complete dissimilarity from those of Tehran. Russia has conducted secret direct talks with the Syrian opposition. To add insult to injury, Iran — viewing the Obama presidency as a golden era — is also concerned about the incoming presidency of Donald Trump and his administration, who seem to have strong views against Tehran.

“The fact that Trump has taken very firm positions against Iran, including threatening to rip apart the nuclear deal, has,” according to The Hill, “already terrified Tehran, representing a major contrast to the ‘golden era‘ under Obama.”

Heshmat Alavi is a political and rights activist. His writing focuses on Iran, ranging from human rights violations, social crackdown, the regime’s support for terrorism and meddling in foreign countries, and the controversial nuclear program. He tweets at @HeshmatAlavi & blogs at IranCommentary

The nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) — effective, as of October 18, 2015, according to the State Department – clearly and distinctly stipulates that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missile activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

Not only is Iran avoiding honoring this stipulation, but also Iran’s ballistic missile operations have significantly ratcheted up. More importantly, there has been no criticism at all from the Obama administration or other involved parties regarding this critical violation.

As cited by Iran’s state-owned Fars News Agency, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iran’s commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, said in Tehran on Dec 6, 2016:

“In addition to enhancing the precision-striking power and quality of ballistic missiles, the Iranian authorities and experts have used innovative and shortcut methods to produce inexpensive missiles, and today we are witnessing an increase in production [of ballistic missiles].”

Iran is bragging about it.

In addition, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan said that there would be no limit for the range and amount of missiles that Iran will develop. He boasted:

“90 percent of the country’s defense systems have reached an acceptable standard and enjoy competitive quality compared with the weapons of advanced countries; production of the national individual weapons and efforts to improve the quality and precision-striking power of ballistic missiles are among the defense ministry’s achievements in the defense field.”

Fars News reported on a December 6, 2016 statement from Iran’s Defense Minister:

“His remarks came as the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) fired 2 home-made ‘Qadr H’ ballistic missiles from the Eastern Alborz Mountains at a target in Iran’s Southeastern Makran seashore some 1400km away… The missiles were fired on the sidelines of the main stage of the IRGC drills in Central Iran and various parts of the country.”

One missile, which was launched on March 2016, had a clear message written on it that said in the Hebrew language: “Israel should be wiped off the Earth”. Fars Agency adds:

“Qadr is a 2000km-range, liquid-fuel and ballistic missile which can reach territories as far as Israel… The missile can carry different types of ‘Blast’ and ‘MRV’ [Multiple Reentry Vehicle] payloads to destroy a range of targets. The new version of Qadr H can be launched from mobile platforms or silos in different positions and can escape missile defense shields due to their radar-evading capability.”

Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles. For example, on March 2016, Iran tested a new ballistic missile, capable of carrying multiple warheads. More recently, Iran fired a test missile with an accuracy within 25 feet, which is characterized as “zero error,” according to Brig. Gen. Ali Abdollahi, the Iranian military’s deputy chief of staff, and Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from 500 miles to over 1,250 miles (roughly 2,000 kilometers), which can easily reach Eastern Europe, as well as countries such as Israel.

According to a previous report obtained by the Associated Press, the launches are “destabilizing and provocative” and the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile and Qiam-1 short-range ballistic missile fired by Iran are “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

In addition to violating the nuclear agreement, provoking and threatening other nations, and destabilizing the region, Iran is breaching two UN Security Council Resolutions. Security Council resolution 2231 (section 3 of Annex B) “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

The second United Nations Security Council resolution, 1929, states:

“Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities.”

Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. It is also the most diversified one. No country, other than Iran, has acquired long-range ballistic missiles before obtaining nuclear weapons. Ballistic missiles can be used for offensive or defensive purposes, but sophisticated missiles are more likely developed as delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

These missiles have the capability of carrying multiple nuclear warheads. Iran Tasnim news agency reported:

“Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan praised the country’s military might…saying the Islamic Republic can mass produce ballistic missiles with any range and destructive power… In the missile sphere, Iran has been able to maximize the accuracy of projectiles, as emphasized by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, with reliance on the local forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said at an academic ceremony in Tehran on Tuesday.”

Iran is also is increasingly provoking other countries in the region, and has made it clear that the ballistic missiles are aimed at targeting other nations. Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, said previously to FARS news agency that “Iran has built missiles that can hit targets at 2,000 Km. They are designed to hit Israel at such a distance.” He added that Islamic countries have surrounded Israel and “its [Israel’s] life is short. So it will collapse in any given war — long before a missile is even fired.”

Iran also exports these missiles to its proxies across the region. Tasnim news agency quoted General Hossein Salami as saying:

“Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist regime repeats its past mistakes… today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are (present) more than ever.”

In addition, Gen. Salami warned Israeli leaders that if they make the “wrong move,” Israel would come under attack.

It is crucial to point out that both Iran’s so-called “moderates” and hardliners are on the same page when it comes developing ballistic missiles. When his country was unveiling a new missile, Fateh 313, President Hassan Rouhani pointed out that “we will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies.”

The Obama administration, the international community, a major global power, or a coalition of nations need robustly to confront these provocations, threats, and violations of the nuclear deal and UN Security Council Resolutions by Iran.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

One of the terms of the JCPOA accord, which never had any legal legitimacy and which Iran never signed, is that Iran should restrict the amount of specific nuclear materials it possesses during the nuclear deal. According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, Iran has violated the deal by holding more heavy water, used to produce nuclear weapons, than it is supposed to have.

This is not the first time Iran has violated the terms of the flimsy nuclear agreement with no consequences. In February 2016, Iran exceeded its threshold for heavy water as well. In a previous article, other violations and reports of Iran’s recent cheating and breaches of the nuclear agreement are laid out.

U.S. President Barack Obama is nevertheless ignoring these latest violations, and the UN and IAEA reports as well. In fact, the administration, and State Department spokesman Mark Toner, are defending Iran on this issue, and appear willing to give critical concessions to Iran in the next round of talks in Baghdad this week.

One of the critical concessions concerns the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program, designed to develop nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano is investigating whether Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear weapons.

The head of the UN nuclear agency flew to Iran to finally put an end to the idea that Iran has plans of developing nuclear arms. Amano pointed out that “I really think this is the right time to reach agreement.” However, the IAEA and President Obama appear more than willing to close this investigation.

Closing this investigation means that there would be no monitoring of Iran’s nuclear research and development, or of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which have long been suspected of being used to develop nuclear weapons. In other words, Iranian leaders would be capable of more freely continuing their nuclear ambitions without probing from the IAEA or the international community.

The closure of this case will also strengthen the hold on power of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the senior cadre of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iran’s intelligence agencies.

This is all happening while Iran has not yet allowed the IAEA “probes of various high-profile Iranian sites, including the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran, where the agency believes Iran in 2003 ran explosive tests needed to set off a nuclear charge.”

“The suspected blasts took place inside a pressure chamber. Iran has never said whether the chamber existed, but describes Parchin as a conventional military site. Iran, however, has blocked IAEA inspection requests for more than four years. A deal on Parchin could give Iran some leverage going into the Baghdad talks”.

Iran is also again masterfully using hardball tactics to get more concessions. The semiofficial Fars news agency, which spreads the IRGC’s agenda, said that Amano should “avoid playing for others ground.”

In addition, the success of this mission in closing the investigation means that Iran’s position will be significantly strengthened against the six world powers (known as P5+1: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany) in the next round of meetings, in Baghdad. Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator said after arriving in Baghdad late Monday: “We had an agreement in Istanbul. That is the basis for the beginning of a new cooperation. We hope that the talks in Baghdad will be a kind of dialogue that will give shape to such cooperation.”

Such an agreement means that despite Iran’s significant clandestine nuclear activities and violations, the world powers would be announcing the nonsense that Iran’s nuclear program is officially a civilian, not a military one, and that Iran’s nuclear program is built for supplying power and medical applications, not developing nuclear weapons.

More importantly, it is unfathomable that despite significant evidence of Iran’s clandestine activities over the last decade, and despite many revelations of Iran’s secret nuclear activities which were not detected by the IAEA, the IAEA and world powers, in addition to giving more concessions to Tehran, appear willing to reach a fictional agreement that Iran never even desired to develop nuclear weapons.

If an agreement is reached in Baghdad, the remaining sanctions on some sectors of Iran’s oil industry and Iranian high-level officials will be lifted. Such a move would allow Iran more easily to use the international banking system while there would be no restrictions on, or investigations of, Iran’s high-profile officials who are (or were) engaged in nuclear or non-nuclear violations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against concessions, saying that the P5+1 should make “clear and unequivocal demands” that Iran halt all of its nuclear activities. Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem, he added:

“Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfill that goal… Against this malicious intention, leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness. They should not make any concessions to Iran.”

Although the nuclear agreement heavily favors Iran, and the main UN Security Council sanctions against Iran have already been lifted, Tehran continues to cheat and violate the terms of this weak nuclear pact. Turning a blind eye — by President Obama and other organizations and powers — to Iran’s violations will only further empower and embolden Tehran and its Revolutionary Guards to pursue their nuclear and hegemonic ambitions; ignore UN resolutions and international laws; scuttle US foreign policy objectives, and damage security interests.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.