Tehran, June 10, The Iran Project - "The world will be surprised by what we and the Syrian military leadership are preparing for the coming days." This is a part of the statement General Qasem Soleimani made during a recent trip to Syria, in which the Iranian commander met with the Syrian army�s chief as well as Hezbollah officials. What does the "surprising" upcoming development in Syria imply?

The Pact's History

Since the birth of Islamic Revolution in 1979, widely common interests, needs and challenges have produced enough motivation for both Iran and Syria�to form a strategic alliance. Saddam Hussein, Lebanon war, Israel advances, and US encroachment in the region have been their common rivals, while they both have pledged to support Hezbollah and Hamas to establish a resistance axis against the Zionist aggressions in the region. As such, two Islamic nations signed a military agreement in 2006, uniting against the potential common threats and challenges.

One reason why two countries established a long-term military cooperation primarily refers back to the time when they were labeled as the "rogue states" by US. Secondly, in 2006 both Iran and Syria were under the heavy pressures over the nuclear issues and the accusations for the possible role in the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination, respectively. The countries authorities actually didn't provided any further specifics of the agreement, except that "the cooperation is based on a strategic pact and unity against common threats. We can have a common front against Israel's threats".

The Reasons for the Implementation

Iran has steadfastly supported President Bashar al-Assad in the proxy war that Israel and Western states waged to expand their influence in the Middle East. But what are the reasons behind invoking the agreement 9 years after the signature and four years after beginning the Syria war?

The recent enhancement of the rebels' position in Syria to remove president Bashar al-Assad by the deadline of summer 2015 might be seen as a primary explanation for the implementation. According to some security source in Ankara, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have joined together to establish a new pact, facilitating the advances and strengthening the opposition force in Syria. To compromise on the train-equip program by both Turkey and US, to establish an alliance from the diverse rebel group called "the Army of Conquest" and to fund them are among the numerous moves by the opposition to overturn the Assad's government.

The US seems to follow a dual policy to fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. While it appears to halt the extremist's advance on Baghdad, it systematically feeds them in Syria. Following the loss of the key city of Ramadi to ISIS in recent weeks, many commentators suggested that ISIS is taking the control of the whole country and US is actually losing war.

These arguments are truly deepening the question if America intends to move the battleground from Iraq to Syria, which is the second reason for Iran-Syria rapprochement to implement the previously signed deal. But the truth is that if ISIS challenge doesn't be solved inside Iraq, it might be settled nowhere else on the earth.

The Pact's Implications

What differences the agreement's implementation will make? In case Iran directly engage in Syria, all the operations and Syria-Hezbollah militants will technically be integrated into a single leadership of Iran and the way the warfare is conducted will be entirely changed.

The involvement definitely strengthens the militants' spirit, boosting the axis of resistance's position in the region. That is not all because Iran and Syria imminent joint invasion will cut off the Israeli occasional aggressions in Golan Heights, as they already opened a new front along the Heights in last February, a move which made Israel extremely concerned.

Moreover, given the fact that Iran and West pursue a comprehensive nuclear agreement by the end of June, deploying into Syria and winning the battle may positively impact the Tehran's position, improving its leverage on the negotiations.