Sputnik News- As the new round of UN-mediated intra-Syrian peace talks kicks off in Geneva, Russian political analysts review whose interests are currently at stake in the region.

The Moscow-Ankara-Tehran alliance on�the settlement of�the Syrian conflict has already brought certain success: the three countries have acted as�guarantors of�the full-scale ceasefire in�the war-torn country and have launched negotiations in�Astana aimed to�complement the Geneva format.

Russian political analysts, however, have drawn attention to�the paradoxical nature of�the alliance and provided their reasons why the three allies might start experiencing difficulty soon.

The Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru has interviewed a number of�Russian experts, who first of�all pointed to�the bilateral relations between�Russia and Iran, noting that not everything goes smoothly between�the two countries.

"The basic problem in�the bilateral relationship between�the two countries is that no matter what compromise is reached in�the Syrian conflict, Iran is going to�lose from�it," the newspaper says.

Leonid Isaev, an expert in�Middle Eastern affairs at�Moscow's Higher School of�Economics pointed out�that when Russia was limited only to�abstract declarations on�the developments in�the Middle East, Russia and Iran were on�the same side in�the conflicts, as�there was nothing to�divide.

Their positions were similarly aligned during�the US intervention in�Iraq, the international campaign in�Libya and during�the Saudi intervention in�Yemen.

However Moscow and Tehran, he said, are going to�find themselves on�opposite sides of�the barricades as�soon as�Iran's interests in�Syria are entrenched upon.

"If we take into�consideration that the Syrian conflict is going to�be resolved by�a division of�the spheres of�influence, and everything seems to�be heading towards�that, the former allies will become adversaries," he told the newspaper.

Americans will get the territories which are currently under�Kurdish control, he suggested. The Turks will get Idlib and the north of�Aleppo province. Russia's sphere of�interest will include Damascus and the territories under�Syrian government control, he said. And in�this sense, Iran is Moscow's main rival because it has designs on�the same area.

Isaev also noted that even though the new US administration does not have a clear strategy for�the Middle East so far, it has nevertheless indicated some key principles it is going to�pursue.

One of�them is that for�the Trump administration, Iran represents one of�the key threats in�the region.

"The characteristic feature of�Obama's policy in�the Middle East was that its main enemy in�the region was not Iran, as�it was for�the previous administration of�George W Bush, but�the terrorists of�the Islamic State (Daesh). Obama made it clear for�every player in�the region that he was interested in�cooperation if it was against�Daesh," he said.

However, now Russia seems to�be facing a choice. Trump says that he is ready to�cooperate with�Russia on�security issues. But he means not only Daesh here, but�Iran as�well, regardless all of�his electoral promises that his alliance with�Moscow will be aimed against�terrorist organizations, Isaev said. Moscow will be forced to�make its choice.

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is slated to�visit Moscow in�March. Hence Leonid Isaev suggests that the Syrian issue is going to�top the agenda of�his negotiations with�President Putin.

"In fact, we see two suggestions here. One is from�Washington and another � from�Tehran. Russia is facing a very difficult choice here. The first option is that we start a Russian-American reset, however whether it is going to�be a success still remains unclear. The same goes for�how it applies to�Ukraine and other conflict zones. Even though it is still a possibility," he said.

Another option is to�stay with�Iran, the analyst said. Then Moscow should understand that in�this case neither US officials nor even Trump himself will cooperate with�it, he concluded.