Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and Syria
the U.S. military on July 29, 2005.
This mutual defense pact was signed with Russia less than six months
after the U.S.-Uzbek row. The treaty gave Karimov’s government a
great deal of protection against EU and U.S. moves to weaken the
regime. The treaty also provided Russia increased influence in the
“near abroad” region of Central Asia that had been drifting toward
friendlier relations with the United States.
Description of Terms
The treaty, signed by President Vladimir Putin of Russia and
President Islom Karimov of Uzbekistan, pledged that “in case of
aggression against one of the parties by a third state, it will be
viewed as an act of aggression against both countries.” The
mutual defense pact also gave each ally “the right to use military
installations” on each other’s territory “on the basis of separate
agreements.” No expiry date was included in the treaty, though
either country could withdraw from the alliance with twelve
months notice.
5.1454 Memorandum of Understanding
between Iran and Syria
Alliance Members:Iran and Syria
Signed On:June 15, 2006, in the city of Tehran (Iran). In force as of
date of publication of this volume.
Alliance Type:Entente (Type III)
Source:BBC Monitoring International Reports,July 4, 2006.
SUMMARY
Although Iran and Syria have been aligned since the 1970s, ties have
only recently increased to a level that would include close military
cooperation. Syria, with a strong majority Sunni population, had
never fully embraced the predominantly Shiite Iran. However, the
presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq beginning in 2003 strengthened
this marriage of convenience and ultimately led to a much more tangi-
ble collaborative relationship. In a flurry of activity from 2004 through
2007, leaders of the two countries sought and agreed on various
understandings related to economic and political issues affecting their
region of the Middle East.
These agreements were of course dominated by the war in Iraq, partic-
ularly U.S. efforts to quell the violence. Most analysts assumed an
ascendant Iran was seeking political legitimacy with this alliance as the
Iranian government faced international pressure to cull its nuclear
ambitions. Syria, for its part, shared Iran’s enmity for the United States
but also sought new Iranian investment, which probably totaled more
than $3 billion at the time of writing.
The United States consistently charged that Iran played the role of
spoiler in Iraq and greatly contributed to its increasingly violent inter-
nal conflict by funding and supplying insurgent groups across its bor-
der. Syria’s porous border has similarly aided the transmigration of
foreign fighters, but it is less clear whether President Bashar al-Assad’s
government is actively providing aid to anti-U.S. forces in the region.
Description of Terms
Though contemporary reports billed the agreement as a mutual
defense pact, most experts believe the memorandum included
only close cooperation on military affairs. No mutual self-
defense pact was agreed upon. Instead, both parties pledged the
creation of joint supreme defense commission that would meet
on a permanent and regular basis.5.1455 Dakar Agreement between Chad and
Sudan
Alliance Members:Chad and Sudan
Signed On:March 13, 2008, in the city of Dakar (Senegal). In force
until March 31, 2008.
Alliance Type:Non-Aggression Pact (Type II)
Source:Sudan Tribune,“Dakar Agreement between Chad and Sudan,”
March 18, 2008.SUMMARY
At a summit of the fifty-seven-nation Organization of the Islamic
Conference held in Senegal,the president of Senegal, Maitre
Abdoulaye Wade, negotiated a cease-fire and non-aggression pact
between the neighboring countries of Chad and Sudan. Both coun-
tries had been accusing each other of funding and harboring armed
insurgents for cross-border attacks in the area that includes the war-
torn Darfur region of Sudan. The two countries agreed (in paragraph
number 3 below) to establish a “contact group” that would provide
assurances that the non-aggression pact was being observed.
This agreement was actually the fourth peace accord signed between
the two nations in two years. Cross-border conflict quickly destroyed
the first three agreements, but this pact was supposedly unique in that
the agreement included the contact-group monitoring mechanism in
addition to the formal pledge of non-aggression. Unfortunately, it
took less than one week after the agreement for each side to accuse the
other of incursions upon its territory. By the end of March 2008,
Sudanese-backed rebels from Chad, based in Darfur, attacked Chadian
forces in the border town of Adré and killed several people and
wounded almost fifty more. This attack rendered the agreement
meaningless although observers to the agreement continue to press
both countries to remain committed to its terms.Alliance Text
We ,
Idriss Déby Itno, President of the Republic of Chad
Omar Hassan al-Bashir, President of the Republic of Sudan
To put a definitive end to disputes between our two coun-
tries, restore peace and security in the sub-region, we agree as
follows:- Resolve before our peers and the representatives of the
international community to make peace and normalize rela-
tions between our two countries; - Reiterate respect our previous commitments, including
the Tripoli Agreement of 8 February 2006, the framework
agreement in Khartoum and its additional protocols of the