In a statement that might have been mistaken for satire if it weren’t official policy, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian announced this week that Iran would "pause engagement" with Syria "until stability is restored."

The remark, from an interview with Russia Today, also published by Russian state news agency TASS on Friday, comes just over four months after the collapse of the Assads' bloody regime, propped up by Tehran for almost 14 years.

“We are monitoring developments in Syria closely,” Amir-Abdollahian (pictured) told RT. “At this point in time, we have decided to hold off on further diplomatic or economic engagement until stability is restored and the situation clarifies.”

The irony is impossible to ignore.

From 2011 onwards, Iran was not a mere ally of Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime in Damascus, but one of its principal lifelines. Tehran funneled billions in financial aid, weapons, and manpower into Syria, deploying the so-called Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah fighters, and other proxy militias to keep Bashar al-Assad in power. Iranian involvement was instrumental in sustaining a regime responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the 21st century.

Assad’s regime finally fell in December 2024 following mass uprisings and widespread defections in the Syrian military. On December 8, Assad and his family fled to Russia, where they now reside under the protection of President Vladimir Putin. His departure marked the final unraveling of a deeply unpopular government that had long survived only through foreign backing—chief among them, Iran.

Tehran’s support was never just political or military—it was openly imperial. In 2013, Mehdi Taeb, a senior cleric and close advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, infamously described Syria as “the 35th province of Iran,” declaring, “If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.” That statement laid bare the regime’s view of Syria as a strategic dependency, not a sovereign ally.

Which makes Amir-Abdollahian’s recent comments all the more audacious. To suggest a “pause” in engagement—as if Iran had been a disinterested observer rather than a primary driver of Syria’s devastation—is not merely revisionist; it is offensive.

Across post-Assad Syria, citizens have made clear that Iran is not welcome. Demonstrations in cities like Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa have condemned years of foreign occupation. Local councils and transitional authorities have begun dismantling remaining IRGC and proxy presence, seeking to reclaim full sovereignty from a decade of external manipulation.

Rather than representing diplomatic caution, Iran’s new “pause” appears to be a calculated retreat disguised as principle. With Assad gone, and Iranian influence collapsing along with him, Tehran is scrambling to reframe its exit as voluntary.

But the Syrian people are unlikely to be fooled. They remember the barrel bombs, the sieges, and the militias—and they remember who enabled them.

No pause can paper over Iran’s decade-long role in prolonging Syria’s agony. The regime in Tehran may hope to rewrite history, but Syrians are writing their own future—one free from both dictatorship and the foreign hands that held it up.