Why did Cairo involve Iran in efforts to resolve Syrian crisis?

The proposal made by Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi to establish a committee including Iran to resolve the Syrian crisis raised the question: Why Iran at this particular time? Although the move has been considered a positive step toward establishing Egypt’s leading role in the region, involving Iran to resolve the crisis in Syria was looked at with suspicion.
At last, the committee held a meeting attended by Egypt, Turkey and Iran. Saudi Arabia absented itself on the pretext of being too busy. Probably the Kingdom had opted to stay away from the committee because of Iran’s participation. Iran’s membership in the committee ensures its a role in any decision-making concerning Syria. Iran, therefore, has a card that will give it a role in any future regional decision on Syria.
Perhaps Mursi’s government wanted to begin its rule without adhering to the legacy of deposed President Hosni Mubarak’s foreign policy. It has every right to do so, it is only that this policy will harm Syria and undermine Egypt’s vital interests. Iran is very clear in its objective aimed at salvaging Assad's regime at any cost.
Since the outbreak of the revolution more than a year ago, Iran has been paying dearly to keep the regime standing on its feet. It is also indirectly responsible for the crimes committed by the regime, which killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the worst massacres the region has known throughout its history. The killing is still continuing unabated.
It is certain that Iran will prevent the committee from reaching any real solution. This will reflect badly on the reputation of Mursi’s government. Iran can never be part of a solution that would depose President Bashar Assad and end the crisis in Syria.
All Iran has been saying about a peaceful solution means one thing: The survival of Assad’s regime. Due to Iran’s partnership with Assad, the Syrians now hate the Iranian regime the way they hate their own regime.
Subsequently, if any peaceful solution is found — a distant possibility — the Syrian opposition would reject it because of the presence of Iran on the negotiating table.
The other side of the issue is strategic rather than topical. There is a common belief that any deal fostering special relationship between Iran and Egypt will damage Egypt more than anyone else. I read some sarcastic comments that said Egypt wanted to be the kafeel (sponsor) of the Gulf countries in its dealing with Iran. Apart from being sarcastic, such comments would deprive Egypt of one of its important cards in the regional game.
Iran is similar to Egypt in its population size, proximity to the Gulf countries and desire to have a say in this important oil region. It was not surprising that in its relationships with the Arab Gulf countries, Egypt was always more of a competitor to Iran than its ally.
This has been the case throughout the reign of all previous Egyptian presidents, from Gamal Abdel Nasser to Anwar Sadat and finally Hosni Mubarak. Even when relations between Riyadh and Cairo were at their bottom low, Abdel Nasser stayed away from the Shah of Iran and remained his enemy.
Practically, by involving the Iranians in any future solution to the Syrian crisis, Mursi is feeding them from Egypt’s plate, not from the plate of the GCC countries. This is simply because the conflict in the Arab Gulf region is of an international nature, not just a regional one.
We expected Mursi to play a more vital and influential role on the Syrian issue that would synchronize with his attitude against the Assad regime during the Non-Aligned Summit conference in Tehran, but unfortunately he did not do so. What would prevent Egypt from participating with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan to support the Syrian revolution with more than just political statements? Egypt can play a pivotal role in bringing down the Assad regime simply by providing the freedom fighters with all kinds of support.