IRAN SOFTENS TUNE ON ISRAEL
Executive
Summary:
- Revised approach toward ISRAEL is in IRAN’S interests
- IRAN is not "at war" with ISRAEL
- ISRAEL, to some extent, shares IRAN'S misgivings regarding the threat of a jihadist takeover in SYRIA
- On a national security level, IRAN considers ISRAEL not a top priority
- Softening stances between TURKEY, ISRAEL, IRAN, the only non-ARAB nations in the MIDDLE EAST, could alter the regions geopolitical landscape
- ISRAEL fosters unofficial ties with a considerable amount of ARAB nations
REVISED
APPROACH TOWARD ISRAEL IS IN IRAN’S INTERESTS
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi via 247ureports & Asian Times
With the IRANIAN presidential elections only two months away, foreign policy issues are hotly debated in the crowded field of candidates, and a chorus of prominent voices is aiming to lower the temperature with ISRAEL.
The rising softer tone may reflect a new elite consensus that a revised approach toward ISRAEL is in the nation's interests, in light of Tel Aviv's powerful influence in WESTERN capitals, TURKEY'S normalization of relations with ISRAEL, and the ARAB world's indifference toward the Palestinian problem, compared with IRAN'S traditional "overcommitment".
With the IRANIAN presidential elections only two months away, foreign policy issues are hotly debated in the crowded field of candidates, and a chorus of prominent voices is aiming to lower the temperature with ISRAEL.
The rising softer tone may reflect a new elite consensus that a revised approach toward ISRAEL is in the nation's interests, in light of Tel Aviv's powerful influence in WESTERN capitals, TURKEY'S normalization of relations with ISRAEL, and the ARAB world's indifference toward the Palestinian problem, compared with IRAN'S traditional "overcommitment".
IRAN IS
NOT "AT WAR" WITH ISRAEL
Leading the march toward a new ISRAEL policy, former
president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has expressed interest in joining
the presidential race, has flatly declared that IRAN is not "at war"
with ISRAEL. Calling for a non-confrontational foreign policy, Rafsanjani has
criticized President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for inflammatory rhetoric that has
backfired on IRAN. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/rafsanjani-iran-israel-war_n_3177861.html
 |
| Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani running for re-Election |
Echoing this sentiment, two other potential presidential elections, Mohammad
Bagher Ghalibaf, Tehran's mayor, and Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, a conservative
lawmaker who is close to the Supreme Leader, have also seen fit to criticize
Ahmadinejad's "denial of Holocaust" as a campaign issue.
"Suddenly, the issue of the Holocaust was raised without any attention to its repercussions and impacts. Did that have any benefit for the progress of IRAN and the Palestinians?" Ghalibaf was quoted in the IRANIAN media as saying. The question now is whether Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who advises the Supreme Leader and has formed an alliance with Ghalibaf and Adel for the coming race, will publicly express a similar sentiment.
Irrespective, the fact that some leading politicians have explicitly distanced themselves from the Ahmadinejad administration's hardline anti-ISRAEL policy reflects the depth and seriousness of policy debates in today's IRAN and underscores the ruling elite's growing concerns about the effects of IRAN'S isolation due to the nuclear crisis.
"Suddenly, the issue of the Holocaust was raised without any attention to its repercussions and impacts. Did that have any benefit for the progress of IRAN and the Palestinians?" Ghalibaf was quoted in the IRANIAN media as saying. The question now is whether Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who advises the Supreme Leader and has formed an alliance with Ghalibaf and Adel for the coming race, will publicly express a similar sentiment.
Irrespective, the fact that some leading politicians have explicitly distanced themselves from the Ahmadinejad administration's hardline anti-ISRAEL policy reflects the depth and seriousness of policy debates in today's IRAN and underscores the ruling elite's growing concerns about the effects of IRAN'S isolation due to the nuclear crisis.
ISRAEL, TO
SOME EXTENT, SHARES IRAN'S MISGIVINGS REGARDING THE THREAT OF A JIHADIST
TAKEOVER IN SYRIA
As a result of the impasse over the country's nuclear program, IRAN'S status at the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) cartel has slipped and will likely slide even further in the coming years if the WESTERN boycott of IRAN'S energy sector, which is in dire need of modernization, continues and the Gordian knot of the nuclear standoff is not somehow resolved. That is a near-impossible task as long as ISRAEL blocks IRAN-WEST nuclear diplomacy and a broader regional diplomacy covering such issues as the future of SYRIA.
Concerning SYRIA, some Tehran analysts have concluded that some ISRAELI politicians share Tehran's misgivings regarding the threat of a Jihadist takeover there. Such a prospect, pushed for by the conservative SAUDIS, poses a serious national security threat to ISRAEL - that often toys with the notion of a "staged anti-IRAN" strategy that would knock off Damascus first as a prelude for regime change in IRAN.
As a result of the impasse over the country's nuclear program, IRAN'S status at the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) cartel has slipped and will likely slide even further in the coming years if the WESTERN boycott of IRAN'S energy sector, which is in dire need of modernization, continues and the Gordian knot of the nuclear standoff is not somehow resolved. That is a near-impossible task as long as ISRAEL blocks IRAN-WEST nuclear diplomacy and a broader regional diplomacy covering such issues as the future of SYRIA.
Concerning SYRIA, some Tehran analysts have concluded that some ISRAELI politicians share Tehran's misgivings regarding the threat of a Jihadist takeover there. Such a prospect, pushed for by the conservative SAUDIS, poses a serious national security threat to ISRAEL - that often toys with the notion of a "staged anti-IRAN" strategy that would knock off Damascus first as a prelude for regime change in IRAN.
Geopolitical
Analysis and Monitoring Comment: As mentioned numerous times on this blog, warmongering rhetoric’s between
ISRAEL and IRAN are convenient for both countries in order to gain geo strategic
leverage as well as bargaining chips for future geopolitical, strategic as well
as economic negotiations on various issues concerning the MIDDLE EAST, be it
SYRIA, the Palestinian issue, LEBANON etc. On should not forget that ISRAEL already fosters
unofficial ties with a considerable amount of ARAB nations, thus it would not
come as a surprise if one day it emerges that ISRAEL has done, or is doing “business”
with IRAN. In view of these facts it seems rather unlikely that ISRAEL will ever
launch an attack on IRAN or vice versa.
In October 2012 Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote:
In recent past mainstream media and ISRAEL itself, increasingly stipulated that it is pushing for a preemptive airstrike on IRAN. Looking at ISRAEL history and how it conducts its wars and covert operations, it becomes imminent that it relies heavily on the element of surprise. Such was the case during most of its wars, rescue operations such as Entebbe, UGANDA in 1976, the IRAQI nuclear reactor air strike in 1981 and the alleged SYRIAN nuclear reactor airstrike in 2007. Thus as long as ISRAEL is “threatening” to attack IRAN on a daily base, and media coverage is in full swing, one can be sure that no such strike is imminent, for the element of surprise is lost. In most likelihood, ISRAEL’S threats of attacking IRAN and at the same time urging the USA to set a red line are calculated tactics and strategies in order to obtain certain concessions from the USA and indeed other allies. In most likelihood ISRAEL pursues a much more complex goal with its warmongering rhetoric’s against IRAN, than really intending to attack IRAN, one that will give ISRAEL inevitably some significant advantage, be it geopolitical, strategically or economically.
Background
Information:
In October 2012 Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote:
In recent past mainstream media and ISRAEL itself, increasingly stipulated that it is pushing for a preemptive airstrike on IRAN. Looking at ISRAEL history and how it conducts its wars and covert operations, it becomes imminent that it relies heavily on the element of surprise. Such was the case during most of its wars, rescue operations such as Entebbe, UGANDA in 1976, the IRAQI nuclear reactor air strike in 1981 and the alleged SYRIAN nuclear reactor airstrike in 2007. Thus as long as ISRAEL is “threatening” to attack IRAN on a daily base, and media coverage is in full swing, one can be sure that no such strike is imminent, for the element of surprise is lost. In most likelihood, ISRAEL’S threats of attacking IRAN and at the same time urging the USA to set a red line are calculated tactics and strategies in order to obtain certain concessions from the USA and indeed other allies. In most likelihood ISRAEL pursues a much more complex goal with its warmongering rhetoric’s against IRAN, than really intending to attack IRAN, one that will give ISRAEL inevitably some significant advantage, be it geopolitical, strategically or economically.
THE KEY FACTOR FOR ISRAEL’S DECISION
MAKING: IRAN’S “PRESENCE” IN SYRIA
The minute ISRAEL and the media stop
mentioning air strikes against IRAN that is the time one should become
concerned, for that is the time when an attack is most likely imminent. (Given
that the result of such attack will provide huge geostrategical and political
advantages for ISRAEL). For the time being the saber rattling are just geopolitical
tactics. Nevertheless, the chances of ISRAEL launching an airstrike against
IRAN’S nuclear facilities are unlikely, especially with IRAN’S “presence” in
SYRIA and SYRIA’S Bio-Chemical arsenal at its disposal. Current rhetoric’s by
ISRAEL, USA and IRAN are primarily here to reshuffle the geopolitical landscape
as well as counteract the current geostrategical shift occurring in the region
due to new findings of natural resources and increased power struggle between
Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as well as TURKEYS increased muscle flexing in
order to become the key player in the region.
Israel’s “warmongering” against IRAN
is a well orchestrated strategy in order to gain geopolitical and economic
concessions and advantages from the USA and its allies. Under current
conditions ISRAEL will never initiate a full scale attack against IRAN. Nevertheless one should be aware that all
current assumptions, analysis, opinions regarding the Israel - Iran
confrontation is based on information fed to the broad public and media by the
upper echelons of world politics. No one knows what wheeling and dealings
regarding IRAN, SYRIA, ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA, the USA, TURKEY etc. are currently
going on behind closed doors. Read the entire article at: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/israel-azerbaijan-and-kazakhstan_6.html
The problem with that strategy, however, is the underlying assumption that IRAN is more threatening than the conservative Sunni bloc headed by SAUDI ARABIA, or that ISRAEL can indeed afford to "shuffle the cards" so dangerously as to tamper with the IRANIAN buffer against the ARAB bloc.
Consequently, the overall context of multiple crises in the MIDDLE EAST, and a
rapidly shifting balance of forces, has raised the prospect of a de-escalation
of the IRAN-ISRAEL conflict, which has both nuclear and non-nuclear
connotations. Lest we forget, the origins of the IRAN-CONTRA affair of the 1980s, whereby ISRAEL pushed Washington to supply IRAN with missiles in order to prevent an IRAQI victory, were rooted in a cold calculation of the regional balance of power. That particular episode is certainly not devoid of precious insights with respect to the "policy dilemmas" faced by both Tehran and Tel Aviv today; that is, how to maintain their respective "red lines" in the face of the onslaught of a Salafi (Wahhabi) that is fundamentally opposed to "apostate Shi'ites" as well as Zionism.
ON A
NATIONAL SECURITY LEVEL, IRAN CONSIDERS ISRAEL NOT A TOP PRIORITY
IRAN'S "red line" on ISRAEL is primarily an ideological one that has been a hallmark of the regime's identity for the past 34 years, that is, since the inception of the Islamic Republic. On the national security level, given ISRAEL'S distance with IRAN and IRAN'S primary preoccupation with its more pressing national security worries - in IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, the PERSIAN GULF and the CAUCASUS - ISRAEL does not figure prominently. In fact ISRAEL is regarded an "out of area" issue by many IRANIAN policy analysts.
In other words, there is a bit of a "lack of fit" between the ideological and national security requirements as regards ISRAEL, which can no longer be ignored by policy makers in Tehran who are keen on ending the nuclear crisis and putting the country back on the path of economic progress, in light of depressing reports that only a third of the Fourth Economic Plan has been implemented.
IRAN'S "red line" on ISRAEL is primarily an ideological one that has been a hallmark of the regime's identity for the past 34 years, that is, since the inception of the Islamic Republic. On the national security level, given ISRAEL'S distance with IRAN and IRAN'S primary preoccupation with its more pressing national security worries - in IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, the PERSIAN GULF and the CAUCASUS - ISRAEL does not figure prominently. In fact ISRAEL is regarded an "out of area" issue by many IRANIAN policy analysts.
In other words, there is a bit of a "lack of fit" between the ideological and national security requirements as regards ISRAEL, which can no longer be ignored by policy makers in Tehran who are keen on ending the nuclear crisis and putting the country back on the path of economic progress, in light of depressing reports that only a third of the Fourth Economic Plan has been implemented.
Background
Information: IRAN: WEAPON
FOR CHANGE – DEMOGRAPHY at:
SOFTENING
STANCES BETWEEN TURKEY, ISRAEL, IRAN, THE ONLY NON- ARAB NATIONS IN THE MIDDLE
EAST, COULD ALTER THE REGIONS GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE
Any suggestions that IRAN should ameliorate its tough anti-ISRAEL stance is, ideologically speaking, troublesome and bound to cause internal frictions. If this is a mere 'tactical' maneuver for the sake of the presidential race, this is unlikely to bring about any tangible difference in ISRAEL'S anti-IRAN stance as dutifully duplicated by WESTERN governments. Yet, if it signals a strategic re-thinking on IRAN'S part, then this would have multiple side-effects both at home and regionally, particularly among IRAN'S LEBANESE allies, thus warranting a delicate balancing act.
According to a Tehran political analyst who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity, how ISRAEL responds to "these feelers from Tehran" can be important. "If ISRAEL sends the right signal, then Tehran's politicians know there is a 'light at the end of tunnel'," said the Tehran analyst, adding that ISRAEL'S "constant threats" have caused a "siege mind-set in Iran that is unhealthy."
Any suggestions that IRAN should ameliorate its tough anti-ISRAEL stance is, ideologically speaking, troublesome and bound to cause internal frictions. If this is a mere 'tactical' maneuver for the sake of the presidential race, this is unlikely to bring about any tangible difference in ISRAEL'S anti-IRAN stance as dutifully duplicated by WESTERN governments. Yet, if it signals a strategic re-thinking on IRAN'S part, then this would have multiple side-effects both at home and regionally, particularly among IRAN'S LEBANESE allies, thus warranting a delicate balancing act.
According to a Tehran political analyst who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity, how ISRAEL responds to "these feelers from Tehran" can be important. "If ISRAEL sends the right signal, then Tehran's politicians know there is a 'light at the end of tunnel'," said the Tehran analyst, adding that ISRAEL'S "constant threats" have caused a "siege mind-set in Iran that is unhealthy."
On the other hand, if ISRAELI politicians choose, they can
even use TURKEY as important interlocutor with Tehran, in light of the three
countries' status as the only non-ARAB nations in the MIDDLE EAST. An indirect
Tehran-Tel Aviv dialogue can thus be established and important issues such as
the future of SYRIA discussed, as a part and parcel of a concerted effort to
disallow Damascus' fall in the hands of radical Sunni Islamists.
Without doubt, the prerequisite for such drastic foreign policy revisions is a
'cognitive re-mapping' as to what constitutes the greatest threats to each
county's national security interests, particularly since ISRAEL'S right-wing
politicians have demonized IRAN as the "biggest existential threat"
to ISRAEL. The message from Rafsanjani and others in IRAN is that it is time
for ISRAEL to re-think this inapt conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment