Two Iranian Approaches to Israel’s Position on Nuclear Talks

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Hossein Valeh

The next round of nuclear negotiation between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers (including five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) will start in the Swiss city of Geneva on Wednesday, October 20. As expected, Israel has spared no effort to undermine the negotiations before they even started in order to prevent the negotiating parties from achieving a nuclear deal. Only the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations will prove that how futile such efforts have been. Meanwhile, inside Iran, two approaches have been taken to Israel’s position on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear issue. There are people who think that the Western front has made a division of labor among its members according to which Israel and some European states play the role of the “bad cop” in order to reduce Iran's achievements through the negotiations to a minimum.

There is also a second group which is of the opinion that [the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is extremely, though rightfully, concerned about the increasing strategic isolation of Israel. Since such an isolation will cast doubt on the raison d'être for the existence of Israel, Tel Aviv regime has become so desperate that it is doing everything in its power in the vain hope of reversing the course of changes in the region. Although it would be more advisable not to pass over the first approach, here, the goal is to provide arguments in favor of the second approach.

The strategic changes in the region have already created a creeping gap between the strategic interests of Israel and the strategic interests of the West, led by the United States. While technological and economic developments as well as revolutionary changes in global communications have stirred a sweeping wave of changes across the world, including in the Middle East, the fundaments of the Israeli regime and the model of its political behavior have remained unchanged since about sixty years ago. Like his predecessors six decades ago, Netanyahu is still determined to dominate its Arab neighbors by using an iron fist. At the same time, the Israeli regime aims to depict the image of a victim of itself and the ideal of an overarching Jewish state in the West. Tel Aviv has been apparently unable to understand this simple point and find a logical answer to the question that why the aggressive European powers and former occupiers of the Ottoman Empire are now putting on a mask of freedom angel, introducing themselves as harbingers of freedom and democracy and prophet of equality and human rights when dealing with their past colonies?

The Tel Aviv regime is either unwilling, or unable, to understand that sixty years after the end of the World War II, the ideal of the Jewish state has lost most of its innocent-looking attraction for the international public opinion. As a result, it is no more worthy of being used as a shroud to cover up the acts of aggression by the Israeli regime. For about two decades, Israel has been using the carte blanche given to it by the Western states while, at the same time, tarnishing the image of the Western democracies in the eyes of the Muslim world by recruiting mercenaries for a reactionary front bound to destroy the human civilization. A regime, which once showed off its merits in the Middle East region as being the “sole secular democracy” in this region and “extension of the Western civilization” in Asia, is currently a black sheep that only causes trouble and crises for its founding fathers in the West. At a tactical level, Israel’s “iron fist” policy, which is the backbone of the Jewish state, requires Tel Aviv to find a critical opportunity in order to recuperate from the drastic blows it has received from the nascent resistance movement during the past decade and to prove that Israel is still an invincible power. From the viewpoint of Israel, dealing a military blow to Iran will send a good message to the Arab states in the Persian Gulf and scare them of the imaginary might of Israel. Therefore, Israel’s need to go to war with Iran is a critical need. The Tel Aviv regime, however, does not dare to enter that war without being sure that it would have the West’s support against Iran. such provocative acts as sponsoring terrorist attacks along Iran's borders and blaming them on the American secret services; organizing, mobilizing, and transferring religious radicals for the implementation of terrorist operations; carrying out false-flag terrorist operations in Europe and the United States and putting the blame on Iran and its allies; and finally, scaring the regional Arab states of Iran's power in order to get them in line with Tel Aviv’s policies are among the most simple tactics that Israel can use to wage a war against Iran. It goes without saying that a possible agreement over Iran's nuclear issue [between Iran and the P5+1 group] will dash all Israel’s hopes and render its efforts futile for good and ever. Therefore, the Tel Aviv regime should resort to any means in order to prevent such an agreement and provide grounds for a military strike against Iran.

The recent confrontation between the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States and the White House leaders over a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, and the support accorded to [the US President Barack] Obama by the Republican leaders of the US Senate only reveal the tip of the iceberg in the existing gap between the strategic interests of the West and Israel. Israel will not be the sole party at loss as a result of a possible agreement between Iran and the West. Giant Western corporations and certain political circles in the region, which have been reaping the benefits of animosity between Iran and the United States, as well as those regional rulers who believe their existence is a function of the West’s need to their services, are partners to Israel in this regard. The main cause behind Netanyahu’s consternation and frustration, therefore, is the emergence of a new arrangement of forces in the region and of agreements in the world in which there is no place – at least in strategic terms – for Israel.

Just in the same way that Iran's policies do not change rapidly, the same is true about the other parties to the nuclear negotiations. In order to overcome the mutual lack of trust, which is in part a product of previous negotiations and agreements, both sides would need to show resolve, be patient, work hard, and spend as much time as is necessary to reach an agreement. However, the slowness of political changes on both sides has its own risks. It provides an opportunity for hostile parties to hatch new plots with any possible motivation. If the West shows resolve for achieving a nuclear deal with Iran and Iran, on the other hand, indicates its readiness to make necessary changes, and if both sides give precedence to their sustainable and strategic interests over temporary considerations, they will be able to pull off the arduous task of forging an agreement over Iran's nuclear issue.

*Dr. Hossein Valeh was the Political Deputy at Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s Office and Iran's Former Ambassador to Algeria. He is now the Faculty Member of Shahid Beheshti University

Key Words: Iranian Approaches, Israel’s Position, Nuclear Talks, P5+1 Group, Benjamin Netanyahu, Strategic Interests, Pro-Israeli Lobby, Iran's Nuclear Issue, Valeh

Source: Khabaronline News Website
ٰTrasnlated By: Iran Review.Org

More By Hossein Valeh:

*Who Loses or Benefits from Iran-US Negotiations?:

طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم