Dan Diker on Iran
Dan Diker is a familiar face to Anglos in Israel, since he was a newsreader on the IBA English News for several years. More recently he has become the Head of the Inst. for Contemporary Affairs in Israel, and is a foreign policy analyst associated with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He often appears as a Middle East expert on CNN, BBC, Fox and al Jazeera TV News stations.
On Tues night Dan Diker spoke to our Likud Anglos group on the topic "Iran's 'unfriendly' takeover of the Middle East: implications for Israeli Palestinian diplomacy" (he is the editor of a forthcoming book on this subject). His main thesis was that there has been a change in paradigm in the Middle East. The real culprit in the Middle East now is Iran, but the Israeli Govt, is still operating under the former paradigm that making territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs is the way to bring peace. Those who believe that "solving" the Israel-Palestine conflict can lead to a solution of the Iranian problem are deluded, its the other way around now. Its like arguing over a sandcastle on the beach while a tsunami is fast approaching.
Iran under Pres. Ahmedinejad is now implementing the original policy of the Revolutionary Islamic movement established by Ayatollah Khomenei from the time he was installed in Tehran in 1979, that seeks to take over the whole Middle East, as a stage in its drive to destroy the West.
This drive was temporarily delayed by two things, first the defeat by Saddam Hussein of the Iranian regime's attempt to overtake Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. During this first phase of the campaign, the strategy of Iran was evident in the posters that appeared in Tehran and elsewhere that "The road to Jerusalem goes thru Baghdad." So the defeat of Iraq, was preliminary to the eventual attack on Jerusalem and the defeat of the "Zionist regime." However, this did not occur because of Iraqi resistance, and the cost to Iran in men and materiel was devastating, so that it took them years to recover from this military adventure.
The second reason for the delay was the development of a significant reform movement in Iran that brought Hatami to the fore as President of Iran. However, he eventually disappointed the reformers and the Supreme Revolutionary Council re-established its control by simply disallowing all reform candidates for electoral office.
Whether the drive for Iranian dominance comes from its unique Shia version of Islam or its desire to re-establish a Persian empire, or both, is immaterial. The fact is that, as King Abdullah II of Jordan noted in 2004, Iran is attempting to establish a "Shia arc" stretching from Iran thru Iraq (with 60% Shia ), Syria, and the Shia area of Southern Lebanon. Since then they have been successful in essentially making Hamas in Gaza (although Sunni they have a common goal with Iran in destroying Israel), Hizbollah in Lebanon and Syria into their proxies and colonies in this campaign for dominance.
It is true that Iran does not control all of the Shia in Iraq, but nevertheless they have their agents, such as Moqtada al Sadr, who has the largest Shia militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, that is funded and supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG). As time has gone on, as the insurrection in Iraq has been partially overcome by US forces, a greater proportion of US casualties can be attributable to the bombs (IEDs) that have been introduced into Iraq by the IRG. IRG operatives have been captured in Iraq by the US.
Syria is currently in the news as a potential peace partner of Israel. But, for Israel to expect that Syria will cut its ties with Iran and Hizbollah in exchange for the Golan is illusory. The readiness of the Olmert Govt. to engage in serious negotiations with Syria (against the wishes of the Bush Administration) involving the return of the Golan Heights (against the wishes of the vast majority of Israelis) only strengthens the Assad regime (and maybe Olmert hopes it will take focus away from his legal problems). The Assads who control Syria are part of the Awalekite minority (17%) that are affiliated with the Shia, and their alliance is deep-seated. Also, Syria considers Lebanon part of its own territory (much as Iraq considered Kuwait) and will never give up its attempt to control Lebanese politics thru assassination (by car bombs) and thru Hizbollah. Last year's Arab League meeting failed because only 10 out of the 22 Arab countries attended (and those that did at low diplomatic levels) as an unprecendented protest against Syria and Iran's meddling in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab States see themselves losing ground in Gaza and Lebanon to Iranian proxies.
A recent editorial in a Kuwaiti newspaper expressed the opinion that Israel would be better served by opposing Iran than by worrying about the Palestinians. Indeed the Kuwaitis have a very low opinion of the Palestinians, since those living in Kuwait collaborated with the Iraqi forces when they invaded in 1990. After the first Gulf war most of the Palestinians were either summarily killed or expelled to Jordan. The Sunni Arabs from the Gulf to Egypt now feel more threatened by Iran than Israel. The Arab regimes wouldn't mind seeing Iran destroy Israel, but they know that should this happen (which it won't) then they would be next for Iranian domination. They would prefer to see Israel destroy Iran, especially in relation to the rapidly developing Iranian nuclear threat! In essence the Arab States represent a power vacuum that the Iranians are seeking to fill, while Israel is ignoring the overall strategic situation and focussing on tactical details (I once asked Nathan Sharansky when he was in the Sharon Cabinet if Israel had any long-term strategy and he laughed).
The blowing up of the Gaza-Egyptian border by Hamas at Iran's behest consitutes a serious threat to Mubarak's regime, threatened as it is already by the Muslim Brotherhood, that is also allied with Hamas. Recent Israeli Govt. policies of territorial concessions to its neighbors and expecting this to bring peace are futile. As found in the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and from Lebanon in 2000, that lead to the Second Lebanon war of 2006 (when over 4200 rockets hit northern Israel), such approaches are self-defeating. Also, a "shelf agreement" with the Palestinians will weaken Israel in committing it to future concessions that might be extremely dangerous. What if as a result of such agreements with Syria or the PA, the IRG were soon stationed on the Golan Heights or overlooking Ben Gurion airport? For Israel's survival this is a situation not to be envisaged and that cannot be allowed.
On Tues night Dan Diker spoke to our Likud Anglos group on the topic "Iran's 'unfriendly' takeover of the Middle East: implications for Israeli Palestinian diplomacy" (he is the editor of a forthcoming book on this subject). His main thesis was that there has been a change in paradigm in the Middle East. The real culprit in the Middle East now is Iran, but the Israeli Govt, is still operating under the former paradigm that making territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs is the way to bring peace. Those who believe that "solving" the Israel-Palestine conflict can lead to a solution of the Iranian problem are deluded, its the other way around now. Its like arguing over a sandcastle on the beach while a tsunami is fast approaching.
Iran under Pres. Ahmedinejad is now implementing the original policy of the Revolutionary Islamic movement established by Ayatollah Khomenei from the time he was installed in Tehran in 1979, that seeks to take over the whole Middle East, as a stage in its drive to destroy the West.
This drive was temporarily delayed by two things, first the defeat by Saddam Hussein of the Iranian regime's attempt to overtake Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. During this first phase of the campaign, the strategy of Iran was evident in the posters that appeared in Tehran and elsewhere that "The road to Jerusalem goes thru Baghdad." So the defeat of Iraq, was preliminary to the eventual attack on Jerusalem and the defeat of the "Zionist regime." However, this did not occur because of Iraqi resistance, and the cost to Iran in men and materiel was devastating, so that it took them years to recover from this military adventure.
The second reason for the delay was the development of a significant reform movement in Iran that brought Hatami to the fore as President of Iran. However, he eventually disappointed the reformers and the Supreme Revolutionary Council re-established its control by simply disallowing all reform candidates for electoral office.
Whether the drive for Iranian dominance comes from its unique Shia version of Islam or its desire to re-establish a Persian empire, or both, is immaterial. The fact is that, as King Abdullah II of Jordan noted in 2004, Iran is attempting to establish a "Shia arc" stretching from Iran thru Iraq (with 60% Shia ), Syria, and the Shia area of Southern Lebanon. Since then they have been successful in essentially making Hamas in Gaza (although Sunni they have a common goal with Iran in destroying Israel), Hizbollah in Lebanon and Syria into their proxies and colonies in this campaign for dominance.
It is true that Iran does not control all of the Shia in Iraq, but nevertheless they have their agents, such as Moqtada al Sadr, who has the largest Shia militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, that is funded and supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG). As time has gone on, as the insurrection in Iraq has been partially overcome by US forces, a greater proportion of US casualties can be attributable to the bombs (IEDs) that have been introduced into Iraq by the IRG. IRG operatives have been captured in Iraq by the US.
Syria is currently in the news as a potential peace partner of Israel. But, for Israel to expect that Syria will cut its ties with Iran and Hizbollah in exchange for the Golan is illusory. The readiness of the Olmert Govt. to engage in serious negotiations with Syria (against the wishes of the Bush Administration) involving the return of the Golan Heights (against the wishes of the vast majority of Israelis) only strengthens the Assad regime (and maybe Olmert hopes it will take focus away from his legal problems). The Assads who control Syria are part of the Awalekite minority (17%) that are affiliated with the Shia, and their alliance is deep-seated. Also, Syria considers Lebanon part of its own territory (much as Iraq considered Kuwait) and will never give up its attempt to control Lebanese politics thru assassination (by car bombs) and thru Hizbollah. Last year's Arab League meeting failed because only 10 out of the 22 Arab countries attended (and those that did at low diplomatic levels) as an unprecendented protest against Syria and Iran's meddling in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab States see themselves losing ground in Gaza and Lebanon to Iranian proxies.
A recent editorial in a Kuwaiti newspaper expressed the opinion that Israel would be better served by opposing Iran than by worrying about the Palestinians. Indeed the Kuwaitis have a very low opinion of the Palestinians, since those living in Kuwait collaborated with the Iraqi forces when they invaded in 1990. After the first Gulf war most of the Palestinians were either summarily killed or expelled to Jordan. The Sunni Arabs from the Gulf to Egypt now feel more threatened by Iran than Israel. The Arab regimes wouldn't mind seeing Iran destroy Israel, but they know that should this happen (which it won't) then they would be next for Iranian domination. They would prefer to see Israel destroy Iran, especially in relation to the rapidly developing Iranian nuclear threat! In essence the Arab States represent a power vacuum that the Iranians are seeking to fill, while Israel is ignoring the overall strategic situation and focussing on tactical details (I once asked Nathan Sharansky when he was in the Sharon Cabinet if Israel had any long-term strategy and he laughed).
The blowing up of the Gaza-Egyptian border by Hamas at Iran's behest consitutes a serious threat to Mubarak's regime, threatened as it is already by the Muslim Brotherhood, that is also allied with Hamas. Recent Israeli Govt. policies of territorial concessions to its neighbors and expecting this to bring peace are futile. As found in the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and from Lebanon in 2000, that lead to the Second Lebanon war of 2006 (when over 4200 rockets hit northern Israel), such approaches are self-defeating. Also, a "shelf agreement" with the Palestinians will weaken Israel in committing it to future concessions that might be extremely dangerous. What if as a result of such agreements with Syria or the PA, the IRG were soon stationed on the Golan Heights or overlooking Ben Gurion airport? For Israel's survival this is a situation not to be envisaged and that cannot be allowed.
posted by Jack Cohen at 2:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home