Why Israel Supports Iran, (or Does it?)

by Scott Sullivan June 27, 2007

I have often posted articles by Sullivan which seem crazy but are they? Ted Belman

Ever since the fall of the Shah in Iran, Israeli and Iranian policymakers have searched for the opportunity to restore the Iran-Israel strategic partnership in the Middle East.

Strange as it may seem, the Iranian-Israeli strategic partnership has been restored in recent months, due to three reasons.

    First, the US occupation of Iraq brought about a major advance in Iranian power throughout the Middle East. The Arab world appeared to be in decline. Iran appeared to be the winner. Israel decided to go with the winning Iranians.

    Second, President Bush made it clear that a pro-Iran tilt by Israel would conform to US policy, From President Bush’s perspective, the US’s traditional allies – the Arab states, beginning with Turkey — had fallen into disfavor. Bush chose Iran as the new US regional partner. Given Israel’s strong dependence on the US for security, Israel had no choice but to follow the US lead.

    Third, Israel hoped it might convince Iran to restrain Hamas and Hezbollah, who were laying siege to Israel in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon, respectively.

This pro-Iran shift in Israeli policy was evident on eleven major issues.

    First, Israel did not protest when the US granted Ahmadinejad a visa in 2006 to visit the US. Ahmadinejad subsequently canceled his visit, but the precedent was set that no matter what his comments on the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad was welcome in the US. Not a single Jewish leader in the US spoke against the Ahmadinejad visa. For President Bush to grant Ahmadinejad a visa is tantamount to FDR granting Adolph Hitler a US visa in 1940.

    Second, Israel did not protest when the US selected the pro-Iran Shia (the SCIRI party and the Badr Brigades) as the US’s primary partners in Iraq. The US partnership is tantamount to a US partnership with Hezbollah, which strongly supports SCIRI in Iraqi domestic politics

    Third, Israel did not refuse when the US insisted upon opening the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections to Hamas and Lebanon’s elections to Hizbollah. Both Hamas and Hezbollah swept their respective elections and made significant gains in stature and influence thanks to Bush’s support.

    Fourth, Israel did not protest when the Iraqi Kurds escalated significantly against Turkey, until this year a strategic partner with Israel. The Kurds escalated against Turkey by supporting the PKK and by annexing the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

    Fifth, Israel did not protest as the US also took a confrontational stance toward Turkey, as shown by US support for the PKK and for Kurdish president Barzani, who wants to create a new state of Greater Kurdistan by annexing Kirkuk.

    Sixth, Israel did not protest when the World Bank this year approved a $7 billion proposal for a huge natural gas export pipeline from Iran through Pakistan and India. This pipeline links Iran with two of the most important US partners in the war on terrorism. By definition, Iran becomes a major power broker in Central Asia thanks to Bush’s support. Moreover, this World Bank financing undercuts Bush’s nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

    Seventh, Israel did not protest when Paul Wolfowitz, a long time friend of Israel, was replaced this year as World Bank president by Robert Zoellick, who will vote for all future Iran projects. To put it another way, with his decisions on Zoellick and the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, Bush has opened the World Bank to Iran as a cash cow just as Iran cracks down on civil liberties, launches aggression against Israel and the Arab states, and pushes forward with support for nuclear weapons programs.

    Eighth, Israel did not protest when Bush decided to take a minimalist position in support of Iran’s democratic movement.

    Ninth, Israel did not protest the US decision to boycott Syria and embrace Iran, despite the fact that the US cannot stop Iran from taking over Iraq and the Middle East without turning Syria into a US partner.

    Tenth, Israel did not protest as Iran made spectacular gains in Latin America, primarily by supporting Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s new Mussolini. Chavez and Ahnadinejad are preparing for an acceleration of Hezbollah terrorism throughout Latin America as the Iranian presence grows.

    Eleventh, Israel did not protest when the US this year established a US-Iran bilateral security committee on Iraq. This was a clear indication that the US considered Iran, not the Arab states, as its primary security partner in Iraq.

In short, Israel went pro-Iran mainly because it did not want to be sidelined as were the Arab states while the US built its own bridges to Iran. For Israel, life as a junior partner to Iran and the US was preferable to being shut out of the US policy process altogether.

However, the reality still is that Israel has miscalculated badly in assuming Israel can perpetuate its current partnership with Iran. Here are the major flaws in Israel’s current approach.

    First, and most important, under Ahmadinejad’s administration, Iran is being governed by Ernst Rohm and the Brown Shirts. Ahmadinejad would never consider coming to agreement with Israel on a long term basis.

    Second, jut as Israel cannot come to terms with Ahmadinejad, Israel cannot come to terms with the Kurds. Kurdish president Barzani is now totally dependent upon Ahmadinejad for security, as the junior partner in the Tehran-Kirkuk axis. Barzani would never contemplate the possibility of going against Ahmadinejad by bringing Israel into Kurdistan as a partner.

    Third, even if Ahmadinejad and Barzani accept Israel as a partner, the idea of Israel joining a Nazi-Fascist Axis is ludicrous.

    Fourth, Israel is supporting losers by staying with Ahmadinejad and Barzani. Ahmadinejad has far less of a chance to take the Middle East than Hitler had of talking Europe. Iran would need a series of miracles in order to prevail. Iraq by itself will prove to be the undoing of Ahmadinejad and Barzani.

    Fifth, a switch in US policy in favor of Turkey and against Iran and the Kurds is inevitable, and soon. This is because President Bush would find it impossible to go before Congress to explain why the US is going to war against Turkey, a NATO member. Bush would be impeached. Bush will take the line of least resistance. Bush will support Turkey and oppose Iran and the Kurds in Iraq. Israel will want to join this US-Turkey-Arab team.

July 23, 2007 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. I just heard from Ken timmerman, a noted expert on Iran and he says this guy is blowing smoke…Not worth reading never mind considering.

    He sure is! However, this should be determined by examining the evidence provided and the logic of the arguments, not simply the views of “noted experts”.
    Having said that, Sullivan doesn’t provide any evidence to examine – which puts him in the same league as most pundits – so anything controversial he says must be taken with a grain of salt.

    Ever since the fall of the Shah in Iran, Israeli and Iranian policymakers have searched for the opportunity to restore the Iran-Israel strategic partnership in the Middle East.

    Huh? Khomeini’s mob have never made any secret of their feelings about Israel and Jews in general. Considering that the State of Israel was used by the US to deliver US weapons to the Iranians during the Iran-Contra affair, it seems quite clear that if “Israeli and Iranian policymakers” were serious about “restor[ing] the Iran-Israel strategic partnership”, they would have achieved this by now.

    While doubtless certain elements within the Israeli and Iranian Islamist Establishments are collaborating (let’s face it, the Israeli Establishment ethnically cleansed 8000 Jews in order to hand their property over to a CIA sponsored Nazi created organisation so they obviously have no moral qualms about empowering the worst kinds of antisemites), Sullivan’s “analysis” does nothing to shed light on the real nature of this collaboration.

    He is blowing smoke – of a highly obfuscationist nature.

  2. I find it difficult accepting his thinking or conclusions, yet they can’t be dismissed without considering them Gil-White for different reasons also thinks that the US has cooperated with Iran since the Iranian Revolution.

    The US supplied them with weapons right after the revolution to fight Iraq. It worked with them to allow Islamists to infiltrate Kosovo, It also worked with then against the Russians in Afghanistan. Gil-White cites much evidence in support of his beliefs.

  3. Ted, you mention a long list of things that Israel did not “protest.” Could it be that Israel realizes that as a pariah state in the eyes of the world (unlike Iran which is the darling counterbalance to US domination) protesting merely worsens the situation and strengthens the Islamic ideologues?

    To me it is fine that Israel does not protest but I sure hope that they are at least preparing for the onslaught of the battles to come better than they had for the Lebanon debacle. Winning must always be the goal, and not limited actions to satisfy those in the West who want to tie Israel’s hands in order to make the fight fair on both sides.

    I think that it is wise for Israel to support the Kurds because the Kurds can keep the Iranians, the Syrians and the Iraqis focused on their own internal insurgencies and less so on the proxies who the Islamists have installed to kick Israel out of the Middle East Caliphate.

Comments are closed.