Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Reexamining the Middle East

The last few years have produced an enormous trove of literature about conflict and violence in the Middle East, no doubt because there appears to be...

The last few years have produced an enormous trove of literature about conflict and violence in the Middle East, no doubt because there appears to be so much of it.

Academics, policy-makers, and media pundits remain fascinated by the "nature" of terrorism and the impending threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. The superheated rhetoric of leaders in Iran and Israel has only accelerated the possibility of confrontation between the two countries, while the cumulative effect of the media echo chamber has added to the clamor of war drums and saber-rattling inside the Washington Beltway.

Out of this cacophony emerges a book with the clarity and insight that so often elude U.S. policy-makers. Trita Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States is a deft account of the back-channel relationship between the three countries from Israel’s inception in 1948 through the present.

In revealing interviews with 130 decision-makers in Iran, Israel, and the United States, Parsi, an analyst who also heads the National Iranian American Council and sometimes writes for the Inter Press Service, crafts an alternative view of a conflict that is often couched in ideological terms.

In the opening chapter, Parsi shatters several myths about the Israel-Iran rivalry, or the "800-pound gorilla," as he refers to it several times throughout the text. For example, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly condemns Israel and questions the validity of the Holocaust, the Islamic Republic is actually home to the second-largest population of Jews in the Middle East, after Israel.

Few Iranian Jews take Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric seriously, writes Parsi, "and they point to the fact that little has changed for Iranian Jews under him."

In fact, Iran’s sole Jewish representative in the Majlis, Maurice Mohtamed, spoke out against the president’s comments, and during the height of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa protecting Jews as a religious minority contingent on their rejection of Zionism and the Israeli state, according to Parsi.

In Israel, Parsi complicates the notions of separate Israeli and Iranian identities through his exchanges with several Iranian Jews who left Iran not for ideological reasons as much as for economic ones. Interestingly, some of Israel’s most prominent public officials are originally Persian, including scandal-tainted President Moshe Katsav, and former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz (born to Persian immigrants).

But Parsi’s book is remarkable for its detailed look at the international relations dimension of the Israel-Iran relationship. There exists, beneath the vitriolic public exchanges, a history of intelligence cooperation, arms sales, and secret dialogue between the two countries. And the dialogue continued even after Iran turned from a monarchy into an Islamic theocracy.

The "alliance of necessity" initially formed out of a mutual concern over the threat of neighboring countries—purely pragmatic and practical, the epitome of realpolitik. Israel viewed Iran as a possible periphery ally, outside the orbit of its immediate threats (Syria, Jordan, and Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt). Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, envisioned his country as the dominant hegemon in the Middle East, and viewed neighboring Iraq as its most immediate threat.

In Parsi’s narrative, the Shah, who ultimately fled Iran during the Islamic Revolution and died in exile in 1980, exhibits all the signs of megalomania. He’s a Mideast dictator with a shopping-list for U.S.-made weapons and lucrative oil rents to pay for the merchandise. But he wasn’t the smartest political tactician.

The Shah’s appetite for status as the dominant power in the region led him to sign the Algiers Accord, an agreement between Iran and Iraq that would end hostilities and settle territorial disputes, notably the Shatt al-Arab waterway. At the time, Iraq was fighting a Kurdish rebellion launched by peshmerga guerrillas (who were supported by Iranian and Israeli intelligence agencies and financed by the United States).

As Parsi writes, in the long term, the Shah’s short-sighted agreement led to the unraveling of a tacit alliance with Israel, with whom it was conducting intelligence operations. Furthermore, the end of hostilities gave Iraq an opportunity to crush the Kurdish rebellion and rebuild its army. It would use it against Iran five years later.

The Islamic Revolution took the United States by surprise, but even the rigid ideological rhetoric of the mullahs could be manipulated if the political situation demanded. While the mullahs maintained a fierce public posture condemning Israel, they approached them for weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. As Parsi writes, "The more the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy was presented as different from that of the Shah, the more it resembled it at its core. … The ideology had shifted astonishingly. But the end goal remained remarkably similar."

The end goal was to build a stronger relationship with the United States, and if that meant theocratic Iran would have to go through Israel to build, it would. Successive U.S. administrations complicated the relationship further.

U.S. neoconservatives, who got their country involved in the Iran-Contra scandal at the height of Iran’s war against Iraq, opposed contact with Iran 15 years later in spite of Tehran’s repeated overtures. "There is a great deal of confusion as to how America got mixed up in an Israeli-Iranian rivalry that is neither about ideology nor religion," Parsi writes.

Currently, Iran is a country that finds itself increasingly isolated by the West, while the United States and Israel now represent a complete alignment of views on terrorism and how to deal with it. Parsi’s book also analyzes the extent to which the pro-Israeli lobby influenced policy and views on Iran. In the early 1990s, following the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army, Israeli politicians began describing Iran as the primary threat.

"The pro-Israeli community turned strongly against Iran, influencing U.S. policy on Iran in an almost emotional way," said former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

As a result, Iran, Parsi argues convincingly, created a different equation, one in which Israeli actions against Palestinian "rejectionist groups" Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, would be met with retaliatory terrorist attacks against Jews and Israelis abroad.

But even Iran’s links to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah could be negotiated, as evidenced by the 2003 overture by the Iranian regime, and approved by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to stop funding them in return for certain safety guarantees and a wider political opening with the United States. Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) delivered the message to the White House, but Iran never received a reply.

Treacherous Alliance is a timely and important read for anybody who wants to push back the essentialist arguments that suggest an impending clash of ideologies. In Parsi’s estimation, as long as the United States ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room, it will not be able to resolve any of its problems in the Middle East.

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.

 

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "Reexamining the Middle East," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 15, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share