[wvns] Trita Parsi: Israel Paralyzed
Author's Note: Israel is in state of strategic paralysis. It has
failed to adjust to the new strategic realities in the region and the
new American NIE. Driven by a fear that any outcome in a negotiation
between the US and Iran are less optimal than the continuation of the
status quo, it is continuing to insist on a failed and costly policy
that risks leaving it increasingly isolated.
Though Iran is in a stronger position than it was in 2003 when it made
an offer for talks with the US and hinted at significant Iranian
foreign policy changes, including on its position on Israel, a new
Iranian posture on Israel is still viable, given an end to the
hostilities between the US and Iran.
In the piece below, published in the Forward right before the
holidays, I argue that Israel must scrap its Plan A and develop a Plan
B centered around supporting US-Iran diplomacy in order to ensure that
the talks tames the Israeli-Iranian strategic rivalry.
PS. Check out my panel discussion with Daniel Levy, Israel's lead
negotiator at the Geneva initiative, at the Century Foundation in
mid-December. He recently wrote an op-ed for the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency echoing the argument that Israel should back US-Iran diplomacy.
Sincerely,
Trita Parsi, PhD
www.tritaparsi.com
www.treacherousalliance.com
===
The Case for Talking to Tehran
Breaking Israel's Paralysis on Iran
By Trita Parsi
Wed. Dec 19, 2007
The Forward
December 19, 2007
http://www.forward.com/articles/12299/
Israel is in state of strategic paralysis. Its longstanding policy on
Iran — depict Tehran as a global threat, pressure Washington to
prevent Iran from going nuclear, and evade an American-Iranian
dialogue — has been dealt a severe blow by the recently released
National Intelligence Estimate.
The Iran policy Israel has pursued to date must now be put aside and a
genuine effort must be made to develop a Plan B that recognizes the
new strategic realities in the region. A broad diplomatic opening
between Washington and Tehran is increasingly likely, and it is a
distinct probability that an American-Iranian deal will entail some
level of enrichment on Iranian soil. Arab states can be expected to
step up efforts at rapprochement in order to avoid lagging behind the
United States in warming up to Iran, making a policy of containing and
isolating Tehran more and more difficult to pursue.
Israeli interests, therefore, would best be served by Jerusalem
throwing its weight behind genuine diplomacy with Tehran in order to
ensure that it is not left out of an American-Iranian deal.
Momentum for broader diplomacy with Iran is clearly growing in the
United States. Even prior to the release of the National Intelligence
Estimate, Democratic presidential candidates began recognizing the
American people's exhaustion with the Bush administration's policy
toward Iran. Hawkish statements on Iran are being interpreted by the
electorate as a continuation of a discredited neoconservative foreign
policy outlook.
A number of presidential hopefuls, including Democratic frontrunners
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have boldly declared their
preference for unconditional talks with Tehran. This is unprecedented:
Never before has Iran bashing carried so much political cost.
Regionally, Arab states have sensed the pendulum swinging in Iran's
favor, while recognizing Washington's inability to swing it back.
Accordingly, they are carefully adjusting their positions on Tehran.
Though highly wary of their giant neighbor going nuclear, the Arab
states are more fearful of being left to face a nuclear Iran alone. So
improving ties with Tehran in the wake of a likely American-Iranian
thaw is the strategically wise thing to do.
Last week Egypt sent a high-level delegation to Tehran for the first
time since 1979. Earlier this month Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was invited to address the Gulf Cooperation Council summit
in Qatar. And last week, Saudi Arabia invited Ahmadinejad to
participate in the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, another first for an
Iranian leader.
The idea, therefore, of an American-Sunni Arab-Israeli alliance being
formed to counter Iran's rise — apparently a key impetus for the
Annapolis summit — seems more farfetched than ever.
In challenging these regional developments, Israel is standing
increasingly alone. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has apparently
recognized as much, telling his Cabinet ministers last weekend to
"stop giving statements on Iran and the American intelligence report."
Olmert's remarks reportedly came in response to Public Security
Minister Avi Dichter's public attack on the National Intelligence
Estimate, something the prime minister told to his Cabinet did "not
contribute to the campaign [against Iran] or our relations with the
White House."
Indeed, Israel will not have many backers in the United States
publicly pushing for a more bellicose approach toward Tehran. The
Europeans may sound tough, but in reality, Europe has drawn a big sigh
of relief over the National Intelligence Estimate.
The reality is that Israel's Iran policy is now dead, no matter how
hard some Israeli politicians try to keep it on life support.
But is there any Plan B that can compel Iran to shift its hard line on
Israel? The short answer is yes.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Iran's position on Israel is not
ideologically driven. Though the ideological component of Iran's
foreign policy is undeniable, it is secondary to Iran's geostrategic
considerations
Iran's harsh rhetoric on Israel has only been translated into actual
policy when Tehran deemed that its ideological and strategic
imperatives coincided. When these two pillars of Iran's foreign policy
have clashed — as they did in the 1980s, when the Jewish state made
many efforts to get Iran and the United States back on talking terms —
Iran's geostrategic concerns have consistently prevailed.
Today, Tehran perceives its ideological and strategic imperatives as
being aligned with regard to the Jewish state. The only factor that
can rearrange these forces is a larger American-Iranian arrangement in
which Iran can gain political reintegration into the region in return
for significant changes in its foreign policy — including on Israel.
The Iranians recognize that no sustainable shift in American-Iranian
relations can be achieved without significant changes to Iran's
posture toward Israel. This was made clear in an offer Iran made to
the United States in 2003 in which the Iranians indicated a readiness
to end all support for Islamic Jihad and Hamas, pressure the
Palestinian groups to stop using violence against Israel, turn
Hezbollah into a solely political organization, and sign onto the
Saudi peace initiative first floated in 2002. In return, Tehran wanted
recognition of Iran's security interests in the region and an end to
American efforts to isolate Iran.
Given the right circumstances, Tehran was ready to adopt a "Malaysian
profile" on Israel. Much like Malaysia, Iran would be an Islamic state
that did not formally recognize Israel and would occasionally
criticize Israeli policies, but would refrain from directly
confronting Israel. Iran would get out of Israel's hair in return for
an end to Israeli pressure on the United States to isolate and contain
Iran.
The proposal was communicated to Israelis by Iranians on numerous
occasions, including at a Pentagon-funded conference in Europe in
early 2003. At the conference Mohsen Rezai, the former head of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, engaged in a question-and-answer
session with Israelis and discussed a strategic realignment of
American-Iranian relations. The gist of Rezai's plan was to work out a
modus vivendi regarding the Israeli-Iranian standoff.
For Iran, this was a way to decouple American-Iranian relations from
the Israeli-Iranian rivalry. As Reza Dehshiri, a senior Iranian
Foreign Ministry official, said in late 2004: "In the first year of
the revolution, we didn't recognize Israel, yet we had diplomatic
relations with the U.S…. And when necessary, Israel could trade with
Iran via the United States. This would be a temporary solution since
we cannot recognize Israel at this time…. Israel would in practice be
able to reach its goals, and Iran would in practice not oppose
Israel's policies in the region."
Neither the United States nor Israel, however, responded to the
proposal. Though Iran's pragmatists have suffered greatly since 2003,
and though Ahmadinejad is no Khatami, the "Malaysian profile" is still
viable. Iranians do not speak about it publicly, since neither Israel
nor the United States has shown much interest in it, but officials in
Tehran remain convinced that a final deal with the United States will
necessitate a change in Iran's posture on Israel along the lines of a
"Malaysian profile."
A signal from Israel that it supports American-Iranian talks would
strengthen the hands of Tehran's pragmatists and compel Iran's
cautious supreme leader to rein in his more aggressive and ambitious
subordinates. Shifting toward a Plan B would also enable Israel to
avoid friction with Washington over Iran while achieving changes in
Iranian policy that Israeli efforts to date have never even come close
to obtaining. If Israel waits too long, however, it may be left out of
the deal.
Trita Parsi, author of the newly released "Treacherous Alliance: The
Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S." (Yale), is president of
the National Iranian American Council.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment