Last November, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman visited Saudi Arabia, sat in a spacious armchair in the palace of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, aka MBS, and went on to write a piece in The New York Times under the bombastic headline: “The Saudi Arab Spring, at last.” In fact, it was nothing more than an embarrassing, obsequious op-ed. It glorified the Saudi prince who described the economic reforms he was introducing into the kingdom as an “Arab Spring.” In practice, the archaic Saudi kingdom has been and remains the Number One Enemy of the Arab Spring. There is no connection between MBS’s reforms and real democratic change in the kingdom.

Recently, Friedman was invited by the Israel Defense Forces to act as the mouthpiece of the Israeli propaganda machine, warning of a war between Israel and Iran on Syrian soil. A very senior military officer (perhaps the Chief of Staff) openly admitted to Friedman that Israel had targeted a military base in Syria, an assault in which the head of the Revolutionary Guards drone unit, with the rank of colonel, was killed.

In other words, from Israel’s most senior officer to America’s most senior correspondent, Israel – without explicitly saying so – declared war on Iran. The Iranians had no choice but to “take off their kid gloves” and state via the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson that “the Zionist entity will receive an appropriate response.” It appears that the bad years in Israeli-Iranian relations are over and the worse are about to begin. What appears to be the end of the Syrian civil war is becoming, before our eyes, the beginning of a new war for the future of Syria, with Iran and Israel as major competitors.

Since the outbreak of the popular uprising against Assad, Iran mobilized in his favor and has done in Syria as it does at home. Israel, on the other hand, played the game of “neutrality”; its official position calls for “no interference in the Syrian civil war.” The meaning of this “balanced” position can be understood as follows: The genocide carried out by the Syrian regime is not Israel’s business. The longer the war lasts and the greater the destruction, the better for Israel.

This cynical game reached its peak in 2013, when US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, struck a deal on dismantling chemical weapons in Syria, following a large-scale chemical attack in the Ghouta suburbs. The assault, which claimed more than 1400 lives, crossed President Obama’s “red line,” and the US administration vowed to respond militarily. But Obama shilly-shallied. Putin jumped at the opportunity, and instead of an air strike against Assad’s regime, Obama agreed to a dubious accord to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons.

Assad took advantage of the non-attack and continued to massacre civilians by more conventional means. The Netanyahu government celebrated the removal of the chemical threat to the citizens of Israel, where the era of gas masks ended. The chemical deal was accompanied by the flight of millions of Syrians from their homes because of murderous, indiscriminate bombings, and the Syrian refugee crisis changed the political map in Europe. But Israel’s worldview was and remains very narrow: The deal is good for the Jews even though it is bad for both the Syrians and those countries to which millions of them have fled.

Israel was not the only land to celebrate the miserable deal which freed Obama from having to attack and saved Assad. Iran also celebrated. The accord to dismantle chemical weapons in Syria turned into a prototype for dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, an accord that Israel strongly opposed and was unable to block. Iran became an ally of the United States and a legitimate player in the war against ISIS. Iran also partnered with Assad and the Russians in the war against the Syrian opposition. For seven years, Iran sank huge sums into reviving the Syrian economy; Hezbollah turned into a major player in the civil war, losing 1700 fighters; and Iran bankrolled Shiite militias in Iraq to the tune of 20,000 fighters. Throughout that period, Israel took delight in seeing Hezbollah hemorrhage in Syria and become too bogged down to engage Israel. Its air force thwarted the transfer of “game-changing” weapons from Iran to Hezbollah – with the silent acquiescence of the Russians.

Not only did Iran gain a foothold in Syria but the Russians, invited in by Assad, became the real landlords there. They carried out horrific aerial attacks on Syrian cities, the foremost being Aleppo, and saved Assad’s regime from certain defeat. Here, too, Israel looked on from the sidelines and did not utter a word about atrocities occurring just kilometers from its northern border. Netanyahu decided that the best strategy was to maintain a secure hotline with Putin.

The agreement with Putin is simple: Israel will not act to topple Assad and will not object to the Russian takeover of Syria. In exchange, it seeks freedom to act against attempts to transfer arms from Iran to Hezbollah. Putin, for his part, wants Israel to accept the Russian presence in Syria, but this presence also requires close cooperation with Iran. A Russian presence requires Iran’s consent because Russia does not have many boots on the ground; without Iran, Assad’s regime will again be in danger of collapse.

Israel has no interest in seeing Assad toppled. In this respect it is in lockstep not only with Russia, but with the Americans. After the unconvincing air strike in response to Assad’s recent chemical attack in Douma, the Americans declared that they had no intention of replacing Assad. In fact, Assad has gained immunity from all factions operating in Syria and continues to survive as Syria bleeds. So we have reached a situation in which no one wants to overthrow Assad; every player needs him to serve its own interests. Israel wants to go back to the status quo ante consisting of the long-term cease-fire it has enjoyed since the 1973 war. Iran has completely opposite plans: Seeking to become a regional power, it is creating an Iranian corridor through Iraq and Syria to the Lebanese coast. Israel must accept the fact that Assad’s Syria exists in theory alone and that the country is divided between Iran, Turkey, the United States and Russia.

Israel’s attempts to pry the Iranians from Syria are leading to a head-on collision with them and indirectly with the Russians. The Israeli message to the Russians is straightforward: If you want to keep Assad in power in order to gain legitimacy for your airbase in Khmeimim and a naval base in Tartous, get rid of the Iranians. The choice is either Assad or Iran, Israel will not allow any arrangement at the expense of its strategic interest.

However, despite warm relations between Netanyahu and Trump, and the latter’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump’s announcement that he intends to withdraw from Syria “very soon” leaves Israel, on its 70th birthday, flying solo. It seems that Teheran is not interested in an open war with Israel, given stiff domestic opposition to its Syrian adventure. Putin also is afraid of opening a front against Israel, while Netanyahu is reluctant to involve the IDF and the home front in a war that could prove to be costly and destructive. It might be impossible to square the circle: each side is entrenched in its position, and all of them together are being pushed to the edge against their will.

The Syrian Spring broke out with the hope of regime change and the establishment of a modern democratic state. Assad gassed civilians; Iran enlisted Hezbollah; Putin built military bases to expand his empire; Obama refused to support the democratic Syrian opposition; Saudi Arabia and Qatar armed extreme Sunni militias; Israel watched and relished; all of them wiped out any hope for a democratic future in Syria. The only way to stop further bloodshed, and a war between Israel and Iran, is the withdrawal of all foreign forces. If there is any hope for a democratic future in Syria, Assad must go. Currently this option is not on the agenda. Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Khamenei, and Netanyahu do not believe in democracy. Syria has become a reflection of the world at the beginning of the 21st century.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Israel’s undeclared war on Iran first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

He spoke before Congress for 40 minutes, sweeping it off its feet. It was, without doubt, the speech of his lifetime, although according to Israeli pollsters it added merely one Knesset seat to his shrinking tally of votes. He did the unthinkable by by passing Barack Obama and turning directly to the American people from the congressional podium, pummeling their president with hard truths.

He showed daring and pluck, as if he himself were the American president, explaining with didactic patience the questions that stand at the basis of the agreement that is shaping up with Iran.

Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic minority, wept tears of frustration and rage and humiliation, while John Boehner, leader of the Republican majority, claimed that no current member of Congress could have done a better job than Netanyahu in showing why the agreement must be rejected. As for Obama, he said that Netanyahu had offered no new alternative, using this point as a blind to avoid hard truths in the speech that should not be ignored.

Obama’s weakness

Netanyahu focused on the fact that Iran has a dictatorial, theocratic regime whose goal is to spread the Shiite revolution. He pointed out that Iran already controls much of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He added that the prospective agreement will only last 10 years, and that after the lifting of the sanctions Iran will have legitimacy for going ahead with its nuclear program and exerting itself as a regional power. The agreement, he said, will grant the Ayatollahs a long stretch of time in which to entrench their regime.     

In relation to the White House, which seeks Iran’s help in fighting ISIS in Iraq, Netanyahu said: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.” In this case, he memorably said, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

The power of the speech came mainly from the weakness of Obama, that is, from his wrong-headed policy in the Middle East, the roots of which can be seen especially in his approach (or lack thereof) to the Syrian conflict. His attitude toward the Assad regime has been, in effect, conciliatory. When his “red line” was crossed in the use of chemical weapons, he planned a massive bombardment of Assad’s military infrastructure but called it off at the last minute, instead making an agreement through Putin on the withdrawal of chemical weapons from Syria. This lack of support had the effect of debilitating the moderate liberal opposition, the Left, and the Muslim Brotherhood, so that the door was open for ISIS. Only after ISIS took over swathes of Iraq, captured Mosul, and established the “Islamic State,” did Obama take action. Even so, he has been careful not to harm Assad, for he needs the Iranians in order to restore the rule of the Iraqi Shiite government over the Sunni areas that ISIS conquered.

Obama’s desire for an agreement with Iran derives from strategic considerations; above all he does not want to send his soldiers back into Iraq. Iran has been transformed from a bitter enemy to a partner in the war against ISIS. The price is the fall of Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Sana’a into Iran’s hands.

Bibi’s contribution to the regional chaos

Obama’s weakness is Netanyahu’s too. Since the Arab Spring, the Arab world has splintered, and the US is left without a firm Arab basis to lean on in its confrontation with Iran.

Israel and the benighted Sunni regimes—namely, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, and Morocco—share a common hostility toward the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Americans saw the Arab Spring as a historical necessity which threw out the rotten regimes that had reduced their countries to destitution. The Americans were even ready to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood if it was willing to abide by the rules of democracy. Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, saw the fall of Mubarak in Egypt as a strategic catastrophe; they fumed at the White House when it cooperated with the elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. The latter was overthrown, as we know, in a military coup that was funded by the Saudis. The war against the Muslim Brotherhood became a cornerstone of Saudi foreign policy, which was seconded by Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. It was Saudi foreign policy that sparked civil wars not only in Egypt, but in Libya and Yemen as well, and it has spread throughout the region, bringing chaos.

Thus Saudi Arabia and Israel refused to adjust their policies to the deep changes signified by the Arab Spring. Their unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, while spreading the chaos into which ISIS would enter, compelled Obama to transform Iran into the strategic lynchpin of a new regional cooperation. Bibi’s contribution to this development should not be underestimated. The clash between the White House and the Israeli government is by no means limited to the prospective agreement with Iran; it began, we recall, over the Palestinian issue.

During Israel’s Operation Protective Edge against Gaza, the American Secretary of State John Kerry supported a Qatari-Turkish proposal for a cease fire, whereas the Israeli cabinet, vilifying Kerry, opted for the “Egyptian” proposal. This position lengthened the war by several long days, until Hamas surrendered. The Egyptians are seeking to strangle Hamas and Gaza without offering a solution to the people living in the Strip. Meanwhile General Sisi is becoming entangled in Sinai, he is trying without success to put together a military force to intervene in Libya, and conditions inside Egypt are deteriorating. Sisi is a worse dictator than Mubarak, and his fate will be no different.

Bibi can preach morality to Obama about appeasing Iran, but what about his own conciliatory approach toward the murderous dictatorship of General Sisi, or toward the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia? How exactly are the regimes of these three countries better than the one in Tehran? Netanyahu is using the chaos that he himself helped sow in the Middle East in order to get re-elected, claiming that with ISIS in the neighborhood there’s no point in making peace with the Palestinians.

The chaos serves the Israeli right wing, to be sure, but it severely damages American strategic interests in Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. Given the weakness of the leading Arab nations, Obama turns to the Iranians in order to stabilize the region and obviate the need for a new American conquest of Iraq. And so, irony of ironies, it turns out that Netanyahu contributed with his own hands to the agreement with Iran. Obama asks him correctly, “What is your alternative? What are you willing to offer so that Iran won’t spread its influence?” The answer is—nothing.

Signs of change

While Netanyahu shoots barbs at the American regime without offering a real alternative, the death of the Saudi king Abdullah and his replacement by Salman bin Abdulaziz have created an opportunity for a change in Saudi policy. There are rumors of warmer ties with Turkey. The Saudis, it is also rumored, now recognize that the Muslim Brothers are not the problem in the region, rather they are an essential part of the solution against both ISIS and Iran. General Sisi is losing altitude, and for the first time the Saudis are calling what happened in Egypt “a military coup.” This shows that they want to close ranks with the Americans on the issue.

And what about Bibi Netanyahu? He insists on running with his head against the wall. He collides with America, he collides with Turkey, he apparently balks at the new Saudi position, he erases Abu Mazen, and he remains faithful to General Sisi. Bibi, Sisi, and Assad stand against the world. That isolates Israel, of course, but Bibi seems to think it will help him get elected.

The prospective agreement with Iran is no solution to the chaos in the Middle East. Instead, because it will strengthen Iran, which exacerbates ethnic rifts, the agreement is likely to heighten the crisis that is working in favor of ISIS. It isn’t all that bad for Israel, but it is very bad indeed for the Iranian people, who have suffered oppression for 36 years. It is also very bad for the Iraqi people, because it will deepen the war between Shiites and Sunnis. It is very bad for the Syrians, because it will leave Assad in power. And it is very bad for the Yemenites, which have split into two countries, the pro-Iranian north and the pro-Saudi south.

Iran is the enemy of the Arab Spring, just as the Saudi kingdom is. Bibi, Sisi, Assad, Salman, and Khamenei—all are enemies of democracy and social justice. The agreement with Iran will not advance these causes either. The Iranian regime is responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. The best alternative to the agreement, for those who love freedom, is to depose Assad in Syria. That would be a major blow to Iran and a boost for democracy in the Middle East—against the will of Bibi.

The post Bibi’s contribution to the “very bad” deal with Iran first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The Israeli media is abuzz with the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. Haaretz stunned us all with a Netanyahu quote from a “closed” meeting: “If a committee is set up to investigate the attack on Iran, I’ll say I’m responsible.” The prime minister does not fear committees of investigation, and now we all know he is determined to attack Iran. This issue has come up so frequently recently – war must be on the horizon. After all, there’s no smoke without fire.

The important word here is “closed.” The leak is of course intentional, and found its way straight into the Haaretz headline. Here we should recall Anat Kam and Uri Blau, and even Uzi Arad, who were suspected of serious leaks of state secrets and investigated mercilessly, while whoever it was who leaked from this “closed” meeting and the brave journalist who wrote the piece are immune from all suspicion.

The further one reads, the clearer it becomes that the attack on Iran has no takers. Four cabinet ministers are opposed, including Eli Yishai, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Moshe Yaalon. Indeed, all the heads of the security services, from the Mossad and Shin Bet to Military Intelligence, think that attacking Iran would be insane, and that we must wait to see what the rest of the world will do. Opinion polls show that ordinary citizens have reservations about this attack, while influential journalists such as Shimon Schiffer and Aharon Barnea have cautioned repeatedly against it. The Chief of Staff is busy showing analyses which Netanyahu isn’t interested because he believes they’re merely ass-covering tactics. So he says, “I’m responsible.”

No less important, the Americans continue to express their steadfast opposition to an Israeli attack. In “closed” meetings they affirm their commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, reiterating guarantees that Iran will not get them. The Americans are also firm in their position, rock solid since the first Gulf War in 1991, that the security of the Persian Gulf is US business and that Israel must not interfere, because the issue is linked to the security of Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich states. It will be recalled that during that year, Israel absorbed Scud missile attacks on its cities while then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir sat tight.

Between Aleppo and Iran

The fight for Iran’s future in the region is currently being waged in Damascus and Aleppo (Halab). The Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and US axis (note that Israel is not a player here) is up against the Russia, China and Iran axis, which supports Assad. His downfall would certainly weaken Iran, which would lose its only Arab ally. Because of its support for the massacres in Syria, Iran has seen its standing among the Arab peoples sink to an all-time low. The last thing the US and its allies need is an Israeli attack on Iran, which would strengthen Arab support for Iran once again, perhaps even saving Assad’s regime.

And what about Iran itself? The Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a religious edict which asserts that developing nuclear weapons is strictly forbidden according to Islam. The Americans are encouraged by this declaration, but all are still troubled by doubt: Do the Iranians interpret this prohibition as all-encompassing, or can one arm oneself with nuclear weapons if faced with infidels who have such weapons themselves, such as the Jews, or even in future the Wahabi regime of Saudi Arabia? We have no clear answer to this question, and the opinions of religious figures on political issues are worth no more than the opinions of the average politician. But Iran denies the Holocaust and aspires to wipe Israel off the map – hence Netanyahu’s fear that the easiest way of destroying Israel is to nuke it. That’s why we’ve been subject to Netanyahu’s words, which illustrate his famous explanatory powers: “Better to cope with conventional rockets than an atomic bomb.”

The chicken crisis and the atom

Thus, through easily-understood sound bites like “Ahmadinejad = Hitler,” “A nuclear Iran means Auschwitz,” and “Better to cope with rockets than an atomic bomb,” Netanyahu intends to conquer public opinion, both local and global. But his words are inaccurate, to say the least. Iran, the state which threatens Israel’s existence, is struggling with a serious economic crisis and trying to solve a far more acute problem: the lack of chicken.

The chicken crisis tells the entire story. Iran, the would-be nuclear power, suffers deep social and economic problems. The development of nuclear weapons is indeed an existential need, but only for the Ayatollah regime, not for the Iranian people. The nuclear program is intended to defend the regime against its own people more than threaten other states, even Israel. But the bomb cannot bring the Iranians a supply of chicken – or bread, or even fuel at reasonable prices. The existential threat to the Iranian regime, like the threat to Assad’s regime, is the Iranian people themselves.

If so, why does Ahmadinejad repeatedly threaten Israel? Because it’s the fashionable thing to do. Because such threats enable him to compete for public opinion at home and throughout the Arab world, at the expense of his immediate enemies – Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Ahmadinejad is not the only one using Israel as a public relations tool. Attacking Israel is the bon ton, while expressing support for the Palestinians is a kind of insurance policy for these regimes. Israel, for its part, makes their work easy: the Occupation, the separation wall, the Gaza siege, the settlements, the targeted assassinations, the checkpoints – these are all excellent material for a ruler trying to avoid democracy and social justice.

How is Netanyahu different from Ahmadinejad? He uses the same tools: he too is trying to ensure his regime’s survival and is willing to adopt any means to do so. Bibi formed an extreme rightwing government so that he could avoid progress on the peace front; he is unwilling to deliver democracy and equality to the state’s Arab citizens; and he cannot and does not wish to bring social justice to his own people. Bibi prefers settlements to peace, and tycoons to the poor – and that’s why Iran is his preferred agenda. Iran is Bibi’s decoy, just as Israel is Ahmadinejad’s. The two leaders feed off each other and lead their people to ruin.

So can we calm down and sleep easy? The answer is no! We cannot count on Ahmadinejad – he will do anything to save his regime. Bibi and Barak, for their part, have proved that they too are willing to do anything to stay in power. The only way of assuring our existence is to get rid of Bibi in Tel Aviv and Ahmadinejad in Tehran. The social justice movements in Israel and Iran have a decisive role: to bring down these two leaders in the framework of the same demand: “Peace and social justice.” As we’ve said many times: Tel Aviv and Tehran – the same revolution!

The post Bibi and Ahmadinejad: Feeding off each other first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.