|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 19, 2009 / 27 Sivan 5769 Israel's rare opportunity By Caroline B. Glick
Why the Jewish State must assert itself in Iran's affairs
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Israel today finds itself in unfamiliar territory. The revolutionary
atmosphere building in Iran presents Israel with a prospect it has rarely
confronted: a safe bet. With the Obama administration refusing to back the
anti-regime protesters, and the European Union similarly hemming and hawing,
millions of Iranians who are on the streets, risking their lives to protest
a stolen election and a tyrannical regime have been cast adrift by those
they thought would support them. To date, Israel has joined the US and
Europe in rejecting the protesters. This should change.
In refusing to stick their necks out — and so effectively siding with the
mullahs against the pro-democracy activists in the streets — US President
Barack Obama like Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Mossad chief Meir Dagan
have all rightly pointed out the Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's former prime
minister and the titular head of the protest movement is just as radical and
extreme as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom he seeks to unseat.
Moreover, Western officials and analysts point out that Mousavi's primary
backers from within the regime — former presidents Muhammad Khatami and
Rafsanjani — are themselves anything but anti-regime revolutionaries. What
apparently motivates these men is the sense that through Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's heavy handed attacks against the revolution's "old
guard," the presidential incumbent has shunted them aside. They feel
slighted. And they are doubly humiliated by the fact that Ahmadinejad has
acted with the open support of Iran's real dictator — so-called "Supreme
Leader" Ali Khamenei. The likes of Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani don't
want to overthrow the regime whose aims they share. They just want to
restore their power within the regime.
It is these twin assessments of Mousavi and his backers that stand at the
center of Western leaders' decision to give a wide berth both to the
presidential race and the protests that have arisen in its aftermath.
For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with
those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel's primary
concern is Iran's foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons
program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason
for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end
Iran's race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like
Hizbullah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad's government is. As Iranian prime
minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran's nuclear
program and he oversaw the establishment of Hizbullah and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad.
Beyond that, there is the fact that Israel — like the US — is the regime's
bogeyman. If Israel is identified with the protesters, the likes of Khamenei
will use this connection to justify their brutal repression.
Finally, there is the distinct possibility, indeed the likelihood that these
protests will go nowhere. They will be brutally repressed or fizzle out of
their own accord. So would Israel gain by sticking its neck out?
While reasonable on their face, these arguments for doing nothing all ignore
the significance of recent developments. Consequently they fail to grasp the
new opportunities that have arisen — opportunities which left untouched will
likely disappear in short order.
The fact of the matter is that with each passing day, Mousavi's personal
views and interests are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Whether he
realized it or not, Mousavi was transformed last Friday night. When Khamenei
embraced the obviously falsified official election results as a "divine
victory" for Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was widely expected by Western observers
to accept the dictator's verdict. When instead Mousavi sided with his own
supporters who took to the streets to oppose their disenfranchisement,
Mousavi became a revolutionary. Whether he had planned to do so or not, a
week ago Mousavi became an enemy of the regime.
The significance of Mousavi's decision could not be more profound. As
Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote, last Friday night Mousavi tied his
personal survival to the success of the protesters — and pitted his life
against Khamenei's. In Ledeen's words, "Both Khamenei and Mousavi — the two
opposed icons of the moment, at least — know that they will either win or
die."
For their part, by the end of this week, the protesters themselves had been
transformed. If last week they were simply angry that they had been ignored,
by Thursday they had become a revolutionary force apparently dedicated to
the overthrow of the regime. This was made clear by a list of demands
circulating among the protesters on Wednesday. As Pepe Escobar reported in
Thursday's Asia Times, the protesters demands include Khamenei's removal
from power, the dissolution of the secret police, the reform of the
constitution under anti-regime Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri who has been
living under house arrest for the past twelve years, and the installation of
Mousavi as president. These demands make clear where the protesters are
leading. They are leading to the overthrow of one of the most heinous
regimes on the face of the earth and its replacement by a liberal democracy.
As far as Israel is concerned, this is a win-win situation. If the
protesters successfully overthrow the regime, they will have neutralized the
greatest security threat facing the Jewish state. And if they fail, Israel
will still probably be better off than it is today. For if the mullahs
violently repress the pro-democracy dissidents, the Obama administration
will be hard-pressed to legitimize their blood bath by embracing them as
negotiating partners.
Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support
for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of
ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so
would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are
dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian
protesters risking their lives for freedom.
Moreover, by acting as the loudest and first democratic champion of the
protesters, Israel would catapult itself to the forefront of the campaign
for democracy in the Muslim world. Doing so would make it far easier for
Israel's representatives throughout the world to defend against false
accusations by self-described human rights organizations that Israel is a
human rights abuser.
Beyond that, Israel would be building an important alliance with the Iranian
people themselves. Contrary to what the mullahs would have us believe,
Iranians by and large do not share the widespread hatred of Israel and the
Jews that their regime promotes and the Arab world embraces. Over the years,
Iranian regime opponents — from the students to the trade unionists to
women's rights activists to minority Kurds, Azeris, Ahwaz Arabs and Baluchis
— have all appealed to Israel for support. Israel Radio in Farsi, which
broadcasts into Iran daily, has more than a million regular listeners.
Were Netanyahu to explain that the same mullahs who seek to disenfranchise
and repress the Iranian people seek to destroy Israel with nuclear bombs;
were he to call for Iran to stop financing Hamas and Hizbullah terrorists
who are reportedly now deployed in Iran to brutalize the protesters, and
instead invest in the Iranian economy for the benefit of Iran's people, he
would be giving a message that already resonates with the people of Iran.
Finally, Israeli outreach to the Iranian people now struggling to overthrow
the regime would expose the Obama administration's effective support for the
mullahs against their people in all its absurdity and moral blindness.
What's more, the administration would be unable to launch a counterattack.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama would be in no position to
attack Israel for supporting Iranian dissidents demanding freedom. And their
stammering reaction would make their attacks against Jewish building in
Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria look ever more ridiculous.
Although Israel is far away from Iran, it has significant capacity to help
the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break
through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its
internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed
networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the
country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground
in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know
what is happening or where things are leading.
Again, it is more than possible that Khamenei will move to crush the
dissidents or successfully buy enough of them off to subvert them. But in
the meantime, Israel has a clear interest in keeping the Iranian cauldron
boiling. The mullahs can only concentrate on so much at once. If they are
preoccupied with domestic dissent, they will have less time to devote to
Hamas and Hizbullah. If they are busy quelling armed insurrections by Kurds
or Azeris or Baluchis, they will have less time to devote to negotiating the
purchase of the S-300 anti-aircraft system with Russia, or keeping tabs on
their nuclear scientists. Strategically, Israel stands only to gain — either
marginally or massively - from the ayatollahs' discomfort.
In an interview this week with National Review Online, Iranian expatriate
Amir Taheri explained that Iran suffers from a divided psyche. On the one
hand, the mullahs view Iran as a revolutionary vanguard of Islam. They do
not see Iran as a nation-state. For them, the normal things that make up a
life — economic stability, public safety and the hope that one's children
will do better — are of little use as they march forward under the flag of
jihad. Israel and the US are necessary enemies.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Iran's people wish to live in a
normal and free nation-state. For them, the revolution means nothing but
privation, suffering, repression and death. They do not hate America and
they do not hate Israel. They do not seek nuclear weapons and they do not
support the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah.
As Taheri put it, "When we consider Iran as a nation-state, we see Israel as
its natural ally. The reason is that Israel, like Iran, is opposed to an
exclusively Arab Middle East. Both want a pluralist Middle East in which
there is room for diversity; a Middle East where one finds Iranians, Turks,
Kurds, Christians, and Jews, as well as Arabs."
If Israel extends a hand in friendship to these Iranian patriots, the worst
that can happen is that they fail to overthrow the mullahs and we are left
to acknowledge that we wished them well. There is no shame in that.
Indeed, if they fail to overthrow the regime, and Israel is compelled to
attack their country's nuclear installations, it is hard to imagine that
they will take it personally. Rather, recalling that it was Israel that
stood with them first, they would no doubt understand why we were forced to
act, and perhaps be inspired to try again to free themselves from the
shackles of their hideous regime.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
