Mr. Sasan Sam Shoamanesh is an international lawyer and has worked for several international legal institutions including the UN-International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and briefly on secondment at the UN-International Court of Justice. He is trained in general and diplomatic negotiations by, inter alia, the United Nations (Vienna), and the Harvard Program on Negotiation of Harvard Law School respectively.
The views expressed herein are those of the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of his current or previous employers specifically or in general.
Curiously, it was not long ago that Iran and Israel were strategic allies in the Middle East. At its inception, Israel, as a virtual island-state in a sea of ill-wishers, looked to Iran as an important ally. This alliance is part of the historical record. In fact, the two countries enjoyed close ties up to 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran was instituted. Paradoxically, it was during the same period — pre-Revolution— that Iran first acquired nuclear technology with the blessing and consent of the United States without any controversy. Henry Kissinger himself, under President Gerald Ford, approved of the deal. Interestingly, at a time when Iran was being offered to buy US-made reprocessing facilities capable of delivering a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle', Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were serving as White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense respectively.
On Iranian attitudes towards Jewish people, an objective assessment of the historical record speaks for itself. Iranians over millennia and with few exceptions have been friends and allies of the Jewish people. As the Book of Ezra informs us, it was none other than an Iranian emperor - Cyrus the Great - who championed the struggle of the Jewish people, freed them, and facilitated their return to the Promised Land. Countless examples of Iranian contributions to Jewish history or amicable partnerships are imprinted in the annals of time: i.e. the Second Temple’s construction was financed by the Iranian treasury, the Babylonian Talmud was finally written under Iranian rule, and Jews fought victoriously as brothers-in-arms with Persian-Parthian soldiers against invading Romans. More importantly, in more recent history, during World War II, the Iranian government of a predominantly Shia’ Muslim country saved the lives of the 150,000 Iranian-Jews by convincing Nazi ‘race experts’ that they were fully assimilated and Iranian diplomats throughout Europe readily issued visas to European-Jews, facilitating their escape from the Nazi killing machine. Iran today houses the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. The Iranian Jewish community benefits from constitutional protection and is allocated a seat in Parliament. There is little interference with Jewish religious practice, yet the legal system does discriminate against religious minorities -- this is an ‘institutional’ issue to be differentiated from the discourse of the Iranian people. The average Iranian, irrespective of religion, is also a victim of the limitations of Iran’s legal system.
Against this background, however, how can we reconcile President Ahmadinejad’s outlandish comments concerning wiping Israel off the face of the map or his questioning of Holocaust while Iran remains steadfast in seeking nuclear technology? First, his personal stance does not resonate with the Iranian masses – in particular, when Iran’s presidential elections suffer from democratic deficits –, and contested within the regime itself. More importantly, this is all political rhetoric—its wisdom, of course, can be debated at length. (Although failing to attract much publicity, M. Ahmadinejad himself has on numerous occasions publicly stated he is a friend of the Jewish people).
For a regime increasingly isolated both domestically and internationally, and situated in the turbulent geopolitical reality of the Middle East, their ‘rationale’ is as follows: such rhetoric will galvanize the region and indeed the Muslim world and beyond behind the Iranian government as a leader to be hailed as the only significant voice in defence of the unfortunate Palestinian people. The Israeli-Palestinian tragedy is the Achilles heel of the region--a fact well known to the Iranian government, which has attempted to make this tragic conflict work to its advantage to feed its perceived national interests and aspirations for regional influence.
Notwithstanding, in this volatile political climate where tensions are high, to paint a fallacious image of Iranian attitudes towards the Jews or place an exaggerated emphasis on M. Ahmadinejad’s comments is unfortunate. The fact is that despite its flaws, and all states have their share, Iran is not a ‘failed state’ in the strict sense of the term and the Iranian government, whether one agrees or disagrees with its political ideology, is relatively speaking, a rational and calibrated state actor. The Mullahs of Iran, even amongst the hardliners, are by no means suicidal, and place great value on their unyielding grip on power. They know very well any aggression towards Israel will have serious consequences for longevity of the Islamic Republic and hence their monopolistic rule.
The Astute Response
The international community has been grappling with Iran’s nuclear program for some time, yet no clear solution has emerged. For those advocating a military response, Iranians, high strategists in their own rights, have made matters rather complex. Taking lessons from the 1981 destruction of Osirak in Iraq by the Israeli air-force, Iranian authorities have spread their facilities throughout the country, deep into the ground. A sweeping hit-and-run military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is, therefore, not likely to be a feasible military option, not to mention radioactive dispersal and regional environment contamination concerns.
We equally know that Iran is no Iraq: it occupies a much larger territory (four times the land mass) and triple Iraq’s population. Long on military tradition and stories of heroism in war, Iran is a formidable force. From antiquity, when the Romans suffered crushing defeats at the hands of the Persians to recent history, where an isolated Iran single handedly fought off Iraq in an eight-year bloody war (1980-1988), despite worldwide financial and military support enjoyed by the latter, Iran has always bravely fought any threat to its territorial integrity. The Iranian nuclear question is unquestionably a complex conundrum that allows for no easy answers. What is certain is that the military option will have an unpredictable outcome at best, but at worst, will plunge the region and beyond into disastrous and costly convulsions. Military aggression could generate the following consequences:
Attacking Iran in the current international political context is unlikely to lead to an uprising for regime change. The vast majority of Iranians, irrespective of their views vis-à-vis the government, see the nuclear program from a nationalist lens as their inherent sovereign right, and perceive any outside interference simply as ‘bullying.’ With this dynamic on the ground, military confrontation premised on the need to halt the country’s nuclear program will only trigger Iranian nationalistic sentiments, galvanizing the masses behind the regime.
