Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Are Iran’s Ayatollahs amenable to peaceful-coexistence?

                                                                                                                                                                     (More on Iran)

Historical milestones

Historical milestones shape the ethos, vision and policy-making of ethnic, religious and national entities.

For example, the ethos, vision and policy-making of the Jewish State has been largely shaped by the centrality of the Land of Israel since Abraham the Patriarch (2150 BCE), through Moses and the Biblical Exodus (1300 BCE), the kingdom of David (1000 BCE), the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BCE and 70 CE) and the ensuing exiles, the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid (167-160 BCE) and Roman (66-73 CE and 132-136 CE) Empires, modern day Zionism, the Holocaust and the 1948/49 War of Independence.  There is a 4,000-year-old attachment to the land of Israel, physically, spiritually, historically, religiously, culturally, linguistically and nationally.

Muslim entities consider the 7th century emergence of Islam as a pivotal component of their contemporary school curriculum, culture, worldview, vision and policy-making.

Historical milestones shaping the Ayatollahs’ vision and policy-making

*The ferocious 14-century-old rivalry between the Sunni majority and Shiite minority over the succession of the Prophet Muhammad;

*The 680 CE killing of Hussein ibn-Ali, the Shiite grandson of Muhammad in the Battle of Karbala by a much stronger army of the Caliph Yazid. The Battle of Karbala was the “big bang” of the Sunni-Shiite schism;

*The annual commemoration of Hussein’s martyrdom and betrayal through public processions on the Day of Ashura, which includes beating one’s chest and bloody self-flagellating;

*The dominance of Shiite dynasties during the 10th-11th centuries in parts of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia, Sicily, and the Caspian area.

*The 1501 declaration of Shiism as the official religion of Iran, highlighting the Battle of Karbala and revenge for the killing of Hussein as the core of the Iranian Shiite identity.

*The 1979 Islamic Shiite Revolution in Iran, which highlighted Karbala as the role model of a universal rebellion and martyrdom as demonstrated by the dispatching of Iranian children to clear minefields during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, with a key-to-paradise around their necks.  The Islamic Revolution also underscored violent pro-activism against tyrannical Moslem regimes (e.g., the Shah), “apostates” (Sunni Muslims, especially Saudi Arabia) and “non-believers” (the West led by the USA, including Christians, Buddhists and Jews).

*Adhering to the legacy of Hussein ibn-Ali and the Battle of Karbala, Iran’s Ayatollahs are convinced – religiously and historically – that sacrificing one’s life and fortunes on the altar of a supreme value will yield a divine prize.  They are emboldened by Western indecisiveness, appeasement and reluctance to activate the options of a military action and regime-change. The inclusion of these two options in the negotiation process – as a club over the head of the rogue Ayatollahs – is critical for inducing the Ayatollahs to approach diplomacy in a serious manner.

Historical milestones transformed into rogue conduct

The aforementioned historical milestones feature prominently in Iran’s educational system and mosque sermons – which serve as a most effective production line of Islamic terrorists – and the suppression and discrimination of all religious and ethnic minorities in Iran, as well as the brutal abuse of women’s rights.

These historical milestones have shaped the role of Iran’s Ayatollahs as the world’s leading epicenter of anti-US subversion and terrorism, attempts to topple every pro-US Arab regime (e.g., Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain), the proliferation of ballistic missile and predator unmanned-aerial-vehicle technologies and systems, drug trafficking, money laundering and fueling civil wars (e.g., Morocco, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon) from the Persian Gulf, the entire Middle East through central and south Asia, Africa and Latin America, including the US-Mexico border.  Iran’s Ayatollahs consider Latin America to be the soft underbelly of the US.

The worldview and the systematic rogue conduct of Iran’s Ayatollahs– since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – have not been driven by despair or frustration (supposedly, due to sanctions, boycott and non-recognition of their regional and global prominence).

In fact, the worldview and the rogue conduct of Iran’s Ayatollahs have been consistent with their 1,400-year-old vision:

*The global exportation of the Shiite Islamic Revolution, while toppling all “apostate” and “heretic” Sunni Muslim regimes, and establishing a universal Shiite society, ruled by the Supreme Shiite Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei).

*Bringing the “infidel” West – and especially “The Great American Satan” – to submission, diplomatically or militarily.

As illustrated by the Ayatollahs’ violently rogue reaction to the US’ initial support of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the overly generous US diplomatic and financial gestures – which accompanied the 2015 nuclear accord (JCPOA) – the vision and conduct of Iran’s Ayatollahs are a 180-degree-contradiction to moderation, peaceful coexistence and good-faith negotiation.

Support Appreciated




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb