Israeli expert on Iran: Claim
of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation
Q&A with Prof. Haggai Ram, head
of Middle East Studies Department at Ben-Gurion
University.
1.
Q. You
have researched Israeli-Iranian relations for nearly 30 years. When did the
“Iranian threat” become part of the Israeli discourse?
2.
Ram: It started in the ‘90s. The first prime
minister who exaggerated Iran’s capabilities was actually Yitzhak Rabin. As the
Oslo Accords coalesced, the Rabin government began marking Iran as threat No. 1
on Western civilization and its outpost in the Middle East, Israel. Oslo
followed years of pumping us with “you can’t make peace with Arabs.” Suddenly
it turned out to be possible. I don’t know if it was done conscientiously, but
they needed to find something else, and Iran was very ripe for Israeli leaders.
Basically, since 1996 they have warned us that in a year, Iran will have a
nuclear weapon.
3.
Let’s
assume they are on the way. Are they intending to use nuclear capabilities to
destroy Israel?
4.
In my opinion, the answer is a sweeping and
unequivocal no. Most historians of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979
point out that Iranian policy is not dictated by messianic or religious considerations
but rather pragmatic ones based on state interests.
5.
Is Israel
at all in Iranian consciousness? We believe that we keep them very busy, of
course, but is this true?
6.
The generation living today in Iran didn’t know
Khomeini and didn’t live through the Iranian revolution. It is sated with
conflicts and slogans. They had a bloody war with Iraq that, not through any
fault of their own, left behind a scorched earth in everything tied to society
and economy. What the young generation and the middle class really care about
is the economic situation, their future and taking care of Iran’s burning
problems, which don’t have a thing to do with Israel.
7.
Listen,
with all due respect, they are not our friends. They support Hamas and
Hezbollah. Now they are stirring revolution in Yemen. It’s no Switzerland.
8.
Clearly. Iran does not feature among the Zionist
supporters. But there is a huge distance between this and the way we built this
straw man. We should not overstate Iran’s involvement with the Shi’ites in
Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Those who are determined to put a heavy Iranian
shadow over these places are doing so mainly for political reasons. Iran’s
involvement in Yemen is immeasurably complex. The Iranians deny involvement,
but it is clear Tehran is assisting the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Lebanon,
Iraq and now Yemen derives from utilitarian considerations. I see it as part of
an effort to restore the Islamic Republic’s status as a regional power to be
respected. It is certainly not tied to a revolutionary Shi’ite passion, or
imperial ambition and certainly not to any desire, which is mainly imaginary,
to destroy Israel.
9.
In your
view, where is the mistake?
10.
It is in the ethnocentric approach that somehow
everything is tied to us, which confuses and distracts from the main principle.
To say Iran poses an existential threat to Israel is wrong, if not a deception.
Israel has bigger and more dangerous enemies. Pakistani nukes, for example,
worry me personally much more than Iranian nukes. Pakistan is an unstable
country. It is fertile ground for the growth of Islamic radicals. And if its
nukes all in these hands it will be bad and bitter. Iran serves as a fig leaf
to the real danger to Israel’s fate – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even
Ehud Barak told Haaretz in an interview when he was defense minister under
Netanyahu that he encouraged him to keep negotiating with the Palestinians –
not for the sake of negotiations themselves but rather that in the end, if
Israel decided to attack Iran, the pressure and criticism against Israel would
be reduced because Israel would be seen as seeking peace. The whole Iranian
issue, be it with Ariel Sharon, Barak or Benjamin Netanyahu, is meant in the
end to distract attention from Israel’s central problem – the occupation and
the defense budget.
11.
Did you see Netanyahu’s speech in Congress?
12.
It was totally clear that the speech was spin.
Anyone who knows Netanyahu says he is terribly complicated and very clever, and
that he examines things at depth. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but he
looked like a very uncomplicated man, let’s put it that way. As someone who is
an expert in Iran, it strikes me as ridiculous. Netanyahu makes a complete analogy
between the Palestinians, ISIS, Iran and Al-Qaida. So, either he is an
ignoramus who doesn’t recognize the political and historical reality as it is,
and doesn’t understand the different political and historic phenomena that are
changing, or he is a cynical ruler who is exploiting these things for his
goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment