Iran and Israel: Decades of 'Ideological Hostility'

Iran and Israel are two long-standing regional rivals. They have repeatedly threatened each other and warned not to test each other's patience and tolerance. In this week's program, we examine the enmity between Iran and Israel, its roots, and pose the question of why this hostility has continued and intensified. We are joined by Mansour Farhang, a former Iranian diplomat and representative to the UN, and Meir Javadanfar, a lecturer at Herzliya University in Tel Aviv and analyst of Israeli issues. Mr. Farhang, let's start with you. Do you believe that the enmity between Iran and Israel fundamentally stems from the existence of the Islamic Republic? This confrontation between Iran and Israel has its own unique identity, which I do not see a precedent for in the Middle East. This confrontation has no connection to the national interests of the two countries or the desires of public opinion. Secondly, if we look back fifteen to twenty years, Israel and Iran were the only Middle Eastern countries that supported the overthrow of Saddam and celebrated it, with Iran celebrating it even more than Israel. Both countries preferred the defeat of ISIS, believing that if the alternative to Bashar al-Assad was only ISIS, it should remain. Therefore, the only motivation we can consider regarding Iran is an ideological and instrumental one; it uses its confrontation with Israel to garner support from Arab masses. After all, there is a sentiment of support for the Palestinians among the Arab masses, while governments for various reasons do not prioritize the Palestinian issue. Iran, with its extensive propaganda, questions the existence or legitimacy of Israel and opposes any kind of peace dialogue or negotiations to resolve the Palestinian issue. The bitter irony of history or fate here is that the right-wingers in Israel, especially Netanyahu, use this Iranian propaganda to portray Iran as the greatest threat to the Middle East, and as much as possible, the right-wingers—not peace advocates or defenders of Palestinian rights—who, intellectually or academically, have no shortage in Israel. However, this confrontation continues in such a way that, despite the wishes of both sides, it has escalated into military conflict, which could truly be a disaster not only for both countries but for the region as well. Such a confrontation, which could be catastrophic, has motivations that have no connection to the interests of the two countries, which is unprecedented in the Middle East for me. Mr. Javadanfar, please also respond to this question. Where do you see the roots of the conflict and enmity between Iran and Israel? Mr. Farhang pointed out that this confrontation has no connection to national interests and public opinion. How much do you agree with this? It depends on where our starting point is. From my perspective, if I were to generalize, the problems that currently exist, this war that is now between Iran and Israel, is a war imposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Israel. I disagree with Mr. Netanyahu's policies. I disagree that Mr. Netanyahu asked and supported Mr. Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA. However, in my view, the problems we have started from the ideology of the Islamic Republic, especially after 1982, when we saw that contrary to America's wishes, even when American hostages were in Iran, Israel sold weapons to Iran, and this continued until 1987. In return, what Israel received, which led to the end of arms sales in 1987, was that the Islamic Republic continued its enmity, and we now see that this led to the nuclear program and other issues. Yes, Mr. Netanyahu also made mistakes, but I must tell you that several times at the leadership level in Israel, it was decided that relations with Iran should be improved. Even Ariel Sharon had problems with Reagan because he supported arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. But we saw that it reached a point where the Islamic Republic has never been willing to reduce tensions with Israel at the leadership level. We also saw that despite the JCPOA being supposed to be a step forward to reduce tensions, after the JCPOA was signed—let me point out that Mr. Obama wrote several letters to Mr. Khamenei during his presidency—what did we see after the JCPOA was signed? They went and wrote on missiles that Israel must be erased from the map of existence, firstly, they wrote this in Hebrew, and secondly, they opened a Holocaust cartoon exhibition, and it seems that the Islamic Republic truly enjoys mocking the deaths of six million people in World War II. At such things, firstly, the enmity of the Israeli people towards the Iranian government increases, and secondly, it helps those who want to exploit this issue. In my opinion, Israel also made mistakes, but Mr. Netanyahu himself, in 1996, the first time he was elected Prime Minister, sent a message to Iran. I have an article on this. Mr. Ariel Sharon wanted to improve relations, but it was the Islamic Republic that did not want to. You see, what caused Mr. Clinton to impose sanctions against Iran and Iraq was that the peace process between Israel and Palestine was a very important issue for Mr. Clinton. It had a special priority for him. But he witnessed that while the late Mr. Rabin was making peace with the Palestinians and Mr. Arafat, Mr. Khamenei invited Hamas leaders to Tehran, increased support for Hamas before and after Oslo, and at the same time, we saw that when Israel was returning occupied territories, which it had to return, the number of those killed in Israel from Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombs was increasing, and the peace process failed. Therefore, for Mr. Clinton, it was an issue that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not only an enemy of the existence of Israel but also an enemy of peace between Israel and Palestine and an enemy of Israeli interests. Mr. Farhang, Mr. Javadanfar pointed out that Iran does not agree with peace between Israel and Palestine and is an enemy of peace. How much do you agree with this? All of Mr. Javadanfar's statements are correct. However, what must be added to these statements in order to understand the roots of the current issue is that in relation to the Palestinian issue, Israeli society has a fundamental divide. There is a part of Israeli society, especially in the occupied territories, that is fundamentally opposed to the issue of Palestinian rights or national rights of Palestinians and is generally opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in any form; but there is another part of Israeli society that wants to establish justice and fairness, and Yitzhak Rabin was exactly representative of this part of Israel. Who killed Yitzhak Rabin? An Israeli criminal who was 100% opposed to peace. This group that has now become strong in Israel, and Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, are using all the correct statements that Mr. Javadanfar made about Iran. They are using them to exaggerate the threat of Iran, saying that currently our issue is not Palestine and addressing Palestinian rights [and this] should not be a priority for Israel because they are fundamentally opposed to it. Therefore, what I say is that the right-wingers in Israel and the quasi-fascist regime in Iran are enemies who currently need each other tactically and constantly quote each other. That is why I say that it is absolutely in the interest of both Israel and Iran and the people of both countries to have peace. I explained, I have also written articles about this, that Iran is fundamentally opposed to peace because it questions the existence of Israel. If it refers to the Palestinian issue, it is only a propaganda use. [Iran] uses this [Palestinian issue] for two purposes: one is that it wants to turn the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians into a conflict between Israel and Islam, and the other is that in its propaganda against Israel or in its propaganda aimed at attracting support from Arab masses, it does not refer at all to Shiism or Shiite identity. There, Islam is mentioned. Islam against Israel. Because Arab governments for various reasons, as I mentioned, currently Egypt, which has peace with Israel, Jordan, which has peace, Saudi Arabia, which cooperates, the Gulf Arab countries, and Saudi Arabia see Iran as a threat to themselves. It is very interesting that, for example, Bahrain has supported Israel against Iran in this military confrontation among Arab countries. These things are true, but we must also say that the Israeli right-wingers exploit this anti-Israeli behavior and, in my opinion, quasi-fascist behavior of Iran for internal elections and to fight and criticize peace advocates in Israel. This has also become part of the bitter reality of history, as Mr. Javadanfar said, depending on both sides where they start. Israel has never wanted this from the beginning. During the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeini knew he was buying weapons from Israel. When the commander of the Iranian Air Force, a few months after the war began, told Khomeini that the spare parts for the helicopter we are buying are coming from Israel, Khomeini asked him if they were Israeli sellers. He said no, they are Portuguese and Italian sellers. Khomeini said we have no religious or legal obligation to say where this product comes from. This means they were aware of this coordination with Saddam. But Israel did not want this. Without a doubt, the primary culprit was the Islamic Republic. But when the Islamic Republic started its propaganda, it was able to benefit the right-wingers in Israel. So currently both sides are responsible, but not in the sense that both sides wanted this confrontation in a specific way. Mr. Javadanfar, Mr. Farhang pointed out that the right-wingers in Israel exaggerate the threat of Iran. How significant is the threat of Iran to Israel? Does Iran pose a military threat to Israel? I agree with his analysis of Israel's sense of danger regarding Iran and that it feels threatened and what its roots are, I agree with one of his views and disagree with another. You see, that Mr. Netanyahu exaggerated and distorted the Iranian nuclear issue and wanted to exploit it, there is no doubt about that. I completely agree with Dr. Farhang. You saw how many politicians and former heads of Mossad came and said ... it was simply unbelievable. For someone like me who grew up in Iran, to see how a leader elected by a country was being criticized in Israel, and in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu's view that yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran can destroy Israel or that it wants to commit suicide with its nuclear bomb and destroy Israel, how much this view was distorted. Some mocked how you can say such a thing when we are a superpower in the region and, according to the Washington Post, we have nuclear bombs. The Islamic Republic is willing to commit suicide for the Palestinians? The issue that Mr. Farhang mentioned that Mr. Netanyahu wants to exploit regarding the nuclear program, I completely agree with. Netanyahu used it for his electoral platform and we saw that once the JCPOA was signed, four cases were opened against Mr. Netanyahu and the focus shifted to other areas. Mr. Netanyahu was very affected when the JCPOA was signed because the main issue he was maneuvering on was taken from him. However, what I disagree with is the danger of Syria, the danger of the presence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Revolutionary Guards in Syria. Now, the fact that Iran has so many problems, has drought issues, and Iran's map will change in ten years due to this issue, why have these gentlemen gone and concentrated in Syria and are creating enemies in Syria? I want my dear compatriots and your dear audience in Iran to answer this question. But from Israel, I can tell you that regarding the opposition to the presence of the Islamic Republic forces in Syria, there is a consensus among right-wing and left-wing groups; between groups that say we must withdraw from all occupied territories, we must separate religion from politics, and we must make peace with the Palestinians and groups that say all these occupied territories belong to Israel and not to the Palestinians. In Israel, there is a valid and suspicious sense of danger that they do not want the Islamic Republic to use this region to threaten Israel. Why? Because we know what Mr. Khamenei himself has said, and then the forces that Iran has... you see, no one expects all these forces to leave. It is unrealistic and ridiculous. The issue is that when you see the number of Iranian and Iran-affiliated forces in Syria alongside the weapons they have and their proximity to the Israeli border, this becomes a danger that no one in Israel is willing to accept.