Israel keeps quiet on Iran’s elections
For a country which almost regards Iran as its main enemy, the virtually subdued reaction to its presidential elections by Israeli officials has been rather surprising. For nearly two decades, Iran is perceived by Israel as its main strategic threat, and is repeatedly portrayed as an existential threat to the Jewish state. Prime Minister Netanyahu led the campaign against the nuclear agreement with Iran calling it “a stunning historic mistake.” Iran’s support of Islamist militant movements such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Palestinian Hamas, let alone its involvement in Syria close to Israel’s border, has been a source of grave concern for the Israeli government. Hence, it could have been expected that elections for the second most important political post in Iran would have triggered more Israeli interest.
A distinction has to be made between a lack of interest and an absence of running commentary from Israeli officials. Dr. Raz Zimmt, an Iran expert at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, summed this up by asserting that the “Israeli government doesn’t see any difference between either candidates.” However, he argues that Ebrahim Raisi could certainly serve Bibi’s agenda better. Electing a president who represents the most conservative faction in the Iranian Islamic Republic, and who was directly involved in the 1988 mass executions of political opponents, would fit perfectly with Israel’s wishes to keep the pressure on Iran and re-impose sanctions. The potential headline of “An executioner elected as President,” as Dr. Zimmt puts it, would have suited the Israeli agenda best.
It was left to the former Israeli General and current Construction Minister Yoav Galent to express on Facebook, what is probably the prevailing view within the Israeli government, that the elections in Iran were one big deception. Rouhani, according to him, is deceitfully posed as “moderate.” Nevertheless, he is no more than the executor of the Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s bloody and murderous policies in the region, according to Galant. This reiterates what the Israeli government has contended for a long while that Iran’s interest in the destruction of Israel is the source of terrorism in the region, as it supplies the weapons and knowhow to terrorist groups. In other words, whoever is filling the Iranian presidential role matters very little to Israel as the hostile attitude toward it and the danger to the region remain intact.
It can be argued that Israel’s lack of reaction to the Iranian elections was the result of senior officials being absorbed with preparations for the first visit of US President Donald Trump to Israel this week. His remarks about the peace deal and the need to curb Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank have made Netanyahu and his government quite nervous in the weeks and days leading up to the presidential visit. This may, however, provide only a partial explanation. After all, at least behind closed doors they must have had a preference as to whether Israeli interests are better served by the more pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani, or the rigid and dogmatic Raisi. The latter, had he won, would have thrown Iran straight back into international isolation.
Tel Aviv’s lack of reaction to the Iranian polls was the result of senior officials being absorbed with preparations for the first visit of US President Donald Trump to Israel this week.
Yossi Mekelberg
There must also be a sense in Israel that in relation to Iran, its work is done by others. President Trump’s strong words during his visit to Saudi Arabia this week, criticizing Iran for its role in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen in funding “…arms and train [ing] terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region,” enabled Israel to take a back seat. During the Obama administration, the Israeli fear was that it was just a matter of time until the Iran nuclear deal would become a path toward the complete international rehabilitation of Iran, which would enable it to push for dominance in the region. Trump on the other hand went as far as unequivocally blaming Iran for decades of fueling sectarian conflict and terror, and “speaking openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many [regional] leaders…” This was a meeting of minds with King Salman, who reaffirmed his commitment, “to stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism wherever they are ... The Iranian regime represents the tip of the spear of global terrorism.”
Israel deduces that regardless of the outcome of the presidential elections in Iran, the regime in Tehran in its continuous support of Bashar Assad in Syria, involvement in Yemen, the support of militants around the region, and its anti-Israel rhetoric is on a collision course within the region and with the international community. In Syria, Iran is not as free anymore to operate due to the Russian presence. While the combination of the new occupant in the White House and commonality of interests within the Sunni world, especially between Saudi, the other Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan, leads to a coalition of countries who are bent on containing Iran.
• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media.
