Iran Daily
By Hossein Mousavian
President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, like previous Iranian administrations, will strive to improve and develop relations with neighboring countries, the Muslim world, the Global South, and the powers of the Eastern bloc, particularly China, Russia, and India, and will achieve certain successes. However, as in the past, unilateral sanctions from the US will continue to pose significant obstacles for the new government in establishing extensive, safe, and transparent economic relations.
In the 45 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, tensions and hostilities between the US and Iran have been the primary dilemma of Iranian foreign policy, a challenge that the new government will also confront.
The regional situation, especially following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, indicates that two significant challenges—the US and Israel—and the risk of a regional war at the onset of the current government are more severe than during previous administrations over the past four decades.
Tehran and Washington averted the likelihood of a vast military confrontation in 2020 when Trump’s administration assassinated Iran’s Major General Soleimani on Iraqi soil. However, the US move was countered by Iran’s missile attack on a US military base in Iraq. The critical point was that neither the Trump administration nor Iran was inclined to persist in military conflict.
Yet, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran is distinct for three reasons;
first, it constitutes a violation of Iran’s national sovereignty. Second, it reflects a setback for Iranian security apparatus, which failed to protect its guest, one of the most important leaders of resistance in the Islamic world. The perpetrators of this assassination are Israel, which effectively orchestrated this act to incite Iran and the US into a regional conflict.
Iran has asserted that it will certainly retaliate; however, whether we desire it or not, the nature of Iran’s response will delineate the extent of American intervention. Both Iran and the US do not seek warfare; nevertheless, for Netanyahu, it is a matter of “political life and death.” Despite Netanyahu’s success in devastating Gaza, resulting in approximately 40,000 fatalities, displacing two million individuals, and assassinating many key leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, he has failed to conclude the Gaza war and secure the release of prisoners.
He faces unprecedented domestic and global opposition, with millions protesting against him in the US and the Western countries, transforming the global perception of Israel from “the victim of the Holocaust” to “the perpetrator of a new Holocaust.” Simultaneously, he grapples with substantial legal challenges within Israel. As such, Netanyahu perceives a regional conflict as his sole avenue for salvation, anticipating that it will mobilize the unconditional support of the United States and the Western world for Israel.
Three strategic decisions in history of the Islamic Republic
In my view, the most consequential strategic decisions of the Islamic Republic following the 1979 Revolution can be categorized into three pivotal moments.
First, the acceptance of Resolution 598 on August 8, 1988, which liberated both Iran and Iraq from the ravages of a devastating war.
Second, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which extricated Iran from Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, removing its designation as a nation posing a threat to global peace and security, and terminating six United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Third, the present moment that we are at a juncture for the third strategic decision.
Tehran faces one of its most intricate predicaments, needing to make decisions based on the following eight key factors. The assassination of Haniyeh is a matter of global Islamic concern, condemned by not only Iran and Palestine but also the entirety of the Muslim world, who call for punishment of those responsible. Therefore, Iran must consider the broader implication of its response within the Muslim world.
The response needs to be sufficiently decisive, substantial, and strong to be an appropriate reaction to the assassination of Haniyeh and numerous other Iranian military commanders and leaders from Hezbollah and Hamas who have been targeted by Israel over the last three months.
The deterrent power of the response must be high enough to dissuade Israel from continuing such assassinations and prevent any erosion of Iran’s national sovereignty.
Simultaneously, the action should not lead to the primary goal of Netanyahu, which is military confrontation between the US and Iran.
Iran’s action must not result in a large-scale regional military conflict, where one side consists of NATO and Israel, and the other includes Iran and the resistance front in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. In such a scenario, neither Russia nor China and US-aligned Arab nations would become involved, leading to losses for both sides and further instability in the region.
Moreover, Iran’s actions must not cripple Pezeshkian’s government. He is expected to introduce his cabinet to Parliament in the coming days. It is evident that a war would hinder the success of a new cabinet whose primary mission and priority is improving Iran’s economic situation and foreign relations.
With the victory of Pezeshkian, there is a renewed hope for improving the economic situation and enhancing Iran’s foreign relations. Naturally, Netanyahu’s intention behind the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran was to eliminate that opportunity entirely.
Iran’s actions should not affect the electoral dynamics in the US over the next two to three months. It is clear that Netanyahu has a unique and special relationship with Trump, which is why he was able to persuade him to withdraw from the JCPOA, designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and recognize the occupied al-Quds as Israel’s capital.
It is also no secret that the most severe friction between Obama and Netanyahu occurred over the JCPOA, and even around 100 Democratic members of Congress boycotted Netanyahu’s recent speech before the Capitol. One of Netanyahu’s goals in assassinating Haniyeh in Tehran is to create a new crisis in the Middle East that could shift the electoral landscape in favor of Trump.
Therefore, Iran’s actions should not have an impact on the internal political dynamics of the US.
Lastly, Iran’s actions should not change the negative global opinion against Israel or the current international isolation of Israel, particularly in light of the International Court of Justice’s ruling. The court has deemed Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocidal and has called for Israel to evacuate the occupied Palestinian territories and to cease the massacre of innocent Palestinian
people.
https://newspaper.irandaily.ir/7622/1/10358 ; https://newspaper.irandaily.ir/7622/2/10361
