Such "threats" have also allowed Israel to continue accruing more military and diplomatic support in a bid to face up to Tehranʹs instrumental menace. Recently and in line with its stockpiling of achievements, Israel managed to secure a blessing from the U.S. for its illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, which it occupied during the Six Day War in 1967.

Wooing the Gulf states

With the Golan no longer an issue and in order to further maximise the exploitation of the "Iranian threat", Israeli and American efforts are now gearing up to manufacture what could be termed the "Iran war process", founded on an assumed and exaggerated interest shared by the Arab Gulf states of "facing a common enemy".

It is a process that is spreading Iranophobia across the Gulf region, using the excuse of war against it to invest in a regional phalanx of targets, which includes the normalisation of relations with the Gulf States. Although proxy conflicts will be kept well-fed to nurture this fear, a fully-fledged war between Israel and Iran will most likely never happen. The process will do a better job and will continue to thrive for years to come.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets Yusuf bin Alawi, Omanʹs foreign minister at an international conference devoted to peace and security in the Middle East organised by Poland and the USA on 13.02.2019 (photo: picture-alliance/dpa/Prime Minister of Israel/A. Ben Gershom)
Manufacturing the "Iran war process": fomenting Iranophobia across the Gulf while working towards a normalisation of relations with the Arab states is key. While proxy conflicts will be kept well-fed to nurture this fear, a fully-fledged war between Israel and Iran will most likely never happen. The process will do a better job and will continue to thrive for years to come

Paradoxically, the "Iran war process" is also bringing significant benefits to Iran. Tehranʹs combative rhetoric against Israel is an integral part of its strategy to assert regional influence. Projecting itself as the "leader of the resistance axis", Iranʹs interventions in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as its support of Hamas and the Islamic jihad movement in Palestine, are all justified as part of this claim to resistance.

In reality, and contrary to the pomposity of "erasing Israel", Iranʹs position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is ultimately to accept what the Palestinians would accept. In a nutshell, Iran accepts the two-state solution, much as the Arab states do, in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which offered the recognition of Israel and a normalisation of relations in return for a Palestinian state along 1967 borders.

At the 2017 summit meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation in Istanbul, held in response to Trumpʹs recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Iranʹs president Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister Javad Zarif voiced no objection to a statement issued by the meeting that called for a two-state solution.

More on this topic
In submitting this comment, the reader accepts the following terms and conditions: reserves the right to edit or delete comments or not to publish them. This applies in particular to defamatory, racist, personal, or irrelevant comments or comments written in dialects or languages other than English. Comments submitted by readers using fantasy names or intentionally false names will not be published. will not provide information on the telephone. Readers' comments can be found by Google and other search engines.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Comments for this article: For ʹPalestinian peace processʹ read ʹIran war processʹ

Yes, good. I would add one important element though: control of the region by the U.S., a hegemon, and Israel, an ally, has to be viewed vis-a-vis a rival or rivals. Iran is one, but China and Russia are two others and it is very crucial that their power is undermined. The U.S. is losing its primacy in Southeast Asia. The Middle East has to remain as leverage for its geo-political and economic primacy, not for oil (America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil), and not only for the arms industry (arms sales are still a fraction of the American GDP), but for capital outflows (as the author mentioned, assisting more or less the stagnating Western, especially European economies and maintaining domestic consent/stability/wealth) and hegemony and/or over others.

Nadeem17.05.2019 | 13:30 Uhr