Skip to main content

Keeping neutral is vital in Iran-Israel spat

http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/news/global/photos/2012/03/israel-iran-and-obama/_jcr_content/image.custom1200x675x20.dimg/030512-global-iran-israel-benjamin-netanyahu-barack-obama.jpg
Ben Netanyahu and Barack Obama (Image: Bet.com)
Having Iranian blood would naturally give me the urge to keep actively updated with the country's affairs. It is fair to say that Iran has seen a lot in the last few decades. The revolution in 1979, the war with Iraq in 1983, the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. These three developments in particular shaped the Middle East dramatically and along the way, the Iranian community around the world has united stronger because of these perceived setbacks, and I have nothing but respect of that.

So it comes to no surprise that this community had to stick together in the last decade. Since the 1980s, the government in Tehran grew distant from the western world. Some statements that have been exchanged increased tensions which has nerved those living in Iran. In the late 2000s, there was even talk of an invasion on Iranian soil when George W. Bush approached the end of his tenure as US President. When Barack Obama took the helm, he took a less threatening approach and instead imposed crippling sanctions, meaning little funds and limited imports equated to a financial crisis in the country leaving many in poverty of some sort.

The fuss the US went on about was Iran's 'nuclear ambitions'. Like many countries, including the States, Iran has a nuclear energy programme but it has been suspected for years that they were developing a nuclear weapon which, if used, has the potential to cause a lot of damage and loss to millions of lives. This 'weapon' to this day is yet to be discovered, unlike the US, North Korea and the like that possess tonnes of it. Nonetheless, US didn't want to risk anything with Iran and, with the support of David Cameron in the UK among several other world leaders, stalled any support to them.

One country and its Prime Minister in particular have revelled in Iran's misfortunes and that was Israel. Both countries have a history of hating the guts out of each other. Not much has come out of it but if any attack, whatever the scale, occurred in either country, one would say the other did it. Pretty childish stuff if you're asking me. Their squabbling didn't stopped Israel from thinking they have the upper-hand because the world was going against Iran. Iran would get angry about this and say the sanctions are all Israel's fault.

But the tides have turned over the last 12-15 months. When Iran voted for a new President in Hassan Rouhani, he has taken a completely different approach to the West and has opened up to the US' allies and want to agree on some sort of arrangements with their 'nuclear ambitions'. Unlike the previous President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who seemingly intentionally say things that would make the world gasp. These talks with Rouhani are still ongoing but the likes of US' Secretary of State John Kerry is feeling optimistic that an agreement can be reached.
http://images.politico.com/global/2015/03/08/150308_kerry_iran_ap_1160_1160x629.jpg
John Kerry in Iran nuclear talks (Image: Politico)

Now all of a sudden, Iran are the buddies of the globe. And it seems apparent that Obama is excited by this potential friendship prospect as he is expected to sound more buoyant in his annual Norooz (Persian New Year) address next week. Yes, the sanctions are still lingering and yes, there is still a long way to go until bridges are rebuilt, but Iran are being seen in a different light - nearly as overnight as the current Pope Francis and his vision in improving the image of Catholicism.

Where does this leave Israel? Well, their Prime Minister, Ben Netanyahu, is feeling a little sick of it all - and that's an understatement. Obama isn't looking at Israel the same as other US Presidents had in the past, event going as far as condemning their intervention in Gaza Strip last summer which an attack similar in history would have been ignored by Bush Junior and Senior and Ronald Reagan. Not only that, 30,000 Israelis descended the street of Jerusalem to protest against their Prime Minister, a week before their country's general election. No wonder Netanyahu is a little on edge.

Regardless, Israel and US' special relationship is under public scrutiny. The public in the States were visibly sympathetic towards the Palestinians who lost their lives in Gaza and Obama listened to his people's disgust. And that has upset Netanyahu. However, this didn't stop Obama, earlier this month, to give the Israeli Prime Minister a platform in the House of Congress stage to speak of his concern about Iran's 'nuclear ambition'. Whilst Obama was 'busy' and certain key Democrats boycotted the speech on this day, it didn't stop the Republicans, who occupy most of the Congress anyway, from being aroused by Netanyahu's words.

Netanyahu spoke of his adoration towards the United States and how historically Obama has supported Israel. But he went on to say that Iran is the most dangerous country we have, and will, ever see. It was a 60-minute Iran bashing session.

The Prime Minister spoke about how Iran's current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on Twitter that Iran would obliterate Israel (almost mirroring a similar threat Israel made to Iran). He spoke of how the people of Iran would proclaim 'Death to America', how Iran should never be trusted and how they're always going to break promises. Netanyahu knew his audience and he relished in every insult he made.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02364/b_2364410b.jpg
Netanyahu on Iran's nuclear ambition (Image: Daily Telegraph)
Of course, I'd have made a different approach. If I was Netanyahu, I would have offered a peace deal between Israel and Iran - be a bigger man and ease tensions. But he did the opposite which is fine for hot-headed Republicans, but for those who don't want World War III to be officially proclaimed, then I'd be wanting a truce - drop guns and War of Words and start a new, fresh chapter. But, no doubt, that this is never likely to happen because they're struggling to sign a peace deal with Palestine.

From my research, Iran's response to Netanyahu appears to have been quiet but his speech has no doubt dug a deeper hole in their already hostile relationship. While that sinks as rapidly as the Titanic, this is leaving the US and other powerful nations on the edge. They have to think about priorities and feel the need to pick a side. For me, it's easy - back neither. There is a need to reach a desired goal but if they pick one over the other, mayhem will ensue.

The approach Obama is going ahead with at the moment is the sensible one. Be open minded during nuclear talks with Iran and once he's 110% confident in signing something, then an agreement can be reached. But a neutral perspective is needed here. If the Iranian government do something daft and dangerous then they have the right to be condemned - likewise with Israel, and every country for that matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced