Keeping neutral is vital in Iran-Israel spat

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.

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.

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.