Iran is now on Israel’s borders

It isn’t a small thing for the Israeli air force to destroy a building in Damascus where leaders from Iran’s Quds Force are meeting; and it isn’t a small thing that the coffins of those who were targeted were returned to Iran to join the coffins of those that preceded them. It is true that Israel has previously committed assassinations and attacks on Iranian territory, but it is also true that what has come after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is not the same as what came before it.

Are we witnessing the Iran-Israel conflict replacing the Arab-Israeli conflict? Are we expected to endure bloody air strikes and accept that the key to the future of the Palestinian-Israeli issue lies in Tehran? How can we talk about solutions if the Iranian Supreme Leader expects to see the end of Israel within three decades and clocks have been set up in Tehran to count down the remaining life of the “cancerous tumour”?

The Israeli raid on the Mezzeh area in Damascus was both dangerous and significant. Israel looks as if it has to beckon Iran into a war in which the US can’t help, but will engage in anyway. Maybe Benjamin Netanyahu believes that there is no way out of the current impasse over Gaza other than to expand the war zone, despite its risks and costs. Iran clearly does not want a large-scale war, and prefers to fight in segments through its proxies.

Foreign Policy: US is ‘planning to withdraw from Syria’

The US has been struggling for months to prevent the expansion of Israel’s military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza, without success, it seems.

There is a parallel war being waged with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in varying doses. There is a war of Houthi missiles and drones against shipping linked to Israel in the Red Sea. There is also a war to expel US forces from Iraq being waged by armed factions there. The Mezzeh raid doubled the heat on the Syrian front, despite Russian involvement in Syria, and realistic conditions and controls.

There are new facts that we must point out in part of the Middle East. Suppose a successor to Netanyahu announces support for the “two-state solution”, which will definitely be conditional on full recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Can the Lebanese government sign off on recognition of Israel, despite Hezbollah’s presence, and can the Syrian government recognise Israel, which will deprive Iran of the most important cards that facilitated its spread in the “Crescent of Resistance”? Can the Iraqi government recognise Israel after the law passed by the Iraqi parliament criminalising any form of normalisation?

A couple of scenarios help us to understand Israel’s responsibility for the current situation. In 1998, Palestinian-Israeli talks were held in Wye River under the auspices of US President Bill Clinton. The session almost failed because Ariel Sharon wanted to make sure in advance that he would not have to shake hands with Yasser Arafat. When he entered the hall, Arafat greeted him, general to general, and extended his hand, but Sharon ignored the gesture and sat next to Benjamin Netanyahu. When he became prime minister, he found pleasure in besieging Arafat and destroying his Ramallah headquarters. Sharon’s behaviour embodied the height of political blindness because he was busy writing off the man who had opened the window for the Oslo Accords, accepting concessions that no one else dared to accept.

 Iran president: Palestine won war with Israel

The major contribution to the drive towards disaster came from Netanyahu, who closed the two windows of opportunity afforded by the Oslo Accords and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. He took advantage of the political climate post-9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq to undermine any chance of reviving an understanding with a “Palestinian partner”. He was extremely short-sighted when he considered the undermining of the Palestinian Authority to be a victory for Israel, even though this led to the rise of Iran-backed organisations. Throughout his lengthy time in office, Netanyahu has refused to read the transformations taking place across the region, especially the birth of roaming “Iranian armies” and Iranian “advisers” getting closer to the borders of the occupation state.

The contribution of successive US administrations in creating the current situation in the Middle East has been significant. They did not realise the importance of saving the Oslo Accords and the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative, as well as the need to put pressure on Israel to stop its attempts to write off the “Palestinian partner”.

A demonstration of Washington’s lack of foresight was seen at the UN General Assembly held in the wake of 9/11. Arafat went in the hope of meeting US President George W Bush, or at least shake his hand, especially after it became clear that the attacks in New York and Washington were the work of Al-Qaeda. Bush refused to receive Arafat. At the party reserved for delegation heads, he told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “This man thinks I’m going to shake hands with him? Tell him to shake his own hand.” Bush inherited the impression from Clinton that, “The Palestinians are not serious about seeking peace.” Clinton looked as if he was seeking revenge for the failure of the Camp David talks.

Meanwhile, Iran was moving on several fronts, contributing through “suicide bombings” by Islamic Jihad and Hamas to undermine Oslo. It dealt with 9/11 with extreme caution. It initially tolerated the US-led invasion of Iraq, then participated in exhausting the American military presence there. Iran also succeeded in exploiting the emergence of Daesh to its advantage, and also, with Russia’s help, contributed to saving the vital Syrian circle due to its extension to the Mediterranean. General Qasem Soleimani was the architect of the Iranian thread linking Baghdad to Beirut via Damascus, in addition to the Yemeni infiltration represented by the Houthis taking control.

When Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar unleashed Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October, and Israel launched its brutal military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza, the Iranian thread had intensified on the four maps. Whether Iran was aware of when the operation was going to take place or not, it would have been impossible to go ahead without its policies and weapons distributed across the region. It seems clear that Iran is now on Israel’s borders, if not physically, as least by proxy. The ceasefire process now has new conditions, as well as the “two-state solution”, as the problem is no longer with Sinwar, but with Iran’s Supreme Leader.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Arabi21 on 22 January 2024

OPINION: Who is advising the US and UK on foreign policy?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.