Could Iran be the target? Why is Iran being dragged into the war?

Although it is argued in many places that the grand bargaining initiatives between the US and Iran are asparagus, it is a known fact that there are ardent advocates of open-ended bargaining initiatives, or at least bargaining proposals, behind closed doors. This is true, and it is also a requirement of compartmental diplomacy. While looking at the big picture in the Middle East, all these must be seen clearly. When we look from the past to the present as a historical depth, it is obvious that there have been many negotiations between Iran and the USA. The first of these took place in the early days of the Islamic Revolution. The residence of the Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris after Bursa and Najaf was used as a card played by France and Britain against the USA. More precisely, even his defence against the Shah during the Shah's rule should be seen as a collusion. Today, the presence of the leader of the South Azerbaijan Resistance Movement (GAMOH), Prof. Dr. Mahmoud Ali Çöhreganlı, in Washington and the show of ownership by the USA is a reflection of this point of view. 

Indeed, the decision-making mechanisms of the United States did not take into account this resistance of France and Britain, that is, the residence of Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris. Since no one in Washington knew Khomeini on the intellectual front, the Islamic Revolution led by him and supported by France and Britain came as a surprise to Washington. However, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the greatest US player of all time, laid out the plan to make Iran one of the elements of balance in the US Cold War against the Islamic World and to place it at the head of one of the poles. (1) 

In other words, by allowing a regime change with a Shiite character in Iran, a polarisation in the Shiite and Sunni world was imagined. Indeed, Kissinger wanted to use the Islamic revolution for the same purpose once all the pieces were in place and he laid out this plan in detail. This was a new Cold War model that directly polarised the Islamic world.   

Now let us recall together, did the Iran-Iraq war serve this purpose? Yes, it did. Saddam Hussein's support from the Sunni world, the Iranian side's prolongation of the war for eight years and Iran's determination to overthrow Saddam both triggered and deepened a political and sectarian regional polarisation. The subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq reinforced and reinforced this polarisation. Even if Khomeini did not want to theoretically, he became the pole and the tip of the Cold War against the Islamic World. (1) 

Kissinger substituted the Sunni world for the USSR and weakened the integration and cohesion in the Sunni world to the greatest extent. The US's tacit influence of Iranian influence, especially against Iraq, was openly criticised. In this context, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal, during his visit to the United States, claimed that the Americans presented this to Iran on a golden platter. Similar criticism came from King Abdullah II of Jordan. 

Apart from the perception that Iran is the eternal enemy of the US, Tehran has always wisely kept the door open in terms of relations with Iran. It is a fact that although Ayatollah Khomeini used the terms "Great Satan" (Shaytan-e Bozorg Amrika) for the United States, "Little Satan" for Israel and "Little Satan" (Shaytan-e Minik Imarat) for the United Arab Emirates, he never said that he would not establish relations. The door was always kept open. 

Let us recall that for a while, the USA defined countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil. As a natural consequence of this view, Iraq and Iran, the two leading countries of the Union of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which was established to use fossil fuels as a weapon against the West, were subjected to a policy of "dual containment". In the context of this policy and with the help of Iran, Iraq, one of the besieged countries, was invaded and Saddam was overthrown. After the overthrow of Saddam, Iran was undoubtedly the most profitable country and the power vacuum in Iraq was filled by Iran. Until when? This process continued until the US failures in Iraq. The failure in Iraq was billed to Iran, and now Iran has become the target country of Israel's failure in Gaza. 

Israel's striking two Islamic countries in the heart of Damascus, Syria and Iran's consulate building in Damascus with six missiles launched by F-35s has once again violated international law, especially the Geneva Convention, and at the same time united and riveted the 'rogue state' qualification before the world public opinion. Israel's targeting of Iran and Syria is a direct cause of war without any interpretation. In fact, Israel and Iran are two Middle Eastern states that have declared their enmity to each other. In other words, Israel is Iran's only taboo in establishing relations with Iran. For some reason, the US is angry with those who avoid diplomatic relations with Israel rather than establishing diplomatic relations with them. For the US, Israel dictates a situation beyond the status of the most favoured country. Undoubtedly, this was achieved after the Islamic revolution of 15 February 1979. On the other hand, Israel has shown its rogue state status to all authentic countries of the Middle East with its reckless "I did it myself" attacks. This situation is recognised by everyone.   

This latest attack has drawn Iran into a difficult equation and continues to do so. On the other hand, the Tehran administration has also realised and sees that this is Netenyahu's game and that he can lure Iran into this fictionalised game in order to respond to Israel with retaliation. In fact, Netanyahu is looking for new hells to save himself from the Gaza failure. It is clear that this Israeli attack has brought the Biden administration's policy of maintaining its commitment to Israel while preventing the conflict from escalating into a regional war to a dead end. (2)  

It seems possible to summarise what needs to be done and seen as follows.  Firstly, it is clear that Netanyahu is trying to lure the US administration into his game by raising its hand against Iran. In other words, Israel's hawks have been trying to kill many birds with one stone by putting forward a conflict scenario that would put the US on the front line against Iran. Yes, they have succeeded in this. As a natural consequence of this situation, Israel is pushing its own limits in order to rebuild its own deterrence at the expense of starting a war while the US commitment to protect it remains in place. On the other hand, it is clear that Tehran's failure to respond to these attacks could turn Iran into an actor whose "red lines have been crossed" and who has "lost its deterrence".  As in the past, non-state actors in the Axis of Resistance can respond, but this is clearly not enough to prevent this 'de facto' situation and erosion of credibility. (2)

With this attack, Netanyahu, by putting pressure on the United States, continues the Biden administration's commitment to Israel while dragging the policy of preventing the conflict from turning into a regional war into a maelstrom. 

Parallel to the genocidal war in Gaza, the US-Iranian consensus, which was worked out behind closed doors to avoid an escalation or regional war that would drag them into direct confrontation at the point where things get out of control, is directly targeted.  It is clear that the US tacitly focussed its contacts with Iran on the apparent results it had achieved in limiting the conflict. On the other hand, the US-UK duo could not break the determination of the Houthi rebels in Yemen to target Israeli ships until a ceasefire is reached in Gaza, paving the way for humanitarian aid. However, it is also seen that Hezbollah in Lebanon adheres to the rules of engagement as part of its controlled conflict strategy.  

In order not to fall into Israel's trap, the assassinations carried out so far and the F-35 attack in Damascus, which directly targeted Iran, have targeted and are targeting the 'strategic patience' of the Tehran administration in order to draw it into the field. The Netanyahu administration is trying to use all parameters that will transform itself from an aggressor state to a victim state. It is thought that the Tehran administration, which has internalised that the attack in Damascus is a multi-targeted provocation, can respond with asymmetric means by showing prudence. 

I hope, dear readers, that your Eid al-Fitr will be peaceful in a war-free environment. 

Footnotes

(1) Mustafa Özcan, "Grand Bargain or Third War", "Hedef Neden Iran", Istanbul, 2008, pp. 132-33  

(2) Fehim Taştekin "Iran'a Saldırı Savaş Nedeni Ve Ama...", Gazete Duvar, 03.04.2024; https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/irana-saldiri-savas-nedeni-ve-fakat-makale-1681326 /Access Date 06.04.2024/