Iran and Israel are two significant powers in the Middle East. Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and there are claims that Iran is also attempting to acquire them. Iran has consistently denied these claims and insists that its nuclear program is peaceful. The intense hostility between these two countries has attracted attention in the Middle East, and this animosity is increasing. The state of peace or war in the Middle East is closely tied to the relationship between Iran and Israel. If Tehran and Tel Aviv engage in dialogue, the level of conflict in the Middle East will greatly decrease, potentially leading to a new direction in the relationship between Tehran and Washington.
When Israel was established as a country in the Middle East, its relationship with Iran was conventional and non-hostile. At that time, Iran was ruled by the Shahi regime, which had a pro-Western inclination. However, after the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty, the relationship between the two countries became hostile. This was because a new government, the Islamic Republic, came to power in Iran and practiced animosity towards Israel. Since then, Iran has refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel, and Israel has supported efforts to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Israel accuses Iran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism, and creating instability in the region. On the other hand, Iran accuses Israel of violating the rights of the Palestinians, seizing their territories, and forming a coalition against them.
- The Pahlavi Dynasty and Friendship with Israel
Despite the pressures and oppression exerted on Iran by Islamic countries, particularly Arab countries, the relationship between Iran and Israel has remained free of hostility. When the Palestinian conflict was handed over to the United Nations for a final decision, Iran was a member of the investigation committee of this organization, which had a federal system in place to resolve the conflict. The supporters of the committee’s plan were in the minority, while the opponents were the majority. The majority plan proposed dividing Palestine into two separate countries, which was not acceptable for Islamic countries, including Iran. The minority plan, on the other hand, called for the creation of a federal system consisting of two Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem as the capital. Although the Arabs did not view the minority plan as unfair as the majority plan, they still refused to accept it.
The public sentiment in Iran opposed the existence of Israel as an independent state in Palestine. The news of Israel’s declaration of independence and its recognition by many countries caused a strong reaction in Iran, particularly among the clergy. Ayatollah Seyyed Abul Qasim Kashani, a prominent cleric at the time, led protest movements against Israel’s independence and called on the Pahlavi government to clarify its stance on the matter. Additionally, the members of parliament aligned themselves with religious authorities to incite the people against Israel and put pressure on the government to not only refuse recognition of Israel, but also facilitate the transfer of volunteers to join the war against Israel.
- Recognition of Israel
Out of all the Islamic countries, only Iran and Turkey maintained their conventional relationship with Israel. The other Islamic countries not only did not recognize Israel but also had conflicts with it. In Iran, the Pahlavi government considered Israel as a friend, while the clerics and some representatives of the people saw it as an enemy. As a result, the government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Saeed approved the recognition of Israel as a state on March 5, 1950. However, this recognition was informal rather than formal.
The recognition of Israel did not happen suddenly, but there were factors and circumstances that influenced the Pahlavi government in that direction. One of these factors was the unsuccessful assassination attempt on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in February 1949. Following that incident, movements and individuals opposing the recognition of Israel were suppressed, and the grounds for launching protests were eliminated. The second factor was Israel’s military superiority and its victory against five Arab countries in the 1948 war. The third factor was the presence of Iranian citizens in Israel, and it was claimed that the Iranian government did not compensate them for the damages caused by the war due to Iran’s reluctance to recognize Israel. The fourth factor was the existence of a crisis in Iran’s relations with Arab countries. Iran had border disputes with Iraq, particularly over the “Shatt al-Arab” region, Khuzestan province, and Bahrain. The fifth factor was the visit of the King of Iran to the United States in November 1949. This trip further influenced the Shah’s stance towards Israel. During the visit, the King became acquainted with Israeli lobbyists in the United States and learned about their influence on Washington’s foreign policy. The Iranian King realized that engaging with Israel was a way to receive assistance from
In the Pahlavi government, there was a strong emphasis on preserving ancient traditions, as seen in their celebration of a 2500-year-old royal event. The Shah argued that throughout history, Iran had provided a safe haven for the homeless and treated minorities well. When the Babylonian king Bakht al-Nasr conquered Palestine, many Jews were killed or captured. However, Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achaemenid empire, who had captured Babylon, freed the Jews from Bakht al-Nasr and returned them to their homeland with generous gifts. The Israeli authorities wanted the Pahlavi government to acknowledge the existence of Israel, following the tradition of respecting Cyrus’ actions. According to the Shah of Iran, recognizing Israel was not a significant issue, but rather a normal matter that arose from the foreign policy of an independent government.
- Reactions and De-recognition
The announcement of Israel’s recognition by the Pahlavi government caused dissatisfaction both within and outside of Iran. Arab countries viewed this as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause and distanced themselves from Iran. As a result of the dissatisfaction, the government decided to cancel the recognition. Two factors played a role in this decision: the return of Ayatollah Kashani from exile and the start of protests led by former Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, who advocated for the nationalization of oil and had an anti-British stance. The cancellation of recognition was announced by Bagher Kazemi, the foreign minister of the Mosaddegh government, in July 1951. The news of the cancellation brought optimism to the Arab world, leading Arab countries to declare their support for Iran’s stance on oil nationalization against Britain in the United Nations General Assembly.
- “Marginal Covenant” and the Resumption of Relations
Israel drafted the marginal pact as part of its efforts to overcome isolation. The pact aimed to align with non-Arab countries in the Middle East, with a focus on Turkey and Iran. Israel wanted to keep these two non-Arab Islamic countries close to the peripheral pact’s center to protect them from potential attacks by Arab countries. The plans were created by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, and received support from the United States. Furthermore, Iran, Israel, and Turkey formed a trilateral organization called “Trident” to cooperate on intelligence in the region.
The United States provided strong support to both Iran and Israel. It was crucial for the United States to strengthen the alliance between these two countries because they were seen as a defense against Soviet influence and radical Arab nationalism in the Middle East. To demonstrate its loyalty to the Western countries, Iran joined the Baghdad Pact in 1955, which consisted of nations aligned with the West. This decision upset the Soviet Union and some Arab nationalists.
After the overthrow of Mosaddegh’s government in August 1953, Iran’s stance towards Israel underwent a change. Towards the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1960s, the relationship between Iran and Israel improved once again. On December 12, 1959, the Iranian government appointed a representative to the Swiss Embassy in Israel. The Swiss embassy in Israel was responsible for safeguarding Iran’s interests in that country. In response to this development, the Egyptian government, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, severed diplomatic ties with Iran. Nasser took action by reaching out to Al-Azhar Shaikhs to compose a letter expressing his regret to the Shah for recognizing Israel. Shaikh Mahmoud Shaltut, the head of Al-Azhar University, fulfilled Nasser’s request by sending a letter to the Shah.
The King of Iran criticized the Arab world for unjustifiably disapproving of the recognition of Israel. Turkey had previously done the same, but the Arab world did not express their position on this matter. Mohammad Reza Shah believed that recognizing Israel was in Iran’s national interests and did not believe that Arab governments were against it. The King of Iran was suspicious that Arab governments would have discussions with Israel, which would leave Iran isolated. Eventually, this happened, and the relationship between Israel and the Arab world improved after Anwar Sadat became the leader of Egypt.
- Fields of Cooperation
There was cooperation between Iran and Israel in certain areas. Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, had intelligence cooperation with Iran’s SAVAK organization. Mossad specialists trained SAVAK employees, and arms purchase and sale contracts were signed between the two parties. Additionally, Israel imported crude oil from Iran, which angered the Arab nations. All of this was done secretly to avoid further damaging Iran’s relationship with the Arab world if it were to be revealed. Iran supported Resolution 242 of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. This displeased the Israelis. Despite Israel’s efforts to improve its relationship with Iran in a transparent manner, it was unsuccessful.
- The Islamic Republic and the Onset of Animosity with Israel
After the collapse of the royal system in Iran and the subsequent establishment of the Islamic Republic, there was a reversal in the course of political developments in the country. Relations with the world were revised, and former friends of Iran became its enemies. Israel and the United States, who were strategic allies of the Shahi regime, became enemies of the Islamic Republic due to the clergy taking control of affairs. They accused the Pahlavi government of aligning too closely with the United States and Israel. The establishment of the Islamic Republic brought new life to “political Islam” and allowed religion to enter the political context. It is clear that the Islamic Republic, with its rigid and inflexible nature, could not engage with Israel. The Islamic Republic is deeply rooted in Shiite Islam, while Israel is based on political Zionism.
- The 1980s
In the 1980s, the relationship between Iran and Israel was not as hostile as commonly believed. Tel Aviv was more concerned about Iraq than Iran, as they did not see Iran as a significant threat. During the war between Iraq and Iran, Israel supported Tehran and aimed to weaken Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq. This was because Israel wanted to prevent Iraq from remaining strong, as it would maintain a strong Arab front against Israel. Israel also sought to prolong the war between Iraq and Iran to weaken their mutual enemies. However, Israel believed that if one side had to win the war, it should have been Iran. In contrast, the United States supported Iraq against Iran, unlike Israel. Israel not only wanted to support Iran but also encouraged the United States to do the same. Emphasizing the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the possibility of Iran aligning with them played a significant role in convincing the United States to provide weapons to Iran. This decision ultimately led to the “Iran-Contra” incident, which severely harmed the credibility of the Ronald Reagan administration. Additionally, it is alleged that Iran purchased over $500 million worth of arms from Israel between 1980 and 1983. Another claim suggests that Iran exported oil to Israel at a discounted rate of 25%, indicating a covert relationship between the two nations.
- The 1990s
Israel’s approach towards Iran underwent a change in the 1990s. This change was influenced by various factors such as the end of the Cold War, Saddam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait, the global action led by the United States against Iraq, the weakening of Iraq, and the clarification of the Islamic Republic’s anti-Israel stance. Israel’s concerns about Arab threats were alleviated by Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, leading to a shift in focus towards Iran. In September 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin expressed his belief that Iran posed a significant threat to peace in the Middle East during a conference with American Jews. He stated that Iran was aiming to acquire a nuclear weapon within the next seven to 15 years, even though Iran’s nuclear program had not yet been revealed at that time.
The Madrid Peace Conference, held in October 1991 in Madrid, Spain, on the initiative of the Bush administration, was the most significant factor that severely damaged the relationship between Israel and Iran. During the conference, representatives from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan engaged in dialogue with representatives from Israel. However, Iran was not invited to the conference, despite other Islamic countries being included. As a result, the Islamic Republic withdrew its support for groups opposing peace with Israel, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Since then, Israel has accused Iran of supporting “terrorism” and undermining the peace process in the Middle East, while Iran has continued to support these aforementioned groups.
The positions of Israel and the United States towards Iran after the 90s are so similar that they cannot be analyzed separately and independently. For example, the Clinton administration in the United States adopted the policy of “bilateral containment” due to the influence of Israel’s lobbyists. One of those lobbyists, Martin Indyk, came up with the bilateral containment plan and pushed the Clinton administration to implement it. Indyk has served as the U.S. ambassador to Israel on two occasions. The plan of bilateral containment would require the United States to contain both Iran and Iraq simultaneously, even though containing only one of these countries would be less expensive and more beneficial for the United States. However, the lobbyists from Tel Aviv convinced the United States to implement a plan of bilateral containment by exaggerating the danger of Iran and presenting the interests of Israel and the United States as aligned. This plan faced opposition in the United States, with some calling it “nonsense” because it was not beneficial for the United States to control two countries that hated each other. The plan referred to the Islamic Republic as a rebellious, extremist, and regressive state. The main tool for implementing this plan was an economic embargo, which was recommended by its supporters. Additionally, the United States attempted to internationalize the sanctions against Iran, but this was not well-received by its allies at the time.
- The New Millennium
After the start of the new millennium and the September 11 incident, the relationship between Tehran and Tel Aviv became more tense than before. The September 11 incident brought Israel and the United States closer together in their fight against terrorism. One of the groups in the United States that supports Israel is the “neoconservatives,” a group that had influence in the Bush Jr. administration. One of the architects of the neoconservative strategy is Michael Ledin. He strongly opposed Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In November 2002, Ledin expressed the belief that it would be better to first liberate Iran and then deal with Iraq. Ledin and other neoconservatives believed that establishing democracy in Iran would require a change of government. This policy still continues.
The forces loyal to Israel have been making efforts to create distance between Iran and the United States. Despite Iran’s attempts to improve relations, the United States did not show much interest. For instance, Iran condemned the September 11 attack, supported the suppression of al-Qaeda, and played a role in suppressing the Taliban and establishing a new political order in Afghanistan alongside the United States. However, Washington did not take these actions seriously. Not only did this not happen, but in his speech in January 2002, Bush referred to Iran as a “center of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. This statement was made under the influence of Israel’s lobbyists.
The disclosure of Iran’s nuclear program heightened Israel’s concerns, leading to the implementation of stricter measures against Iran, such as international sanctions. Israel’s primary approach to ending Iran’s nuclear program is through the use of force, while the Americans, particularly the Democrats, prefer diplomatic dialogue. Israeli officials accuse the Islamic Republic of anti-Semitism and refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons as a potential repetition of another “Holocaust”. The statements made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran, further intensified the concerns of Tel Aviv and its allies. Ahmadinejad referred to the Holocaust as a “myth” and expressed certainty in the destruction of Israel. Israel argues that an actor with the intention to destroy another actor becomes significantly dangerous when armed with nuclear weapons. Israelis fear the ideological nature of the Islamic Republic and believe that this system prioritizes ideology over its own survival. Consequently, they worry that the Islamic Republic may launch a nuclear attack against Israel if its ideological beliefs demand it.
The 33-day war in southern Lebanon reignited the animosity between Israel and Iran. Israel invaded southern Lebanon with the aim of dismantling the Hezbollah group, and this conflict lasted for 33 days. During the war, Hezbollah received support from the Iranian government, while Israel was backed by the United States. As anticipated, Israel was unable to successfully eliminate Hezbollah.
The signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in July 2015 was seen as a warning to Israel. Israel and its lobbyists in the United States attempted to prevent Barack Obama’s government from signing the JCPOA, but they were unsuccessful. The inauguration of Donald Trump in the United States was seen as a boost for Israel because he was a Republican and had influential neoconservatives who were loyal to Israel in his government. As a result, Israel managed to convince Trump to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA. Trump’s personality and the pressure from officials in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi also played a role in this decision.
Israel has adopted a policy of normalizing relations with Arab countries in order to isolate its rival. This is evident through the signing of the Abraham Treaty in August 2020 by the UAE and Bahrain with Israel. The United States strongly supports this policy. Sunni Arab countries, like Israel, are unhappy with Iran’s influence in the Middle East, although they do not necessarily want to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Israel and the Arab countries are angered by Iran’s support of the Islamic Republic of Hezbollah, interference in some Arab countries, opposition to the rule of Shia Islam, and the issue of the nuclear and missile program. Tel Aviv aims to exploit the divide between Shia and Sunni and use Arab countries as a counterbalance against Iran. Israel is making serious efforts to normalize its relationship with Saudi Arabia, but it seems unlikely that they will achieve tangible results in the short term. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv is showing more enthusiasm while Riyadh is withdrawing.
The Biden administration has expressed interest in improving relations with Iran on multiple occasions, but this has been met with strong opposition from Israel. Efforts were made to revive the JCPOA, but Republicans and pro-Israel groups in America clearly opposed it. Additionally, Israel was angered by the new agreement between Iran and the United States regarding the release of prisoners. Israel criticized the agreement, stating that it did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or halt its nuclear program, and instead provided Tehran with funds that could be used to support terrorism.
Israel has attempted to prevent the United States and Sunni Arab countries from developing closer ties with Tehran in order to undermine Iran. Tehran, on the other hand, has been working to weaken Israel by supporting the Syrian government and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, who are opposed to peace with Israel. The future of the relationship between Tehran and Tel Aviv appears very grim.
Read this article in Farsi here.