Israel is isolated, while Iran is expanding After Turkey….Iranian – Saudi relationships

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Arab analysts, writers, and experts have always dealt with a constant that they are confident of its validity; when Israel asks for something form Washington or from Moscow it will surely get it. This equation is an outcome of the Israeli power period, and some are still seeing it valid despite the outgoing variables in the region, many of those link the US policy with the assumption that the priority will remain the superiority of Israel and its status as the power that has the upper hand, and that the Israeli security is the compass of the US policies, ignoring the limited options in front of Washington, and ignoring the difference between the wishes and the capacities, despite the meaningful sign of the US signature on the understanding about the Iranian nuclear file and  despite the Israeli noise which reached the extent of saying in front of the Congress that you try to avoid security threat while we are facing existential threat. The Israeli endeavors did not succeed in changing the US position, not because it abandoned Israel, however because the options are limited and doomed between either to sign on the understanding or to go to the comprehensive war.

Regarding Russia, those themselves have interpreted and explained the talk about Russian-Israeli coordination in the Syrian airspaces by giving it dimensions that sometimes related to the illusion of the Russian consensus on the Israeli raids that targeted as the Israelis said Hezbollah or the Syrian army. They miss the question; does this mean that the response of Hezbollah to the raids was Shebaa Farms process under Russian satisfaction or Russian objection, the same as the Syrian responses to Israel by launching qualitative missiles to target its attacking plane, or by firing shells that target the Israeli sites in the occupied Golan, were they under Russian satisfaction or Russian objection. If the movements of Hezbollah and Syria have been implemented by Russian satisfaction then this would have led to the fall of  the illusion of the status which those suppose that it is the status of Israel at Russia, but if it met Russian objection where neither Hezbollah nor Syria have made any consideration for it, and if this did not affect Moscow’s decision of the qualitative cooperation with Syria and Hezbollah in the battles in which the Russian participation was decisive as the battle of the liberation of Aleppo then this means that the objection was formal or it was out of the awareness of the limited ability to influence on one hand, and the priority of the cooperation with Syria and Hezbollah as a higher Russian interest to the Israeli demands. In both cases Israel will not get what it wants from Russia to have the security which it wants in Syria either from the Syrian side or regarding the future of Hezbollah’s role. Either because Russia is satisfied with what is needed by the Syrians and Hezbollah, or because it is not satisfied and cannot do anything, or because what must be done exposes its alliance with Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran to risks that affect its higher interests which are superior to the status of the Israeli considerations.

The Israeli press and the published comments in it about the Israeli red lines and the visits to Washington and Moscow are full of positions which expect the Israeli failure, the time has passed in which the Israeli force was a well-considered part, and the seeking was to appease it, so it has either to save itself and to get involved in unbearable war or to listen to the advice of the Russian President to the Head of the occupation government to be ready for a new scene in the region in which Hezbollah forms a natural part of the regional scene and to adapt with the idea of the coexistence with this fact, as the Arabs who were complaining from the risk of Israel during fifty years listened to those who say to them that they have to be ready to accept the idea that Israel is a new regional player in the region and have to adapt with the idea of the coexistence with this reality.

Versus this Israeli isolation Iran expands, it witnesses the rising of its allies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, its relation with Turkey becomes rooted, it based on common concepts of the national security after the fall of the Turkish bet on overthrowing Syria and the emergence of the dangers of the infection of the Kurdish secession. Saudi Arabia which was putting Iran as enemy and a target for escalation and mobilization is exchanging with Iran diplomatic missions to check the embassies and the consulates and their needs in order to reopen them after Al Adha Eid as the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Jayad Zarif said. This matter is not simple or easy or routine.

The five seas region which formed the thesis of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for a regional system without Israel and which includes the countries which overlook the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea, not the Middle East is the system under formation and it is winning. Israel is under siege, so will some of those who are convinced of the Israeli arrogance believe that this might happen?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,