What are the risks for Israel opening another battlefront, in Iran?

Al-Jazeera Podcasts

Israel's assault on Iran comes while it's still attacking Gaza and Lebanon.

After bombing Syria, Yemen, Qatar and Iran in the past year,

what are the risks for Israel opening another battlefront

and from the collapse or the survival of the Islamic Republic?

I'm Rashad Salamuth and you're listening to the Inside Story podcast

where we dissect, analyze and help define major global stories.

It's a bring in our guests, Al-Ampinkas, is a former ambassador

and council general of Israel in New York.

He joins us from Tel Aviv, Rami Huri is a distinguished fellow

at the American University of Beirut. He joins us from Boston

and in Western Islam is Mitchell Barak, founder of Ki-Voon Research,

strategy and communications and a former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I warm welcome to all of you, Mitchell, going to start things off with you

and just get us a broad brushstroke of how you see things unfolding.

First of all, I'd like to wish a Ramadan Kareem to all of the people watching

who are celebrating and commemorating this holiday.

It is also a fast day in Israel, the fast of Esther,

which commemorates ironically and interestingly enough,

the victory of the Jewish people over an evil Persian empire

2500 years ago.

So this is a holiday week for everyone.

Kids are off from school anyway, tomorrow and the next day.

So now they have the full week off and it really is coming to life this whole

Purim story, this whole story of Persia and defeating an evil empire.

But I must say that a lot of people are really behind this effort

because they believe the words of the Islamic Republic of Iran

that has been saying for many, many years that Israel has no right to exist,

death to America, death to Israel like we just heard the Secretary of Defense,

Secretary of War of the United States, say, in a live press conference.

I mean, it's very easy to start a war, but it's very hard to end one successfully.

So one has to look at the aims here.

Well, I think the aims are pretty clear from the American and the Israeli side

and they've been talking about this for years.

There's nothing hidden.

They want to get rid of Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities,

make sure it never has a weapon, which is the aim that Iran itself says it never wants a weapon.

But that's secondary because the Israeli and American governments

tend not to deal with reality, but they tend to deal with what they perceive to be dangerous to them

or ancient myths from thousands of years ago.

In either case, the clear aim is to get rid of the nuclear capability, no more missiles,

no more linkages for Iran with its allies across the region,

who the Israeli's Americans call proxies, but we call them their strategic allies.

And they want, I think what most people would want is to live a normal life and peace,

but there's a bigger dimension to what Israel is doing,

which is not often sufficiently discussed or analyzed,

and the Israelis have to clarify this.

They would like to make sure that nobody in the whole Middle East and all of West Asia

can possibly threaten them, which in itself is a kind of reasonable aim every country in the world wants that.

But they also want to be able to determine how things are done in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran, in Palestine, in Yemen.

They want to have a strategic hegemonic dominance in the region without formally occupying these countries.

And this coincides with a rising, right-wing messianic, religious, ethnic, nationalist, extremist militant trend in Israel,

which is in the government now, and even government officials have talked, some ministers have talked about,

oh, yeah, it's so, so mirroring what U.S. Ambassador Huckabee said,

oh, Israel should go and, you know, it's okay if he wants to take over Iran or Syria or Iraq or whatever the Bible says.

So we have these wider dimensions that are troubling,

and the immediate issues of nuclear and missile issues, those can be resolved.

I think there's no doubt about that.

But the wider Israeli goals are much more problem.

And Alan, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Raphael Grossi said on Monday that his agency stands by their assessment.

There's no indication that Iran's nuclear facilities have been damaged in this latest barrage of strikes on the country.

So it doesn't make it even more clear that this is all about regime change, fundamentally.

Well, look, though, President Trump, I wish I, Rashida, went on record in June,

saying that, quote unquote, we obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities after the American slash Israeli attack

on three major nuclear installations.

Furthermore, the American intelligence has indicated under the Trump administration, by the way,

that Iran has not pursued or has not developed its military nuclear program beyond what it did since the U.S. left the agreement,

with Drew from the JCPOA in 2018 and May of 2018.

That was under Trump's first term.

Now, ostensibly, yes, both the U.S. initial claim that this is about regime change.

How they plan to go by this?

Look, there's no instance. There's no example in history for regime change being induced via air power and missile attacks.

There are one example, one unique example, and that's Japan in 1945 under the threat of a very credible land invasion and following two atomic bombs.

So that is definitely not the case.

How the U.S. and Israel plan to induce regime change or just weaken the regime remains unclear.

Look, we're only 48 hours into this war and making any kind of broad brush assessments or conclusions that this is going into X or toward Y would be seriously and wildly premature.

Yes, in terms of what you just asked, it looks like regime change and Mr. Netanyahu attested to that himself in that video that you just in that footage that you just showed a moment ago that this has been his dream, his yearning, he called it for 40 years to change the regime.

In his defense, he's been consistent and adamant about this, but this is not about nuclear power.

This is about regime change. Mitchell, how does killing the supreme leader move the needle?

Well, this is the head of the snake for many, many years. This is the person that has sponsored terrorism all over the world and has proxies.

You know, you can call them Rami strategic allies, but many of them are terrorists.

We've had diplomats, people that alone pink us knew who were killed in Argentina.

I mean, based on operations and funding from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And you know, there's talk about the destroying of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

What revolution are they protecting?

What Islamic Republic actually lobs missiles and innocent civilians in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia?

Who does this?

Meaning, why would people stand for this? Why would the world stand for this kind of threat?

This man is it was a dangerous menace to humanity and it cloaked himself in religion.

It's a very, very difficult thing and it was directly threatening said the Israel has no right to exist.

And on many occasions said Israel one day no longer exists and he will make that happen.

And you know, sometimes you have to take neighborhood bullies like the Islamic Republic of Iran at their very words.

And if they say they're going to do it and everything indicates that they will, then they actually will.

And the sad part of this whole thing is when the revolution started in 1979.

They've poured hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and know how into better ways to kill Jewish and Israeli people and better ways to promote terror.

And imagine what would have happened if they invested all of that money and they're very, very smart.

They've developed some great missiles that have hit Israel and gotten through our defenses.

What if they invested that money in healthcare, finding a cure for cancer, you know, agriculture, poverty.

They could really have a great place in Iran, but instead they invested in death and destruction and ideology.

It's sad.

Rami.

Yeah, I mean, that's a fascinating explanation from Mitchell about what, you know, is traditional Israeli Zionist perspectives.

What most of it is exaggerated, diversionary, some of it is not true.

And most of it is not really relevant.

It's just a traditional way that the Israelis and pro-Israeli groups discussed these issues.

I mean, the idea that it's bad to fire missiles at civilians after Israel has been called by the International Court of Justice.

A genocidal state for lobbying, killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.

So, but we don't have time to get into these points by points.

We should do that one other time over coffee somewhere.

The reality is that the state of Israel is the power in the region with the United States.

They're the ones that have been going around.

And essentially one after the other starting with Iran and then Syria, Libya, Iraq, starting with Iraq.

I mean, and the Palestinians with Lebanon hitting anybody who they think threatens them.

It's fair enough for countries to want to live in peace.

And the Arab countries, including Iran, by the way, the Iran has said for many years that they will live with whatever agreement the Palestinians agree with Israel on.

And the Palestinians through their institutions have said they're willing to live with the Jewish majority Israeli state if it lives with the Palestinian state.

So, we should focus really on what actually is happening on the ground.

And the bigger threat, I think, that we see is Israel trying to destabilize countries and fragment them into smaller entities.

We've seen it in Lebanon. We've seen it in Iraq. We've seen it in Syria.

We've seen it in Palestine. They try to make deals with minority groups in different countries.

They don't want any strong, stable, legitimate countries around them that could challenge them.

Not necessarily challenge them to destroy them, but challenge them to force the Israelis to do things they've never done.

Which is to define their borders except to implement the UN resolutions that Israel said it would implement.

Israel never implemented the terms of acceptance into the UN in 1948.

So, we really should focus on how can these people live together Iran, Arabs, Israelis, they can, I believe.

Alan, have a look now at, well, if there is regime change, you know, how does it affect Israel itself?

Well, depending on the regime, I mean, people were talking about regime change in Iraq and Syria and we got ISIS.

People were talking about regime change in Egypt and we got the Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel has been arrogantly pursuing regime change in Lebanon and look where that led to.

And so, the question is, what is the new regime going to look like?

If anyone is looking for a Thomas Jefferson to take over the reins from the Ayatollahs, from the Islamic Republic, that's not going to happen.

If anyone is thinking in terms of reverting back or going back to the Shah days, that's not going to happen.

You know, regime change in history is something that is a bottom-up process.

It does not and cannot be affected by an outside power unless that country is occupied as was Iraq, as was Japan or Germany.

In the post 1945.

So, I don't see regime change in the absence of a clear opposition in Iran with which Israel and the U.S.

And I hasten to say the Israel because I think that having strategic delusions of grandeur has damaged Israel in the past, this is not to say anything about Israel's enmity and justification for this war.

So, I think that this is the situation's plural in this sense or in this war, but I really find it very difficult and I think it is extraordinarily not viable to think of regime change right now.

Mitchell, if we do see a change in the regime there, what is a win for Israel? What is a lose for Israel?

First of all, I like to just give a little history. I know people don't like the history so much, but February 1979 was the last time LL had a direct flight from Tehran to Tel Aviv.

In the 1970s, we had four flights a week. I mean, we had relations with Iran, but Israel and Iranians were very closely connected.

We had a lot of businesses together, a lot of tourism and so forth. So, for a lot of Israelis, there are still Israelis that of Persian descent that are looking forward to going back and looking forward to helping develop that country.

But back to your question about a win. A win for Israel is getting rid of the threat and they are very, very capable with the missiles that they've developed with the nuclear capability which they we think they might have or they were getting close to.

So, that first has to be stopped. That's automatically a win and we already won because when we Israel went together with the United States, it's not like the last war in June when it was Israel first then the United States joined.

Israel and the United States started this operation together, this war together. This is absolutely unprecedented and it is very, very important.

It's an important message that the security of Israel and the United States is aligned and both are putting their firepower and troops and people and civilians on the line.

I don't see how that happens, meaning even if there isn't exactly a regime change, you know, as Secretary Hegseth just said in the live press conference, you know, after June when the nuclear capabilities were pretty much destroyed, they said to the Iranians.

It's destroyed. Now let's make a deal. Let's make a deal. They could have stayed in power. All they had to do was make a deal and they were given chance after chance, after chance, including last week and the week before to come make a deal.

And there would be no talk of regime change and none of this would have happened.

How do you respond to that, Rami?

Well, I just agree with most of it, but it is a very accurate reflection of Israeli government views, which reflect the right wing, mis-Sianic militant majority that now seems to dominate Israel, which is supported by the American right wing government.

I think making deals is good. We should definitely make deals between Israel and all the Arab countries in Iran, but any deal has to serve the legitimate rights and interests of both sides.

We can't have, when you go in and bomb somebody and destroy them and try to bring them to their knees and then make a deal, that's not a deal.

That's a colonial subjugation and we've done that. We've experienced that for hundreds and hundreds of years and the Iranians have suffered under colonial manipulation for many years.

The Israelis and the Americans, by the way, for the last 75 years or so, have prevented two people in the region mainly from practicing their self-determination to live in their own system.

The Israelis have hit the Americans to Iran and to the Palestinians.

And that's why Palestinians and Iranians today are the two groups that most sort of vehemently resist Israel and the U.S.

This all can be resolved through negotiations, but only if the negotiations legitimately address the rights of both sides.

And this is what Israel has refused to do. Israel has always put its own security as the priority.

And if it's security is a short and guaranteed, then the Israelis will give something to the other side.

And they've tried this in other places with the Palestinians, for instance, with Oslo and other things and look what they've got.

They've got now a rampant annexation in the West Bank and a genocide in Gaza.

So people don't trust the Israelis or the Americans now to keep their word.

And this is why it's so critical to get some really serious mediation internationally underway because a negotiated peaceful resolution is the ideal.

And we should all work for this constant warfare.

I'm 77 years old. I was born in 48. I've lived with this all my life.

I'd rather have a normal relationship and it can be done if the Israelis accept that which they don't.

Could the first impact on the Israeli body politic be the upcoming election, which could see this, this war actually help the incumbent, Benjamin Netanyahu?

I think it's premature to seriously assess that.

There's no question, Rashad, that that that Mr. Netanyahu is trying to remove himself from his responsibility for the worst catastrophe in the back of in Israel's history.

That is October 7, 2023 and somehow engineer or manipulate reality geopolitics and turning that the back all into some kind of a strategic triumph via the feeding Iran.

I understand the logic of that whether or not that would translate into electoral benefit or gains remains to be seen.

There is no, there's no election date right now.

Supposedly legally it is scheduled for October, but it could happen.

You know, if the war ends and Mr. Netanyahu concludes that it was a resounding victory, he may try and call for a snap election within 90 days.

And we're already in March, so 90 days would take us to June and we're not far away from the legally binding date or a scheduled election of October.

So it really depends on how this evolved because as you began at the big, you know, at the outset of this program, the show, we all know how wars begin and we can all analyze and see clearly what the

the absolute interest and benefits of each side, but we have zero idea how they evolve.

We have no idea how bad things can get war. For that matter, how quickly positive they can turn.

I don't know. I think it really is premature to assess any political implications.

Rami is the worst case scenario for Israel, essentially a regime change in the sense that you get an even more emboldened regime, perhaps one which is run by the Iranian Revolution Revolution regarding the IRGC.

That would definitely be something that Israel would not want, but we essentially have that now. I mean, you can't get much more emboldened than the government that has existed in Iran since 1979.

But the idea of totally removing the Islamic government concept and replacing it with something milder is a little bit naive, I think.

The majority of Iranians would like to have a better government, a more efficient government, less corrupt government and less autocratic government.

But at the same time, the Iranians have lived over the last century with a lot of foreign manipulation from Iranians, from Russians, from Americans, from British, from Israelis, and they're fed up with it.

And they just want to define themselves. The Islamic Revolution was the first one that sort of did this in a way, but it's pretty harsh kind of government.

But that's not the point. It's not for Israel to determine the degree of kindness or harshness of any government. The responsibility of governments is to abide law and not be belligerent to each other.

So I think the Israelis are going to have to live with whatever comes out of Iran. But if you look at Palestine as an example of Lebanon for years, Israel has has bloodshed Palestinians and the Lebanese, and they've only continued to resist more fiercely.

So there has to be a better way than military superiority. Mitchell, how do you respond?

Well, first of all, Rami has said some things about the Netanyahu government and some of the Messianic people here.

So the good news is Rami that in October, there will be an election and of the 9 million people that are going to vote here.

Two million of them are Israelis of Palestinian descent, Arabic speakers. So you should encourage all of your friends, relatives, and anyone you know to go out and vote in the election.

There is a democracy and there are many, many Arabic speaking Israelis of Palestinian descent serving in the Knesset.

And they certainly have the right to criticize and they do that. And I think a lot of Israelis are not particularly thrilled with this government, especially when it comes to not that, but the draft and the service of all Israelis equally.

All Jewish Israelis equally in the army and not giving an exemption to any Israelis for not doing that.

So I think we're going to try to say something. Sorry, Alan, you're trying to say something.

Yeah, it's just going to add to what Rami said about meddling in Iranian inter-politics.

Let's not forget that Iran is not monolithic. There are 93 million inhabitants in Iran. Only 66, 0, 60% of them are Persians.

There are Azeris and there are Turks and there are Turkmenes and there are Baluchis and what have you.

So when we're talking about these Islamic Republic and post-war Iran and regime change, yes, no, maybe or to what extent and along what lines.

Let's not forget that Iran is not a monolithic country. A lot of things could happen there.

Things, for example, that the US never thought over considered seriously when it dismembered Iraq in 2003.

So you never know what's going to come out of this. It could be hell and it could be paradise, but it's an even chance for both either.

Thank you so much. Thanks to our guest, Alan Pinkas, Ramihuri, Mitchell Barra.

This episode was produced by German Fleming, Alexandra Buyers and Michael Harwood and Gemma Harries.

Studefound was by Deepak Pushkaran. The program was edited by Manish Muthai, Catherine Nune and Joseph Reyes.

You can catch every episode on the Insights for Repotcast. Don't forget to subscribe and review us on your favorite podcast app.

Share the episode and leave a comment too. We'd love to hear from you. Thank you for listening, tune in on Tuesday for our next edition.

Coming up in the take, the US and Israel's war on Iran and the information war. We break down what you need to know.

That's the take by Al Jazeera. Find it wherever you get your podcasts.