Netanyahu's cynical embrace of Iran's protesters

Israel and its US apologists are waxing poetic about their admiration for Iran's protesters who are dying in the streets by the thousands. Social media overflows with encomiums from Netanyahu and a baker's dozen of Congress members and US ambassadors on the Israel Lobby gravy train.

They offer slogans like "freedom" "courage," and "democracy" on behalf of Iranians, as if they needed to hear it from them.

Congressman Dan Goldman posted: ‘We won’t ignore the violence Iran’s government is waging against its own people. Dozens have already been killed.’ And that he stands ‘with the Iranian people in their fight for democracy.’

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also weighed in, writing: ‘So Iran slaughtering its own people doesn’t even merit a protest from the phony pro-Hamas activists who have been making fools of themselves.’

Statements like "I stand with the Iranian people" are basically code for "I want regime change to promote Israel's (and America's) interests."

In truth, the Iranian protest movement doesn't mean anything to Netanyahu, except as a tool to achieve his own political interests. He does not want Iranian democracy, as he claims. In fact, a real democracy would be a serious threat because it would unify the country under populist values, which would include hostility to Israel.

Israeli alliance with Pahlavi

Instead, Trump supports Iranian monarchy: the return of the pretender to the Peacock Throne, Reza Pahlavi. However, ousting the current government, as corrupt and brutal as it may be, will not bring democracy if he’s put in power. It will mean a return to the brutality and corruption of his father, who was ousted in 1979. It will mean exchanging one tyranny for another.

But this suits Israel just fine as it prefers Arab-Muslim states ruled by strongmen like Mubarak, Abdullah, Bin Salman, al-Sisi, Assad, etc. It knows it can buy them off or intimidate them. Whereas a democratic country, whose leadership is answerable to the people, would never capitulate before Israeli power.

Netanyahu supports a neutered Iran and a pliant leadership prepared to do Israel's bidding. Someone with whom, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "we can do business."

Regardless of the outcome of the current protests, Israel wins. If the clerical system falls, Israel wins. If it doesn't fall, it will be fatally weakened. As for the thousands of Iranian dead: they would surely “rejoice” knowing they advanced Netanyahu's agenda.

Media reports describe some protesters advocating the return of Pahlavi, shouting his name in the streets. They are clearly too young to remember the last reigning Shah, who led a brutal, corrupt regime that was toppled by Ayatollah Khomeni in 1979. Anyone who lived then knows that monarchy will lead to the same dead end as the current rulers.

Most Iranians would detest this image of Pahlavi praying in a kippah at the Western Wall. Any Muslim would know that this was a wall of the Jewish Temple on whose ruins sits Al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest shrine in Islam. Praying at this wall implicitly affirms the vision of rebuilding the Temple. That in turn means destroying al Aqsa.

The more dead, the more divided Iran becomes. In that sense, it isn't necessary, in promoting Pahlavi that he become the new Iranian ruler. If he fails, he still serves as a foil to divide Iran into warring camps: monarchists, clericalists, MeK. Not to mention the disaffected ethnic minority peoples of Baluchestan, Khuzestan and Khorestan and Kurdistan.

Dividing enemy states amongst warring religious and ethnic factions is Israel's Grand Strategy, whose goal is to cow its neighbours. It's done this in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Somalia. It renders them dysfunctional and, as such, incapable of resisting Israel's pursuit of its territorial or political ambitions.

The more division, the more blood, the more dead, the more control Israel has.

Trump prepares to attack...or talk

Now, Trump has inserted himself into the turmoil. He's warned that Iran "is in big trouble" and threatened to "hit Iran very, very hard where it hurts" if it continues its attacks on protesters:

President Trump has been briefed in recent days on new options for military strikes in Iran as he considers following through on his threat to attack the country for cracking down on protesters, according to multiple US officials familiar with the matter.

He's been presented with military plans to attack IRG and other assets of the Iranian state. Apparently, there are some within the Trump administration who maintain some semblance of rationality. US officials said they had to be careful that any military strikes did not have the opposite effect — galvanizing the Iranian public to support the government — or trigger a set of retaliatory strikes that could threaten US military and diplomatic personnel in the region.

Of course, once you intervene militarily in order to effect regime change, there is no telling what will happen and how people will react. But it's much more likely it will rally Iranians to the government, rather than encourage them to escalate the struggle.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle you can never get him back in.

Iranian officials, on the other hand have reached out to the US and offered to start talks. Initially, Trump expressed a willingness to explore this option. But the day after, he resumed his hard-line position and cut off the chance of any negotiation with Iran.

Last year, shortly after talks ended, the US launched an attack on its nuclear sites. One hopes history will not repeat itself. Though given the June assault and his recent military adventurism in Venezuela, the US president seems much more likely to pursue military action.

Scepticism

A recent incident in LA reveals a very different – and in some ways darker – vision of what’s to come.

A video offered by noted Iranian-American analyst Trita Parsi, showed a violent confrontation at a Los Angeles rally that was incited by an Iranian monarchist waving an Israeli flag, who attempted to drag a supporter of the MeK out of his truck. Further evidence of the unholy alliance between Pahlavi, his disciples and Israel.

Parsi calls Israel's policy the "Syrianization" of Iran. That is, the division of Syria into fiefdoms controlled by warring parties: ISIS, Kurds, Alawites, Druze, etc. The more chaos, the more divided, the better.

That's one reason why Israel opposed the new Syrian government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa. He "threatened" to unite the country. Doing so would mean it could put up a fight against Israeli hegemony. That explains why Israel has not only annexed the Syrian Golan, but has invaded and occupied further Syrian territory. It claims the goal is to protect its Syrian Druze allies. Though many of the Druze want nothing to do with this arrangement.

Similarly, Israel would like Iran split into different ethnic fiefdoms (Baloch, Kurd, Azeri) preferably warring with each other, or against a central government. It would like MeK warring with the monarchists, and supporters of the clerics warring with all of them. The more dissension the better. The weaker Iran, the better.

I have not read many voices offering the scepticism I offer here. Barbara Slavin along with Parsi are among the few I've found who've offered caution. She posted on X that Iranians should ‘be cautious about asking for US military intervention. As Venezuela shows, Trump is willing to cut deals with regimes if he thinks it's in his interest and with scant concern for democracy or human rights.’

The world seems both enthralled and appalled by events in Iran. But in its emotional response, it doesn't fully appreciate how much worse it could get if Netanyahu, Trump and Pahlavi get their way.

Richard Silverstein writes the Tikun Olam blog and is a freelance journalist specialising in exposing secrets of the Israeli national security state. He campaigns against opacity and the negative impact of Israeli military censorship.

Follow Richard on X: @richards1052

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.