Introduction
Recently, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France collectively issued a statement addressing the Islamic Republic of Iran and declared their readiness to defend Israel against any threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article seeks to undertake a comprehensive examination of this statement, exploring its various dimensions and aspects from multiple perspectives.
Strategic
Since 2011, the United States has been decentralizing its strategic approach in the West Asia region, aiming to shift its responsibilities and objectives to its regional and international partners. One of the key regional allies in this regard is Israel, which has been instrumental in facilitating American diplomatic efforts in the region. Notably, the United States’ role in mediating the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab countries can be seen as a prime example of this strategy. Moreover, the US has assumed a more prominent role in dealing with regional issues related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly in the security environment surrounding Tehran. This shift is exemplified by the growing military and intelligence cooperation between Israel, Abu Dhabi, and Manama.
The United States has a significant interest in ensuring the protection and defense of Israel at any cost, particularly in the face of potential heavy military attacks from Tehran. In the current security environment of West Asia, Iran is the only actor posing a significant threat to Israel. In this context, the United States’ decision to transfer the responsibility of protecting Israel from its European command to its Central Command (CENTCOM) in West Asia, at the end of 2021, highlights the significance of Israel’s role in Washington’s strategic calculations for the region. This move demonstrates the importance of Israel to the United States in the security dynamics of West Asia.
Political
The significant influence of Zionist lobbies and capital interests in Western countries, particularly in the United States, has led to a perceived commitment by these countries to defend the security of the Zionist regime. For instance, despite the numerous human rights violations and crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, including those that violate international humanitarian law and threaten regional peace and security, no draft resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter has ever been presented against Israel in the Security Council. Furthermore, any discussion of security concerns or potential drafts in this regard are consistently vetoed by these countries without exception.
Legal
As previously mentioned, the United States has entrusted the responsibility of protecting Israel to CENTCOM, a military command that has been involved in various conflicts in the region. When this task is assigned to CENTCOM, it is clear that the United States has committed itself to defending Israel under any circumstances. This commitment is unwavering, despite the fact that Israel has repeatedly disregarded the sovereignty of some countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On the other hand, prior to the Operation Al-Aqsa, the United States provided $3 billion in military aid to the Israeli government. Following the operation, the Biden administration increased this aid to $14 billion. Recently, during a call with the Israeli Minister of Defense, the US Secretary of Defense announced that Washington would take any necessary action to defend Israel. It is also noteworthy that the US Congress has consistently demanded that the White House support the Israeli government. For instance, in May of this year, Congress approved a law requiring security assistance to Israel.
The Role of NATO
The role of NATO is often questioned, particularly in the event of a military conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist regime. The question is: what action would NATO take in this situation? In response, it is essential to note that since 1995, the Zionist regime has been a cooperating partner with NATO through the Mediterranean Dialogue Program. However, it is not a full-fledged member of the alliance, covered by Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which provides for collective defense. This means that in the event of a conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist regime, NATO, under its internal laws and regulations, cannot directly engage in a conflict with Tehran in support of Tel Aviv. Therefore, at most, it can provide advisory assistance to Israel.
It is also important to note that the statement announcing the support of four countries does not necessarily imply that NATO supports Israel. In fact, in 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explicitly acknowledged the points mentioned earlier.
The Alternative Hypothesis
An alternative hypothesis is that the four countries in question have issued this statement as a tactic of gunboat diplomacy, aiming to put Iran on its knees by forcing Tehran to refrain from reacting to Tel Aviv’s actions. It is noteworthy that these countries have repeatedly called on Iran to exercise restraint and not retaliate against the Zionist regime’s terrorist acts over the past two weeks. If this is indeed their policy, it would be akin to making a promise to defend the very existence and security of the Zionist regime, which would be a legitimate concern for Iran. Furthermore, the US, in particular, has no intention of directly intervening in West Asia’s security issues, as part of its policy of decentralization.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it appears that a conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran is not in the interest of Western countries, especially given their current crisis in Ukraine and tensions with China over Taiwan in East Asia. Opening a new front in West Asia would not be ideal for Westerners in this situation. What makes this situation more challenging for Westerners is their social unrest and protests against Tel Aviv’s crimes in Gaza, which suggests that their maximum reaction to Tehran regarding the Islamic Republic’s legitimate defense operation would be defensive defense of Tel Aviv, rather than an offensive attack on Tehran. This approach would allow them to avoid a large-scale conflict with Tehran while also taking on the task of defending the Zionist regime. Considering the diplomatic tactics of gunboat diplomacy, it is even possible to analyze and evaluate the deployment of the F-22 fleet to Al-Adeed base in Qatar as a way to deter Tehran from responding to the legitimate defense response to the terrorist crime of Ismail Haniyeh’s martyrdom. In essence, this strategy is nothing more than a means of attacking Iran without directly engaging in a full-scale conflict.