On June 13, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched Operation Rising Lion ostensibly against Iran’s nuclear programme, inflicting blows on a scale not seen since the devastating Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88.
Not to be outdone, on Sunday United States President Donald Trump ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted three of Iran’s most important nuclear facilities.
This crisis is the result of an inevitable collision course going back decades. On one side is an Iranian regime that has declared its core intention is to annihilate the state of Israel, and on the other a state that is hypersensitive to security threats and prepared to act to subvert them.
As leading women’s rights campaigner Aida Tavassoli, an Iranian-New Zealander, observed in a recent article, the crisis is being propelled by hyper-masculine leaders including Netanyahu, Trump and the deeply patriarchal rulers of Iran.
Netanyahu basked in the glory of the Israeli Air Force and Mossad’s military aggression after striking 900 targets at 350 sites in four days and in killing much of the top leadership of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).
Trump, rather than taking Netanyahu to task for derailing the latest round of nuclear negotiations scheduled for June 15 in Oman — where he planned to ‘‘strong-arm’’ the Iranian negotiators — bristled at becoming a sideshow to the main event.
This prompted him to vicariously call for Iran’s ‘‘unconditional surrender’’ and then renege on his two-week ultimatum by striking within four days.
This could be interpreted as a tactical deception but could as likely be impulsive bravado with serious consequences for regional and global security.
The Iranian regime is also unlikely to be capable of taking the harder choice to compromise and seek de-escalation but will rather double down on its attacks against Israel and potentially US targets.
Another important facet to understand is the cathartic response of Israeli society to the bold strikes against Iran.
For four decades, Israelis have been living with a constant fear that the Islamic Republic will some day find a way make good on its promise to annihilate the state of Israel — a fear compounded by the Iran’s vast ballistic missile industry and deeply suspected nuclear weapons programme.
It is understandable that a large majority of Israelis, including those who virulently oppose Netanyahu in other areas, including the Gaza War, approve of the strikes.
Israelis remember the days when Iran was a staunch ally rather than a formidable foe. They dream of a return to the pre-2023 process of regional ‘‘acceptance’’ as per the 2020 Abraham Accords. (Another interpretation of the Rising Lion codename is that it refers to the Pahlavi lion which used to adorn Iran’s flag.)
Another crucial facet, which stands in direct contradiction to Israeli optimism, is a rising psychological response among Middle East populations to images of Israel incurring damage from Iranian missiles penetrating the defence systems, although fatalities remain low due to Israel’s highly efficient civil defence warning system.
For Arab-Islamic societies there is a sense that the story they have been told by their leaders and the world that Israel is invulnerable was a lie. If so, then the redemption of Arab dignity encompassed in the plight of the Palestinians and their own political powerlessness, battered back down after the Arab Spring of 2011-12, could be within reach.
The winds of change in the Arab world started in Syria late last year with the fall of the Al-Assad regime — hence nervousness and expectation prevail for Arab rulers and society respectively.
It is too soon to consider the prospect of a post Islamic Republic Iran, although it is hard to imagine the corrupt, geopolitically isolated and ideologically hollow regime fully recovering.
But one thing is clear. None of the myriad opposition groups inside and outside Iran would wish for their country’s liberation to come on the back of Israeli-US military aggression.
What could New Zealand do?
New Zealand can take advantage of our distance from the intensity and high emotion of events to provide a perspective that is real rather than repetitive, and helpful and holistic rather than one-sided and incendiary.
New Zealand should look to follow a two-track approach to the emerging crisis.
On one hand we should look to leverage our anti-nuclear credentials to foster global recommitment to the principles of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the current global climate, this may unfortunately amount to little more than symbolism.
More directly, in the absence of many alternatives, New Zealand could offer its services as a trusted intermediary and facilitator of dialogue in the way that Oman and, to a lesser extent, Qatar (given Israeli hostility) do in the Middle East.
Ultimately, it may be that there is little that can be done to arrest the current cycle of conflict. In that case, countries like New Zealand need to be ready to deal with what comes next in a new Middle East.
This requires an understanding of the genuine aspirations for dignity and security of Iranians, Israelis, Arabs, women and the myriad other components of the changing Middle East.
- Leon Goldsmith lectures in Middle Eastern politics at the University of Otago.
