Iran’s optimal strategy against Trump, regional dynamics
”In these complex and sensitive conditions, diplomacy must take precedence, and today we need this concept more than ever,” emphasized Mohammad Ali Sobhani, the former Iranian ambassador to Lebanon and Qatar, highlighting the particular circumstances in the region concerning the United States. “Diplomacy is a comprehensive matter, one aspect of which is dialogue.” The widespread backlash and cohesive opposition from many countries around the world—especially regional states—against the latest proposal from the US and the Israeli regime regarding the forced relocation of Gaza’s population to other countries significantly diminishes the feasibility of such plans. However, it is also essential to investigate the roots and motivations behind these types of proposals. To explore the dimensions, motivations, and consequences of the troublesome schemes put forth by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, IRNA held talks with the expert on regional affairs and former ambassador.
Donald Trump’s proposal for the forced relocation of Gaza’s residents to Jordan and Egypt, along with Netanyahu’s parallel suggestion to allocate parts of Saudi territory to the Palestinian people, has met with a unified response from Arab and Islamic countries. How do you assess the reasons behind this stance?
The existing equations among Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, and the region were disrupted following the events after October 7. After October 7, the Israelis launched a large-scale and devastating war against the people of Gaza, conducting operations without any consideration for the Palestinians. Israel could not endure or manage this operation, which was carried out without accounting for its consequences, as it had done in the past with more limited conflicts. Consequently, in a different decision and action, they prolonged the war in Gaza for over a year until reaching this cease-fire.
The current perception among Israelis regarding the regional situation, which they have also communicated to Americans, is that the region has significantly weakened. The Palestinians have suffered a severe blow and are experiencing internal divisions. Hezbollah, which was seen as a supporter of the Palestinians, has effectively been sidelined from projecting power and support due to the cease-fire and developments in Lebanon. This perception extends to Iran, which has always played a significant role; Israel believes that Iran has also been weakened. On the other hand, Syria, given its current conditions, lacks the capability to support the resistance against Israel, and even parts of Syrian territory have been occupied in these developments.
The analysis by Israelis, along with its projection and generalization to Americans, combined with the presence of controversial figures and extremists such as Netanyahu and Trump, has resulted in a new situation. I believe that the partnership between Netanyahu and Trump poses a challenge for the entire region. This perception has led Americans and Israelis to conclude that, given the increased room for maneuver, it is opportune to undertake a larger endeavor and transform their military victory into a historic, political, and strategic achievement, thereby seeking to find lasting tranquility concerning Gaza. From their perspective, there are pathways to achieve this, one of which involves transferring Gaza to the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas. It seems that, at this juncture, the US and Israel have moved past this solution, whereas under President Biden, there was a greater inclination towards establishing a Palestinian-Israeli state.
Another recent proposal from the US president regarding the forced relocation of Gaza’s population appears to be a precursor to a larger conflict. As of now, the Egyptians, despite US proposals, are not prepared to accept Palestinians into their territory. The forced relocation of Gaza’s population could only realistically take place in Egypt due to the shared border, and the idea of relocating them to other territories such as Saudi Arabia does not seem credible. This forced relocation hinges on an agreement between Egypt and the US If such an agreement materializes, the narrative of 1948, 1967, 1973, or even 1982 may repeat itself. In 1948, coinciding with the establishment of the Israeli state, the forced displacement of Palestinians from various areas, house-to-house seizures, massacres, and their expulsion occurred, followed by events in Jordan and the establishment of camps in all neighboring countries surrounding the occupied Palestinian territories.
At present, the question arises: will such an event be repeated, with Egypt retreating in the face of such demands and collaborating with the United States? Will Saudi Arabia accept this? My response to this issue, based on my assessment of the current conditions, is negative. This means that the Egyptians have shown absolutely no flexibility regarding such atrocities and widespread changes, and other Arabs and Muslims will not accept this either. Unfortunately, the reality is that perhaps at no other time has there been such a fragmented stance against occupation as there is today. This period can be compared to the time when Israel occupied two-thirds of Lebanon and demanded the expulsion of armed Palestinians from Lebanon. After this condition was met, they withdrew from Lebanon. Similar events occurred during the four previously mentioned periods, all of which faced the physical defeat of Arab countries and Palestinian forces, leading to a sense of Israeli victory. Currently, Tel Aviv shares this sentiment and aims to turn it into a tangible achievement.
Iran has called for an emergency meeting of Islamic countries. Given your background in the region and close cooperation with Arab and Islamic nations, what do you think the diplomatic apparatus should do to counter these plans, and what agendas should be prioritized in consultations with other Islamic and Arab countries, as well as internationally?
The initiatives available to Iran and Islamic countries are currently limited. There exists a low level of trust among Islamic and Arab nations, along with various weaknesses. Syria, at present, has lost its ability to participate actively in the resistance, and due to these cumulative factors, no real initiative or operational plan has yet been formulated. At this stage, the forced relocation of people from Gaza, or potentially annexing this region to the territories occupied by Israel or turning it into an area under US control, represents a strategic transformation for which the conditions have not yet been established by either the US or Israel, nor has there been a serious initiative from countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the current Syria, or even Lebanon.
A consensus and common stance among countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, neighboring states of Palestine, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia, could form a powerful axis that would serve as an impactful initiative and a barrier against Israel and the US. These countries have the capability to create a broad force and alter the equation, but unfortunately, signs of this are currently absent. Both Iran’s previous request for an Islamic countries conference and the recent proposal from the foreign minister to hold such a meeting are positive steps, allowing Islamic nations to present their viewpoints. However, proposing further initiatives under the current circumstances is quite challenging.
One sign of this initiative could be the establishment of robust relations between Iran and Egypt and extensive cooperation between the two countries. Neighboring countries of the occupied territories must also enhance their collaborations and reduce their differences. The firm stance of Turkey and Iran is a serious and strategic opposition to such demographic and geopolitical changes in the region; these countries must engage in serious dialogue and stand firm against any alterations. The proposal to hold this meeting and the consultations that Islamic nations provide in response to the actions of the Israeli regime and the US could be pivotal, as these threats could manifest for each country in the region. Such an agreement, if accepted by Egypt, would have significant repercussions for Cairo and would potentially destabilize the country. This means that the entry of Palestinians into Egypt, given the population and current conditions, would not be without tension and difficulties, and numerous issues would undoubtedly arise.
How serious do you think Trump is in this positioning, and to what extent are these continuous statements part of his transactional policy aimed at applying maximum pressure in one area and maneuvering around it to gain further concessions from the opposing side, in a manner akin to the carrot and stick approach?
The negotiation method employed by the US and Israel is based on pressure, bargaining, and securing maximum demands. However, given the current conditions, I believe these statements do not seem very genuine. If they were to occur, it would likely lead to a confrontation between the US and Egypt, in which case other Islamic and Arab countries would, to some extent, stand behind Egypt. Therefore, under the current atmosphere and conditions, this forced relocation to Egypt or the claims made regarding Saudi Arabia will not be feasible.
On the other hand, it is essential to note that Turkey, Qatar, and the new Syria are currently pursuing a kind of Muslim Brotherhood inclination, which has always been problematic for Egypt. Ultimately, the internal issues of these countries will determine their positions. We are faced with diverse and complex contradictions both domestically and throughout the region, which could prove dangerous and place countries in a race to get closer to the Israeli regime and the US, revealing a significant vulnerability in the process.
We are witnessing a new directive from Trump to strictly enforce the policy of maximum pressure against Iran. As time progresses, we will need to confront increased US involvement in the Iran-phobic and re-securitization of the Iran issue. Given the regional developments and the evolving relationships between Iran and certain Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, since 2015, do you think these countries will have the motivation to align with the US on this policy, or will they seek to ease tensions between Tehran and Washington, or at least manage them?
First, we need to assess how and to what extent the regional countries position themselves alongside Iran. I believe that if hostility between Iran and the US escalates, the regional countries will urge Trump to pursue dialogue with Iran to safeguard their own security. However, how much they are willing to invest in this effort requires careful consideration, as their stance is not solid enough to effect significant change. Over the years, Iran has sent positive messages to the regional countries, but it remains to be seen whether these messages have been sufficient to alleviate their concerns. Some regional countries feel pressure and danger from Iran, and despite knowing that any problems in the region would also harm them, they might not mind that pressures on Iran continue, as long as they do not escalate into war. Such behavior in foreign policy can be seen as competitive; while maintaining camaraderie and shared perspectives on many issues, these countries may welcome US pressures against Iran to gain more leverage and protect themselves from threats, but only to the extent that it does not lead to conflict—rather, they seek pressures that redefine Iran’s position so it no longer poses a threat to them.
The policy of this government [Pezeshkian’s administration], as well as those of previous administrations focused on reform, construction, and hope, is to cultivate a brotherly, friendly, and non-threatening relationship with neighbors and regional countries, ensuring that they do not genuinely perceive a threat from us and are reassured that Iran’s economic strengthening will also benefit them. In contrast to this perspective, there exists another belief that neighboring countries should feel threatened and humiliated for Iran to progress; however, such an approach is not in anyone’s interest. The priority is for others, especially neighbors, not to feel threatened by us, so they do not collaborate with our adversaries or condone pressures against us. This is a delicate balancing act that our policymakers must pay attention to at this stage.
Currently, we are faced with specific conditions in the region and in relation to the US. In these complex and sensitive circumstances, diplomacy must take precedence, and today, we need this concept more than ever. Diplomacy is a comprehensive endeavor, one that involves dialogue, whether we are negotiating or not. At this moment, Trump has signed his specific order for maximum pressure against Iran, and Tehran has explicitly stated that it will not negotiate under such conditions. However, this does not signify the end of diplomacy; if the US and Iran find themselves on equal footing, negotiations could once again take shape, allowing us to return to a diplomatic framework.
What impact do you think Trump’s proposal and Netanyahu’s insistence will have on the normalization project between Islamic and Arab countries and Israel, known as the Abraham Accords? Will these stances set countries like Saudi Arabia back a few steps on this path?
It is highly likely that if the Americans attempt to operationalize their announced intentions regarding the relocation of the people of Gaza, the so-called Abrahamic peace will collapse, and the concept will cease to exist. The relationship between Arabs and the US will not progress in any shared space. The Abraham Accords were founded on the basis of two independent states, Palestine and Israel, UN Security Council resolutions, and the Oslo peace negotiations. However, the current position being articulated by the US and Israel involves abandoning Gaza and relocating its people to other territories, which has no connection to the negotiations that took place previously. That said, we must see how firmly the Arabs will stand against these positions. Nonetheless, I fundamentally believe this plan somehow circles back to the Abraham Accords, as it suggests that the US and Israel want Hamas to have no presence in Gaza, and this region would ostensibly fall under the control of the Palestinian Authority. It does not seem that this forced relocation plan for the people of Gaza is the endpoint.
The interview was conducted by the Persian service of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).