Tehran sees wider regional agenda behind Israel’s Lebanon offensive
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
The intensification of Israeli aggressions in southern Lebanon has drawn reactions from Iranian officials, who have described it as tantamount to a violation of the ceasefire involving Tehran and have warned of its consequences. Meanwhile, Iran and the United States have themselves witnessed a limited exchange of fire near the Strait of Hormuz, although statements issued by both sides indicated that the incidents were solely related to developments in the waterway. These developments have cast doubt on the durability of the ceasefire and the continuation of diplomatic efforts on both the Iranian and Lebanese fronts. In an interview with Iran Daily, Hossein Kazemi, an international affairs analyst, said that Iran views Israel’s operations in Lebanon as part of a broader project aimed at destabilizing the region. He argued that Tehran could use its political, diplomatic and regional leverage to raise the political and security costs of US support for Israeli actions and elevate the Lebanon issue into a regional and international demand.
IRAN DAILY: How do you analyze Iran’s approach to developments in Lebanon? What tools does Iran have to pressure the United States and Israel to adhere to the ceasefire and halt operations in Lebanon?
KAZEMI: Iran does not view Israel’s operations in Lebanon merely as a Lebanese issue. Rather, it sees them as part of a broader project of regional destabilization. From Tehran’s perspective, the continuation of this trend could threaten not only Lebanon’s security but also the security of West Asia as a whole. For that reason, Iran’s opposition to the expansion of Israeli military operations should be understood within the framework of defending regional stability and preventing the outbreak of another large-scale war.
At the same time, Iran believes that the United States, as Israel’s principal political and military backer, bears direct responsibility for the actions of this regime and cannot dissociate itself from their consequences. Washington speaks of diplomacy and de-escalation on the one hand, yet on the other it has not adopted a firm deterrent stance toward Israeli military actions. This dual-track approach has led many regional observers to question the sincerity of US support for peace and regional stability. As long as the United States is unwilling to use its influence to restrain Israeli actions, it will be difficult to speak of a sustainable ceasefire and regional security. Tehran can therefore draw on its political, diplomatic and regional capacities to increase the cost of continued Israeli aggression. Iran has also conveyed the message that ongoing attacks on Lebanon could negatively affect negotiations and regional security arrangements. In practice, Tehran’s most important instrument is to raise the political and security costs of US support for Israeli actions and turn the Lebanon issue into a regional and international demand.
Page 3