Analysis
BICOM Analysis: The Peres and Ahmadinejad speeches to the General Assembly: Competing Visions
Category:
Summary
– The speeches to the UN General Assembly last week by President Shimon Peres of Israel and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran illustrate in stark, graphic terms the competing visions for the future of the region held by Israel and Iran.
– Ahmadinejad’s vision is fuelled by grievance, by a sense of conspiracy, and by the machinations of dark, imperial forces – all ultimately controlled by the mysterious, ubiquitous ‘Zionists’. Peres’s vision, which is shared by many people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds across the region, is one of sane, joint, rational development.
– The problem is one of the Iranian regime as a whole, rather than of the particular figure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
– A nuclear capability would give the Iranian regime the reach and invulnerability it needs to begin to realize its vision for the region. The results would be disastrous for the region and the world. Preventing a nuclear Iran, meanwhile, is a prerequisite for the realization of the vision of joint development based on co-existence outlined by President Peres. For this reason, Israel’s commitment that a nuclear Iran will not be permitted to arise remains categorical.
Introduction
With the world hit by economic crisis, and the Middle East region beset by strife and instability in Pakistan, Iraq, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan, it is possible to forget the centrality and over-riding importance of a single regional and international issue: namely, the attempt by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. This issue is central because should the Iranian regime succeed in acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, this will allow Teheran to exacerbate instability in all the other above-mentioned theatres of conflict. Iran is already a factor in many of them. Iranian links with both governmental and opposition Shia factions in Iraq is a matter of record. Iranian backing of Hizballah is the salient political fact in that country at the present time. Iranian support for Hamas is making possible the consolidation of the Islamist enclave in Gaza. Thus, even without a nuclear capacity, Iran is acting as a de-stabilising force across the Middle East. A nuclear capacity would in effect give Iran carte blanche to continue and intensify these activities. A nuclear Iran would inevitably begin a general nuclear arms race across the region, as other states understandably sought to provide themselves with an insurance policy against Iranian subversion and aggression. A nuclear capability would also allow Iran to threaten the existence of Israel.
The problem is one of the Iranian regime as a whole, rather than of the particular figure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently re-iterated his support for Ahmedinejad, appearing to endorse a second term as president for him, despite the fact that there are other credible candidates in the field.[1] It is also worth noting that all elements of the religious oligarchy in Iran – including the most ‘moderate’ – are fully behind the Iranian nuclear program. The presidency in Iran is not of course the supreme executive position. But there is ample and growing evidence to suggest that the Supreme Leader is leaning toward the positions espoused by Ahmadinejad.
At the same time, it is important to stress that there is no deep historical dispute between Israel and Iran, and no inevitable disagreement over vital interests. Rather, prior to the revolution of 1979, Israel and Iran were allies. Jews and Persians have traditionally had close ties. Beyond regime circles, there are no widespread anti-Israeli sentiments among the Iranian public. With a different regime, it is likely that the old friendship between the countries could return.
The speeches to the UN General Assembly last week by President Shimon Peres of Israel and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran were of more than merely rhetorical interest. The two speeches illustrate in stark, graphic terms the competing visions for the future of the region held by Israel and Iran. While Peres outlines a vision of peaceful, pluralistic development, Ahmadinejad’s words promise a future of violent struggle.
This document will observe the content of the two speeches, and in this context, note the latest developments on the Iranian nuclear file.
The speeches
The speech given by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the UN General Assembly offers a concise explanation of the world-view underlying the activities of Iran’s Shia Islamist rulers. The speech begins with a lengthy theological explanation of the origins of the world and the nature of the divinity. The Iranian president locates morality and justice as possible only on the basis of a religious outlook, and identifies the absence of religious belief as the basis for the problems of the world. Having established this essential picture, the Iranian President moves on to locating what he regards as the central forces of injustice currently present in the world. His first reference is to the invasion of Iraq, which he declares was invaded under false pretences. The Iranian President asserts that ‘millions’ have lost their lives as a result of the invasion.
President Ahmadinejad then continues with a depiction of Israel reminiscent of the Arab nationalist rhetoric of two or three decades ago, which seeks to portray the country as an artificial entity. Ahmadinejad accuses the “criminal and occupying Zionists” of forging “a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people’s land by displacing, detaining, and killing the true owners of that land.” [2]
The “Zionists,” says the Iranian President, “invade, assassinate, and maintain food and medicine blockades, while some hegemonic and bullying powers support them. The Security Council cannot do anything and sometimes, under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murderers.” [3]
Such language is a throwback to the worst days of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is an attempt to roll back the current international consensus regarding the right of Israel to exist, and the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The peace process of the current period has been made possible by the slow, halting progress of the Palestinian leadership away from this vision of the conflict. The Iranian President lays down a stark, black and white depiction of the rights and wrongs of the situation, which implicitly and explicitly rejects all hopes of a peaceful resolution of the conflict based on mutual recognition.
Ahmadinejad’s speech goes further, however, than simply demonizing Zionism. Rather, in his speech, the Iranian President makes use of images taken from classical anti-Semitism. Thus, the speech contains the following passage:
“The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.” [4]
This accusation contains within it claims which are immediately familiar from the long, dark, history of antisemitic depictions of the Jews. The assertion that Jews seek to dominate the world through the manipulation of financial systems, and the belief that behind the scenes, Jews dominate the political life of the US and Europe – were prominent tenets of 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism, and underlay the demonization of Jews that took place in Nazi Germany and elsewhere. The Iranian president substitutes the word ‘Zionists’ for that of ‘Jews’ but the heritage of his remarks is obvious. The Iranian President goes on to predict the imminent collapse of the “Zionist regime”, and of the “American empire.”[5]
In his address to the General Assembly the following day, President Shimon Peres condemned his Iranian counterpart’s use of imagery reminiscent of the “darkest anti-Semitic libel,” – the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yet Peres, his condemnation notwithstanding, outlined a vision of the region emphasizing peaceful development.
In terms familiar from the optimistic days of the Oslo process of the 1990s, Peres first details Israel’s core acceptance of the concept of partition of the land, into viable Jewish and Palestinian Arab states. He goes on to emphasise the natural challenges jointly facing the peoples of the Middle East – the “desert, the thirst, the pollution” as he refers to it. President Peres notes that “nature does not carry a national passport.” [6] As such, Peres stresses the importance of peace as a basis for joint activity. He notes the agreements that Israel has signed with Egypt and Jordan, and the ongoing talks with the Palestinians. He expresses optimism that these talks can be concluded in the coming year.
He goes on, however, to point out that the “fanatic leadership” of Iran (explicitly not the Iranian people) offer the greatest challenge to this hope for progress and development. He notes Iranian support for Hezbollah, the regime’s engagement in Holocaust denial, and its attempts to develop enriched uranium and long range missiles.
Pointedly, Peres reminds the assembly of its duty to “prevent agonies before they take place.” He goes on to note that Israel has “shown that democracies can defend themselves.” [8]
Peres references the Arab peace initiative as a possible “invitation to comprehensive peace.” He concludes with a re-statement of Israel’s acceptance of the two-state solution, and of the joint, real-world problems shared by Israel and its Arab neighbours. He notes that “border areas can become open economic zones. Enabling free movement of people, commodities and ideas,” and concludes that the twenty first century is in need of pioneers to realize this vision. [9]
Differing visions outlined
The speeches by the Iranian and Israeli presidents have a significance beyond their specific political context. They encapsulate two differing visions of development which are currently doing battle in the region. Ahmadinejad mindset engenders an ongoing religious and ethnic conflict. His vision is fuelled by grievance, by a sense of conspiracy, and by the machinations of dark, imperial forces; all ultimately controlled by the mysterious, never quite defined figure of the ubiquitous ‘Zionists.’ Should this vision prevail, the future of the Middle East will be one of continued strife and waste of resources. Peres’s vision on the other hand, which is shared by many people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds across the region, is one of sane, joint, rational development and moving beyond the grievances and stereotypes of the past.
Iran is currently in the process of seeking nuclear weapons. The latest developments indicate an ongoing lack of unity among the international community on this issue. On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iran to cease its uranium enrichment work.[10] But the resolution contained no hint of further sanctions should Iran refuse to comply. The hopes for a fourth sanctions resolution are currently hostage to the emerging rivalry between Russia and the western powers. It has been suggested that Russia may be willing to support such a resolution only in return for NATO concessions on the issue of missile emplacements in Eastern Europe – a particular Russian concern. This international disunity comes at a time when the latest IAEA report, published on September 15, suggests that Iran is not cooperating with international inspectors seeking to ascertain the extent and nature of Iran’s enrichment of uranium. The report also notes that Iran has refused to answer questions raised by the IAEA regarding evidence of Iranian attempts at weaponization – that is, indications that Iran has worked on the design of a nuclear device and its integration into a delivery system.[11]
Conclusion
Israel has been committed throughout to a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Media reports suggesting the contrary notwithstanding, this commitment remains in effect. But the speeches by the Iranian and Israeli Presidents last week at the UN lay bare just what is at stake in the issue of the Iranian nuclear program. A nuclear capability would give the Iranian regime the reach and invulnerability it needs to begin to realize its vision for the region, of an endless battle against imagined conspiracies and demonic enemies. The results would be disastrous for the region and the world. A strategy of containment or deterrence towards a nuclear armed Iran would be to engage in an ongoing gamble that the regime will always make rational decisions. The discomfiting theological zealotry that underlies the world view of Ahmedinejad and others in the regime make such a gamble untenable. Preventing a nuclear Iran, therefore, is a prerequisite for the realization of the vision of joint development based on co-existence outlined by President Peres. For this reason, Israel’s commitment that a nuclear Iran will not be permitted to arise remains categorical.
[1] Golnaz Esfandiari, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Appears to endorse Ahmadinejad for another term,” RFE, 26/8/08. www.globalsecurity.org
[2] Full Text of Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN General Assembly, Ha’aretz; 24/9/08. Translated by the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran News Service.
[6] Full text of Shimon Peres’s speech to the UN General Assembly, Ha’aretz; 25/9/08.
[10] Louis Charboneau, ‘Iran avoids new sanctions in UN Council vote,’ Reuters, 27/9/08.
[11] IAEA; Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director General; 15 September 2008