Latest news with #RezaShah
New Indian Express
08-08-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Iran's Grand Strategy': Understanding the Islamic Republic
Iran is an oddity – a non-Arab Muslim nation, global leader of the Shite sect, and the strategically located Eastern boundary of the Middle East. It is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations dating back to the 5thmillennium BC which reached its zenith in the Persian or Achaemenid Empire, once the largest in the ancient world, covering much of Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. Iran's modern history is complicated. The rule of the authoritarian Reza Shah was ended in 1941by an allied invasion to secure Iranian oil fields and a major route for Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union. In 1943, the Allied Tehran Declaration guaranteed Iran's post-war independence and sought to create a constitutional monarchy under young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Political instability followed. In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq's popular nationalization of the British-owned oil industry triggered the Abadan Crisis culminating in a joint US and UK orchestrated coup in 1953, managed by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt. Mosaddeq, who was arrested and tried for treason, was replaced by the Shah who returned from a brief exile. Under the Shah, Iran evolved into an autocracy aligning itself with American and the West. The SAVAK, the notorious Iranian secret police, relied on arbitrary arrests, torture and killings to maintain the Shah's reign in the face of increasing opposition, led by the clergy, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had been exiled in 1964. The 1978 Revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy replacing it with the current Islamic Republic. Vali Nasr's Iran's Grand Strategy examines the evolution of Iran since the 1979 revolution. It follows books such as Michael Axworthy's 2014 Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic and Laura Secor's 2016 Children of Paradise: The Struggle for the Soul of Iran. Axworthy's meticulous history revealed the Republic's surprising modernity. It showed the country's highly educated workforce and technological capabilities, despite sanctions, in weapons manufacture, including its nuclear program, and for political manipulation and surveillance. Secor's coverage of religious thinkers, politicians, activists and writers provided an affecting picture of Iranians. It showed the competing forces of Westoxication, a term coined by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad signifying self-loathing worship of the West, and national pride in the values of the Revolution. The books revealed the Iranian clerics' unexpected wide reading including Marx, the Frankfurt School and French de-constructivists. The late Ayatollah Khomeini once defended his repressive rule in terms of Greek political philosophy: 'As Aristotle and Plato argued some men are born to govern, others to be governed, a few are aware, and the rest are sheep'. Nasr argues that Iranian geopolitics is less driven by ideology than assumed. Instead, policy is shaped by the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and nearly destroyed the economy consuming two-thirds of the country's income. Khomeini likened his acceptance of the ceasefire with Iraq to being forced to drink poison. The war confirmed the regime's mistrust of America, which supported Iraq in the war. It reinforced the fear of US-led regime change replacing the Islamic Republic with the Shah's descendants or other system. Vali Nasr downplays the role of Western powers in Prime Minister Mossadegh's overthrow. Other historians have argued that most Iranians saw the Shah as a Western puppet and resented the contribution of the US and the UK in returning the Shah to power after the coup. Iranian concern about a repetition of 1953 was one factor behind the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 which has colored the relationship between the two countries since. These pressures underlie Iran's calculated and pragmatic 'grand strategy of resistance'. Khomeini and his successor Ali Khamenei understood Iran's weakness especially its lack of conventional military capabilities which was difficult to overcome due to a weak economy and international isolation. Rather than exporting revolution, Iran sought to oppose American hegemony and, optimistically, outlast and exhaust the US and its allies in order to preserve the Republic. The strategy relied on rallying Iranians with a mixture of nationalist and revolutionary ideas alongside a careful military strategy, mainly devised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The latter involved forward defense and creating Iran's 'Axis of Resistance'. It involved sponsoring state and non-state actors in the Middle East, such as Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian Alawite regime, the Houthis in Yemen as well as engaging opportunistically with other often short-lived groups. The idea was that these elements, aligned with Iran but simultaneously pursuing their own domestic aims, would distract and occupy its enemies and assist with its defense if needed. In parallel, Iran began building up its military capacity including drones, missiles and cyber warfare. The controversial nuclear program was designed to secure deterrence and strategic leverage through ambiguity. Institutions like the military and defense scientists became crucial to Iran. The strategy was flexible. Iran's agreement to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action allowed it to maintain its missile program and preserve strategic gains with the ultimately failed objective of obtaining relief from Western economic pressures. They pursued diplomatic initiatives such as the reconciliation with Saudi Arabia in 2023 and growing links with Russia and China. The approach faced rising pressure after President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and increased sanctions. Israel with the support of the US and Gulf states assassinated key military officers (most notably General Qasem Soleimani in 2020), scientists and influential figures as well as launching cyber-attacks on its nuclear facilities. Iran's Grand Strategy covers events up to November 2024 and ends before the 2025 Iran war.[1] Israel attacked Iran on 13 June 2025 marking a significant escalation. Subsequently, the US joined the hostilities using its B2 stealth aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran suffered civilian casualties as well as the death of key Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists. Nuclear facilities were damaged although the extent is unclear. The fate of Iran's highly enriched uranium is unknown. The subsequent ceasefire, imposed by the US, is predicated on the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities and remains fragile. Israel and the US have not renounced a resumption of attacks. The attacks confirmed Iranian perceptions. There were suspicions that the US used sham negotiations and manipulated a crucial report by the IAEA, the UN nuclear oversight body, to provide cover for the attacks. It highlighted Western hypocrisy on nuclear weapons given Israel's well-known atomic arsenal. It reinforced the view that American policy sought to maintain the Jewish state's military advantage and, at a minimum, cripple Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his desire for regime change in Tehran. US willingness to deploy its military assets on the side of Israel in support of its territorial and hegemonic ambitions was noted. Iran's future approach remains uncertain. The Republic and its proxies are weakened. Even before the 2025 attacks, the Gaza war had already degraded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime fell in December Iranian leadership has limited options but the basic tenets of its strategy, which are linked to the survival of the Republic, are unlikely to change. Iran, which retains nuclear expertise despite the targeted killings of its scientists, has not indicated abandonment of its programs. Given the continuing threats it faces and the knowledge that the US and Israel would not have dared attack if it possessed nuclear armaments, it might now be tempted to weaponize. It is likely to move its program underground. Iran has stopped cooperation with the IAEA and may withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The '12-day war' illustrated that the Jewish state is vulnerable to Iranian missiles and needed extensive US support and intervention. Tel-Aviv cannot, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted, sustain a war of attrition. Iran may seek patiently to rebuild its capabilities and proxies. It might seek to garner support, both political and military, from China, Russia and its Gulf neighbours who increasingly mistrust the US and Israel. The risk is that the US and Israel back Iran into a corner. Military strategist Sun-Tzu cautioned against pushing an opponent to the point of no return: "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard." The West arrogantly ignores that a desperate enemy is a dangerous one. Suffering and martyrdom based around the persecution of believers is a key theme of Shiite Islam shaping its theology and political visions. In the war with Iraq, Iran sent children to walk across minefields to clear paths for their soldiers. Nasr's makes the point that the West's understanding of Iran is inadequate and outdated. Sun-Tzu stressed the need for knowledge: 'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.' As US and its allies' interventions from Vietnam onwards have demonstrated, there is an inability to see the world other than from a Western perspective and a tendency to underestimate under-equipped, weak and determined opponents. The confrontation with Iran began seven decades ago and is not over. Iran remains a complex challenge which unless a negotiated modus vivendi can be reached will cause a major conflagration. [1]For an update on the developments see Vali Nasr's article for Foreign Affairs This piece draws on material first published at The New Indian Express and Satyajit Das is a former banker. He is the author of numerous works on derivatives and several general title: Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006 and 2010), Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (2011), A Banquet of Consequences RELOADED, and Fortune's Fool: Australia's Choices (2022)
Sinar Daily
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Sinar Daily
Netanyahu's Gambit? A deep dive into the factors behind 'Operation Rising Lion'
Starting on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a massive attack on Iran. The unprovoked attack, which it labelled as `Operation Rising Lion,' was the culmination of tensions that had been building for decades. To understand why Israel carried out the attack, it is essential to examine several key historical, political and strategic factors that influence the relationship between the two countries. A handout picture provided by the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office shows him waving during a ceremony on the occasion of 36rd death anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran on June 4, 2025. Khamenei vowed on June 18, 2025 that his country would show no mercy towards Israel's rulers, hours after US President Donald Trump demanded Tehran's "unconditional surrender". (Photo by / AFP) Pre-Revolutionary Iran-Israel Relations Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran, under the rule of King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, had established good relations with Israel. This situation arose due to the good relations between the Iranian government and the United States government, which, through its spy agency, the CIA and in collaboration with the British MI6, had carried out Operation Ajax in 1953 to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh and restore Mohammad Reza Shah to the throne after the latter had fled abroad. Mossadegh had earlier nationalised Iran's oil industry, so the primary motives of the United States and Britain were to safeguard Western oil interests and counter the influence of the Soviet Union. After 1953, the United States provided military aid to strengthen the Reza Shah Pahlavi regime while profiting from billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons sales to Iran, such as F-14 Tomcat fighter jets. However, King Reza Shah's extravagant lifestyle, while most Iranians lived in poverty, made many dissatisfied with his rule. An iron-fisted approach toward the people also characterised his rule. Through the Savak intelligence agency, his regime arrested and tortured thousands of Iranians who dared to challenge his authority. The growing dissatisfaction and hatred of the Iranian people eventually led to the violent revolution in 1979 that toppled him and forced him into exile to the US and later to Mexico, Panama and Egypt, where he eventually died. Post-Revolution Attitude towards Israel The previous good relations between King Reza Shah and the US gave rise to anti-American attitudes among Iranians during and after the revolution. Iranians perceived the US as directly interfering in Iran's affairs and stealing its resources. This attitude hardened during the post-revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. He severed diplomatic relations with the United States and Israel. Khomeini even called Israel the "little devil" and the United States the "great devil". Indirect War However, until very recently, Iran and Israel chose not to engage in any direct conflicts. Instead, they were engaged in what can be called a `shadow war' where Iran will use proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel using weapons supplied by Iran. Other proxies are Shiite militia movements in Iraq and Yemen. Meanwhile, Israel also avoided attacking Iran directly before this. Instead, Israel only attacked through cyber warfare, such as the usage of the `Stuxnet virus' to undermine Iran's nuclear programme. In addition, Israel was also believed to be behind the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020. Direct Conflict After October 2023 However, the conflict between the two countries became more intense following Hamas's Operation on October 7, 2023 and Hezbollah's launching of rockets and artillery attacks on Israeli positions in the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, areas illegally occupied by Israel. Hezbollah declared this action as an action to show "solidarity with the Palestinian people" and an effort to divert the focus of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel responded to the attack on September 27, 2024, by bombing Hezbollah's facilities on the outskirts of South Beirut, killing Hezbollah's prominent leader in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, along with several senior commanders. With the death of Hasan Nasrallah, Iran was forced to show more support for Hezbollah by increasing the supply of weapons, including Falaq-2 rockets and kamikaze drones, which allowed Hezbollah to attack targets in central Israel, such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. Israel continued to attack Lebanon, which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 Lebanese, including more than 2,000 Hezbollah fighters, while more than 13,000 people were injured. Additionally, 1.2 million Lebanese were displaced, primarily those residing in southern Lebanon and Beirut. In April 2024, Israel stepped up its attack on Iranian interests by bombing the Iranian embassy in Syria, which killed the commander of the Quds Force, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, forcing Iran to respond by launching missiles from Iranian territory into Israel. However, whether intentionally or unintentionally, no Israeli was killed, and for more than a year after that, the situation between Iran and Israel calmed down. However, on June 13, 2025, despite ongoing indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in Oman regarding its nuclear programme, Israel suddenly attacked Iran. It killed several top Iranian military leaders and two nuclear scientists. It also attacked the Iranian nuclear facility complex in Natanz. Israel's stated reason for its latest attack was to thwart Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, claiming that Iran now has enough material to build 15 nuclear bombs `in a matter of days' and was, therefore, a threat to Israel, a threat that needed to be eliminated immediately, a view that was not shared by many US leaders who felt that Iran would need many more years to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran responded by attacking Israel with rockets and missiles. The ensuing tit-for-tat actions over the following days have resulted in the deaths of more than 200 Iranians and more than 20 Israelis as of June 17, 2025. There is a strong possibility that the conflict will worsen due to the factors discussed below. Domestic Political Factors in Israel Many Israelis themselves believe that an essential factor why Benjamin Netanyahu decided to attack Iran was to ensure his well-being since he is currently facing corruption charges, which can lead to his being imprisoned. However, by initiating a direct war with Iran, his trial will have to be postponed indefinitely. Additionally, most Israelis also oppose his efforts to implement judicial reforms aimed at strengthening his political position. His coalition government is currently very fragile and could collapse at anytime. A few days before he ordered the attack on Iran, the Israeli parliament was almost dissolved. The war with Iran will reduce the likelihood of the collapse of his government because it forces all Israelis to rally behind him to fight a common enemy. Future Possible Scenario The Iranian government has never been interested in directly attacking Israel because of the costs that the country will incur. It also knows it cannot afford to continue the current war and is hoping Israel will stop its attacks. It has already stated that it is willing to stop its retaliatory attacks on Israel if Israel stops attacking it. However, as stated above, Netanyahu is eager to continue the war in support of his agenda, even though he knows Israel cannot afford to continue the war. Therefore, an integral part of Netanyahu's plan is to draw the US into the war, thereby reducing the burden of the war for Israel. Moreover, Israel seems keen to affect a regime change in Iran by inflicting maximum damage on the country. They are hoping the Iranians who hate the Iranian government will seize the opportunity to take over the reins of power. Currently, it is already using Iranian dissident groups within Iran which are opposed to the Iranian government to carry out bombing attacks on its behalf. The Iranian military has captured some of them. Ordinary Iranians who hitherto had hated the Iranian government are now rallying behind it because of nationalistic sentiments. Moreover, the deaths of hundreds of ordinary Iranians due to the Israeli bombings will serve to strengthen their support of the government. They will not help Israel to achieve its objective of `regime change'. Implications for the Situation in Palestine This conflict between Iran and Israel will not produce any sudden changes in Palestine. Israel continues to commit its crime of genocide in Gaza with impunity. The world's attention that has been diverted to this conflict has made it easier for Israel to continue killing more Palestinians. However, in the long run, this war will be detrimental to Israel because the perception among the American people towards Israel is increasingly negative. Israel is seen as a country that is not only inhumane for killing women and children in Gaza, but it also likes to fight other countries. Moreover, the recent statements by Netanyahu imploring the US to support Israeli in its current war with Iran are making more Americans, including those on the right wing of the political divide, be more vocal in warning Trump to remember his promise to his supporters that the US under him will not be involved in endless wars in far-flung places. Notable figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Green have made it their mission to stop the US from supporting Israel with weapons and money. Most Americans, especially those who are suffering from cost-of-living problems, are increasingly disgusted with the fact that their money is being used to fund Israel to kill more innocent women and children in Iran and Palestine. Conclusion Israel's attack on Iran is the culmination of a decades-long conflict between the two countries. Several factors contribute to what is happening, namely, Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons, Netanyahu's personal and political agenda, the struggle for regional influence through proxies and the failure of international diplomacy. In the short run, both Iran and Israel will suffer huge losses from this war. However, in the long run, Israel will suffer more due to the erosion of support from the American public. Many Americans, including among the right-wingers, are disgusted with Netanyahu's instigation to get America to be involved in the war and continue to support its endless wars against neighbouring countries. Since the ability of the Israeli military depends entirely on support from the United States, any reduction in American support for Israel will mean that the chances of the Palestinians being free from the oppressive Zionist grip on them will become brighter. From this perspective, despite the tragedy of the loss of so many innocent lives, the ongoing war between Iran and Israel is good for the future of Palestine. Emeritus Professor Mohd Nazari Ismail is the director of Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies at Business and Economics Faculty of Universiti Malaya. The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Sinar Daily.
The Print
19-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Why betting on a reformed Iran could be a mistake for India
A secular and liberal Reza Shah supplied Pakistan with arms , supported its war efforts against India by continuous supply of oil, and went to the extent of being an 'arms dealer' to keep the Pakistani Army going. Let's unpack this argument. Last time when a secular monarch was ruling Iran—Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi—his regime supported Pakistan, providing them with weapons and oil, and even harbouring their aircraft during the 1965 India-Pakistan war. With Iran and Israel locked in a military conflict, many experts, or non-experts, are giving different 'prophecies' of the war between the two West Asian countries. Some suggest the capitulation of Iran, backed by the West, would bring peace in the region and end all the bloodshed. Some predict it will make the invasion of Iraq look like a skirmish. Some even say Iran will be Balkanised. Amid all these so-called prophecies, Yusuf T Unjhawala, in an opinion piece in ThePrint, titled A reformed Iran is a valuable friend to India , argues that 'a secular and reform-oriented regime in Iran could be less prone to aligning with India's adversaries on ideological grounds'. After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Pahlavi, in a stern message to India, had said, 'Iran has no aggressive intentions, but it will not accept any attempt to liquidate Pakistan. The USSR and India must be fully aware of our resolution. We do not want a new Vietnam on the frontier of Iran.' Most importantly, can India ignore Donald Trump hosting Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir in White House for lunch on 18 June? Is that good news for India? Let's leave that to the Indian dispensation. Unjhawala argues that after the fall of the current Islamic regime, post-war Iran would possibly re-integrated into the Western world, the sanctions on it would be lifted, and peace and business would prevail. However, this argument raises some pertinent questions. Who will rule Iran after the fall of the regime? Is there any party or a figure to shoulder the very diverse and civilisational state? The answer is no. There is no visible opposition inside or outside the country. Israel and some Western countries are supporting 64-year-old Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the deposed monarch of Iran. Reza has given interviews to many news channels, with one BBC anchor asking him, 'Are you actually saying then that Israel bombing your in Iran being killed is a positive thing?' To this, Reza answered, 'I am not saying Israeli targeting was meant to hurt Iranian people. The targeting was meant to neutralise the regime.' A simple Google search will give the number of people killed in Iran in Israeli aerial campaigns. According to an Iranian government spokesperson, at least 224 Iranians have been killed in Israeli attacks, with most of them civilians. Also read: Israel crushed Ayatollah's regime, but stopping Iran's nuke programme will need total overthrow India-Iran relations post 1979 uprising Both India and Iran have enjoyed a great relationship since the monarchy was overthrown in Iran in February 1979. Iran has been extremely crucial for India regarding the Kashmir issue. Back in 1991, India, having mortgaged its gold reserves, was teetering on the edge of an economic collapse, while its long-time ally, Russia, was grappling with the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution. Meanwhile, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was advocating a resolution at the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), later renamed the Human Rights Council, to denounce India for alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir. If the resolution had passed, it would have been escalated to the UN Security Council, potentially triggering economic sanctions and other punitive measures against India. OIC decisions require consensus for adoption. In 1994, it was Iran's vote in the OIC that killed the resolution. In Geneva, when Pakistan's envoy sought to advance the resolution, Iran's representative, following explicit directives from Tehran, declined to back it. Now let's look at the trade between Iran and India. Despite harsh sanctions on Iran, it traded goods worth $2.3 billion in 2024 with India, which could reach $10 billion within a couple of years, according to Indian Ambassador Rudra Gaurav Shresth. Iran was a key oil supplier for India until 2019, when US sanctions pushed it to look for alternatives Now, consider India's strategic interests within the Islamic Republic of Iran. India and Iran are jointly developing the Shahid Beheshti Port at Chabahar, Iran. It is crucial for India's access to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. A 10-year agreement was signed in May 2024, granting India the operations of the Shahid Beheshti terminal. It is key to the International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-km-long multi-mode network of ship, rail, and road routes for moving freight between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia, and Europe. Both Iranian and Indian leaders have paid visits to each other's countries. India, on multiple occasions, has supported Iran's 'peaceful nuclear ambitions' while opposing the Islamic Republic's ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. During his November 2009 trip to Washingon, former Prime Minsiter late Manmohan Singh said, 'As a signatory to NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) it (Iran) has all the rights that flow from the NPT for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it has obligations that go with its membership.' During his 2012 Tehran visit, then-External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee backed Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Then, during PM Narendra Modi's 2016 visit to Tehran, he said that 'India and Iran are not new friends. Our 'dosti' (friendship) is as old as history,' PM Modi even in 2016 called Iran to be the first country to respond for India's help during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. So betting on an Iran which is 'reformed' or 'secular' at this time is bizarre. On several occasions, India chose the wrong side or put all the eggs in one basket, which haunted the country or still casts shadows over its strategic outlook. Like after the fall of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League, chief of Bangladesh's interim government, Muhammad Yunus in China said, 'The eastern part of India, known as the Seven Sisters, is landlocked. They have no access to the ocean. We are the only guardians of the ocean in this region. This opens up huge possibilities.' In the case of the fall of Mohammed Najibullah's rule in Afghanistan during the late 1980s and early 1990s, it proved fatal for India's strategic ties with Afghanistan. Later on, the Taliban, supported by Pakistan, captured Kabul which created serious security ramifications for New Delhi as it influenced the rise of terrorism in the Kashmir valley in the 1990s. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Forbes
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Iran, Israel and the Lost Legacy of Natural Resource Cooperation
Drip Irrigation System in Lorestan, Iran. Photo by Saeed Yeganeh The current war between Iran and Israel should not prevent us from reimagining a future of peace between these current foes. Indeed, within living memory, there was a time when Iran and Israel cooperated extensively on a range of issues, most notably on natural resources and environmental technologies. Before the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran and Israel had relatively close relations that came out of collective suspicion of neighboring Arab states. After Türkiye, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel's sovereignty. Reza Shah Pahlavi, the ruler of Iran before the revolution saw the value of cooperating with Israel for economic and technical reasons. The nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 by Egypt and the ensuing conflict led to Israel and Iran cooperating on the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline which would negate the need for using the canal for oil transport from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. The company was set up as a 50/50 joint venture between the two governments and started flowing oil in 1968. Iran helped Israel with oil supply during subsequent constraints on credit and is still asking through tribunals for the debt payments of over a billion dollars from that era of cooperation. In 2015, a Swiss court ordered Israel to pay back Iran which it has refused to do given provisions of the 'Trading with the Enemy Act' of the United States. Israel's support for Iran during natural disasters was particularly noteworthy after the devastating Buin-Zahra earthquake in the Qazvin region which killed more than 12,000 people. Moshe Dayan was the Agricultural Minister of Israel at the time and was planning to visit Iran just before the earthquake struck. Although his visit as postponed, Dayan offered a comprehensive plan for use of relief funds towards more sustainable urban revitalization of the region. He dispatched urban planner Micha Talmon and architect Yehuda Drexler to develop a comprehensive plan with transfer of technology and expertise. This episode has been documented in detail by researchers Rachel Kallus and Neta Feniger in an open-source article with copies of original manuscripts and interviews. Even after the Iranian revolution, Iran and Israel had opportunistic cooperation albeit largely around the military industrial complex that is well-researched by Trita Parsi in his notable book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. As far as agricultural technologies are concerned, there has been no direct cooperation after the revolution but many of the drip irrigation systems which were set up during the 1960s and 1970s remain active to this day. The name of Netafim, the Israeli drip irrigation firm, which was established by the pioneering engineer Simcha Bass, is still used in agricultural equipment sales in Iran. Having visited both Iran and Israel, I see much in common between the ancient cultures of both lands. They have ecological commonalities as well that could be a source of enduring ties along with their Arab neighbors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington issued a report in 2023 on the 'Unique Promise of Environmental Cooperation in the Gulf,' which in a future peace scenario could include Israel as well. At the Expo 2020, following the Abraham Accords, Israel had a prominent pavilion in Dubai which had a focus on environmental technologies. While the current conflict may lead us to think such cooperation is fanciful, who could have thought that the U.S. and Japan would be G7 allies after a nuclear bombing within a generation? Peace can come swiftly -- and when there is already a legacy of natural resource cooperation to build upon, we should hold out hope for both Israel and Iran finding a better future together.
