It is easier for Rouhani to recognize Holocaust and get atomic bomb – Yevgeny Satanovsky

By Vestnik Kavkaza

The visit of the new Iranian president to New York for the UN General Assembly caused a most ambivalent impression. On the one hand, Hassan Rouhani made a sensational declaration by recognizing the Holocaust, on the other hand, he refused to meet his US counterpart Barack Obama. The White House explained the refusal as the internal political conjuncture of Iran. Meanwhile, Rouhani himself said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorized him to discuss the nuclear program and regional affairs with the US.

Yevgeny Satanovsky, President of the Institute of the Near East, has commented the situation in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.

- Why did Rouhani refuse to meet Obama?

- I am not part of President Rouhani’s close supporters and, thus, I do not have clear understanding of what is going on with the Iranian authorities and why the decision was made. Maybe they reckoned that Obama’s plan to meet Rouhani was a PR move. It must be mentioned that President Obama is an outstanding PR specialist. He knows well how to approach the microphone, what to say and what facial expression to make. But in the end, it is either results in no gains or results in something bitter for the goals he sets. Even when he was a student, people said he was a leader of students, who could gather everyone and make them follow him. The problem is that he does not know where to lead them. It is most likely that as long as America and Iran have nothing to discuss, Rouhani does not want to give Obama any PR points.

- What provoked Rouhani’s declaration on the Holocaust?

- Rouhani is very smiley, charismatic, positive and if there is a chance to realize the nuclear program and get the atomic bomb by saying that the Holocaust happened, then why act the way Ahmadinejad did by making scandals, shocking the public opinion? Everyone will now sigh with relief and start talking with Iran with a feeling of deep satisfaction. They will talk until the Iranian atomic weapons see the light. Then, the talks will lose adequateness, because India, Pakistan, Israel have atomic bombs and now Iran has one. There is nothing you can do about it.

- How can Tehran’s recognition of the Holocaust affect the Iranian-Israeli relations?

- A little earlier than Rouhani’s recognition of the Holocaust (a big thanks to him because part of my family died in the concentration camps), he called Israel a scar on the body of humanity and called for whipping it away from the face of the Earth. So what’s the difference between Ahmadinejad who was saying that there had been no Holocaust and that Israel should be destroyed and now Rouhani who says that the Holocaust happened, but Israel should still be destroyed? There are six million Jews in Israel. It would be another Holocaust.

The Israeli authorities reacted to the reality of relations with Iran, not to his words about the Holocaust, otherwise Iran would have been bombed. The reality is that Iran challenges the existence of the Israeli state, while the Israeli state does not challenge the existence of Iran. Thousands and thousands of missiles that have turned into tens of thousands in the arsenal of HAMAS, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in the South of Lebanon are Iranian missiles. Iranian instructors have worked and continue working there and the two last wars of Israel with Hezbollah and HAMAS were wars with Iran, the so-called ‘per pro’ wars. The way Stalin used to do it: with little blood on the land of others. Especially when the Arabs fight for Iranian interests.

And that is all. This is what Israel orients on. President Obama probably discarded the obligations the United States had towards Israel, in terms of Syria and Iran. Once again, this puts Israel before the fact that the US sold them out and this is no the first such case in the contemporary history. Every time this happened, Israel fought alone, won alone.

- Then how can the Israeli position towards the conflict in Syria be explained?

- The Israeli position towards the conflict in Syria is very simple: let there be plague for both of our houses. Israel calls Assad an enemy. Moreover, Assad demonstrated that he was an enemy. But it was a familiar enemy, one who can be convinced into an armistice on the Golan Heights. And these agreements would be fulfilled the way they were during the reign of Hafez al-Assad when the border of the Golan Heights was the most peaceful. Assad is an unpredictable opponent for Israel, one controlled by unclear motivations, one that can be confronted in a state-against-state fashion. It is impossible to make any arrangement with all the terrorists fighting against Assad and it is impossible to say that they have any motivations other than Jihad.

What can be done with a terrorist? He can be killed far from the border of our state. There is nothing else you can do.

In this aspect, Israel has no optimist regarding preservation of the regime in its initial form. It means today that the regime will be more obedient to Iran, the country that helped it survive, make a breakthrough in the civil war. It will be able to use Syria as a platform for military actions against Israel the way it used Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Israel has no optimism concerning the schism in Syria, which would, should Assad fall, break into at least five-six pieces and exist in very tense relations, the way remains of Turkish wilayahs did, turning into Syria by the French before the WWII, giving Turkey part of Syrian territory.

Israel shows no optimism in terms of turning the territory into something resembling Iraq - a bellum omnium contra omnes.

The Israelis monitor the situation. Military strikes on Syria would only be possible if the chemical weapons (and biological, bacteriological, which are often omitted) fall in the hands of someone from the arsenals of Assad. It does not matter whether it would be terrorists on the Assad’s side, such as Hezbollah, or terrorists fighting against Assad. Then, Israel will not just have to interfere and simply control convoys carrying weapons to any terrorist groups. Until then, they would not touch Syria.

Meanwhile, Israel is trying to save people on the border. They are both members of opposition and fortuitous citizens, officers and soldiers of the Assad’s army. There is a complicated situation with the Druses, Alawis, Christians, Palestinians, whose relatives live in Israel, because there is a long queue at the Interior Ministry for requests, demands, pleas for protection of Drus villages where their relatives live. The situation there is complicated for the Israeli Arabs and Islamists, some of whom move to Syria through Turkey. The question is whether they will return to Israel to organize terrorist attacks or not. This is what the Shin Bet Security Agency works on. All other events happening on the Syrian territory, from the Israeli point of view, are problems of Syrians. Unlike Americans and Europeans, the Israelis do not help Islamic terrorists in Libya, Iraq or Syria. They are smart enough not to do that.