Accueil > Articles in English > Iran-Israel : Neither Dialogue nor Appeasement

Iran-Israel : Neither Dialogue nor Appeasement

Yesterday, according to an article published by the daily newspaper Ha’aretz, several French media -AFP, RFI, Le Monde- told about some friendly dialogue between Iranian and Israeli representatives during a secret conference in Cairo. Tehran denied strongly.

For Tehran, any “dialogue” or “friendly exchange” between Iran and Israel that is mentioned into foreign press is a pure calumny. Ali Shirzadian, the spokesperson of the Iranian Organization of Atomic Energy, mentioned some “psychological war in order to reduce the Iranian victory that was obtained during negotiations with the Six in Geneva and Vienna”.

Tehran talks about a defamatory plot because such allegation may cost it the support of the Arab street, allies thanks to whom it invites itself into every political debate of the United State’s Arab allies and thus appears as a factor of regional nuisance for the United States.

The regime’s advice is all the more justified as Ha’aretz article never mentioned neither any secret meeting in Cairo nor any friendly dialogue between Iranians and Israelis but an international conference in which an Iranian delegation bumped into an Israeli delegation without addressing it or even showing any friendly behavior -as it happens when they bump into each other at the UNO for example.

As revenge, it’s suitable to read closely the Iranian denial : Tehran denies any dialogue but it doesn’t mention its presence in Cairo because the mullahs’ regime participated of course in this conference.

Besides Tehran didn’t have any choice. Few weeks before, it stated that it would resume dialogue with the Six “on the condition that we talk about a fair peace in the Middle-East by mentioning the necessity of a nuclear disarmament of the region”, i.e. the nuclear disarmament of Israel in order to restore some balanced strength faced with this useful enemy. Actually, it was talking according to the expectations of the Arab street and with the certitude that Americans would refuse. More than a condition, it was question of some unacceptable argument to make this disturbing meeting derailing and also stop appeasement process and then resume again its blackmail strategy. Contrary to every expectation, Americans accepted this condition in order to draw Tehran into the appeasement process it hates and the meeting finally took place on the 1st October in Geneva. Tehran even had to play the appeasement game and accepted two commitments.

At the end of September, the day before this Geneva meeting that had then to take place to talk officially about Israel’s disarmament, Tehran couldn’t refuse to participate in another conference on the same matter. Tehran was trapped by the argument it mentioned to indispose Washington.

More precisely, the mullahs’ regime was trapped by the organizers of the conference -mainly Americans, Europeans and Israelis- who wanted to commit it against its will to an appeased dialogue with the United States, Europe and Israel on the side of moderate Arab States, partners of the United States and Europe. We can assess the mullahs’ trouble by their discretion on this subject. If it wouldn’t have been the case, they would have cried from the rooftops that they managed to obtain the region’s adhesion to their objectives.

However the same discretion was noticed by organizers and other participants : Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey, Morocco, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. They wanted to know if Tehran would follow up or not the forced appeasement process to which it committed on the 1st October in Geneva. The first step of its cooperation should have been the 19th October meeting in Vienna where once more Tehran was forced to accept the study of an agreement about which it had to give an opinion on Friday 23rd October.

The day before this deadline, one of the organizers let the cat out of the bag and several participants to Cairo’s trap conference didn’t respect their discretion will and talked about the mullahs’ participation to some appeased dialogue with Israelis.

Decoding | We may consider this as a small warning to give a rough ride to the mullahs’ good reputation in the Arab street. However this much limited revelation aimed at something else because it was question of Israel’s ability to give up its nuclear weapon.

Actually it was a matter of showing to the mullahs that there was a way to an agreement if they accept the principle of appeased dialogue. This operation aimed at convincing Israeli citizens that there’s a possibility of cordial coexistence with the mullahs [i]. The most difficult people to convince will be the mullahs.

The french version of this article :
- Iran-Israël : Ni dialogue, ni apaisement
- (23 OCTOBRE 2009)

All our articles in English...

| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Apaisement |
| Mots Clefs | Histoire : Brzezinski et Carter |
| Mots Clefs | Resistance : Lobby pro-mollahs en France et ailleurs |

| Mots Clefs | Zone géopolitique / Sphère d’influence : Israël |

| Mots Clefs | Auteurs & Textes : Journalistes et média Français | [1]
| Mots Clefs | Auteurs & Textes : Le Monde (Marie-Claude Decamps, Corine Lesne...) |

| Mots Clefs | Institutions : Diplomatie (refus de l’apaisement) |

[iSuggestion of the acceptance of the mullahs’ regime | Further to this, among witnesses, Ha’aretz quoted one of the organizers : Shlomo Ben-Ami. This former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs has worked in this field since long time on the side Brzezinski’s bunch at the International Crisis Group –ICG. This kind of position is also defended by J Street, a new American Jewish lobby that was formatted by Obama-Brzezinski’s bunch to promote an agreement with the mullahs but it’s also defended by Islamists such as the Hamas, or the Hezbollah which has raised Washington’s interest.

[1PS. This small warning combined with agreement promises was lead astray by French media which decided to complicate it by mentioning, each one according to its impulses : one or several dialogues between Israelis and the mullahs, secret meetings in camera, exchanges, smiles, almost everything except kisses, to punish the mullahs for their disagreeable behavior in Vienna or even their refusal to release Clotilde Reiss.