If 7 October 2023 marked a critical day in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian resistance movements, then 28 July 2024 represents a pivotal moment for Iranian politics and its specific agenda in the Middle East and the Arab region. On this day, Masoud Bezhakian was inaugurated as the President of Iran, succeeding Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a mysterious and suspicious helicopter crash alongside his Foreign Minister Abdollahian.
Bezeshkian, who won the Iranian presidential elections by securing approximately 54% of the votes in the second round, embodies the hopes of reformists in Iran following years of conservative and hardline dominance in the presidency. In his initial statement, Bezeshkian, recognized for his openness to the West, affirmed that he “will extend a hand of friendship to all and that we must seek assistance from everyone for the advancement of the country.”
It may be coincidental that Israel conducted an airstrike on the southern suburbs of Beirut, which constitutes a violation of the rules of engagement established in 2006, targeting Ibrahim Shakir, who serves as the Chief of Staff of Hezbollah. This marked the first lethal blow the party has faced in Lebanon. However, when the same coincidence occurs again, with the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran less than two hours later while he was participating in an inauguration ceremony, it raises the possibility of a conspiracy theory. Certainly, Tehran has threatened and vowed to respond with devastating retaliation, yet such a response has not materialized and appears unlikely in light of this double assassination.
In a short period, all leaders of Hezbollah faced a systematic assassination campaign, starting with their chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and extending to their field commanders, all within less than a week, utilizing unprecedented technological means. Overnight, all symbols and prominent leaders of what is referred to as the “Unit of Arenas,” established by Tehran over the past 30 years with the singular aim of imposing its agenda on the region and Israel, vanished.
Hamas had expected to endure the assault on October 7 and retain authority over Gaza after a ceasefire was enacted; however, this expectation was not realized. Similarly, Hezbollah has long held the belief that in any confrontation with Israel, it would control the timing and location of the conflict, anticipating to seize the initial initiative. Presently, its strategies have been thwarted, and it has suffered significant losses among its leadership, necessitating a substantial period for regrouping and reorganization. In contrast, Israel has caught both Hezbollah and Hamas off guard with a military initiative that has fundamentally changed the rules of engagement in the ongoing conflict.
Now, what are the possible repercussions resulting from Israel’s modification of the rules of engagement? Has the likelihood of an expanded conflict in the region genuinely escalated, or might the elimination of specific barriers facilitate a thorough resolution?
There are two scenarios to consider. The first involves a decision by Iran to permit Hezbollah and the Houthis to launch a significant attack over several days, utilizing a large number of missiles and drones against the Israeli home front. This scenario may even see Iran participating in the assault, unlikely to yield different results from previous attacks. However, such a scenario is deemed improbable.
The second scenario, which appears more likely, entails calculated and specific responses that would allow Iran to maintain its dignity without obstructing the plans of Bzheskian to negotiate with the West and Europe, paving the way for Iran’s reintegration into the international community following the failures of its previous strategies.
Since the moment of Bezhkian’s inauguration, there appears to be support for him, possibly from within Iran, aimed at avoiding escalation with Israel, or from external sources seeking to liberate themselves from the burdens of Iran’s hardline political legacies, whether through individuals or organizations. This is in preparation for realizing his vision of extending a hand of friendship to all, without exception, following the evident failure of the previous agenda set by the mullahs of Tehran. Even the recent speech by the Iranian president at the United Nations contained numerous signals that are difficult to overlook, such as the characterization of the Houthis as a rebellious group that is hard to control, and Iran’s willingness to cooperate with Washington. Furthermore, he did not clarify his stance on supporting Hezbollah, suggesting instead that they should face Israel alone.
The advanced positions taken by the Iranian president during his first international appearance undoubtedly reflect coordination and understanding with the Supreme Leader. From a political and pragmatic perspective, it can be asserted that the Iranian regime, like any other political system, has the right to formulate its policies and stances based on its national, strategic, and sovereign interests. It is entitled to utilize all available resources and information to achieve these objectives in a manner that aligns with and serves its interests and goals. Based on these principles of interest management, one can comprehend the positions that the new Iranian president, Masoud Bezhakian, has begun to articulate in his initial steps towards engaging with the international community. He has adopted a clearer discourse, devoid of ambiguity or concession, while attempting to harmonize between different narratives, favouring the discourse of the state and the interests within the strategic realm at both international and regional levels.
It can be stated that the positions articulated by the Iranian president in his address to the United Nations General Assembly were consistent and complementary to those expressed during his first press conference held approximately two weeks prior, with both local and international media. This is particularly evident in his perspective on the future of relations between Iran and the United States, which is regarded as a crucial key and fundamental entry point for any other relationships, whether on an international or regional level.
The positions articulated by the Iranian president during his inaugural international engagement were clearly in harmony with the coordination and understanding established with the Supreme Leader. The remarks made by the president extend beyond his designated authority, as they are fundamentally linked to the primary responsibilities of the Supreme Leader, who is solely responsible for the development of the system’s overarching and strategic policies, following consultations with pertinent decision-making entities. As a result, the fundamental frameworks guiding Iranian policies concerning dialogue with the United States and interactions with regional partners remain in alignment with the Supreme Leader’s perspectives and directives, which require his endorsement. This is particularly noteworthy, as the public declaration of these positions to the global community compels the system to commit to and execute them, thereby necessitating modifications in its policies to ensure conformity.
The transformation in the discourse presented by Bezhkian, as a representative of the regime and the second constitutional figure within the hierarchy of constitutional authorities, underscores his readiness for dialogue and negotiation on all issues within a clearly defined agenda and priorities, along with specific outcomes. This approach enables him to secure assurances against any potential obstruction from Washington regarding his efforts to translate his regional influence into a framework or project centred on security and political, social, and economic cooperation with neighbouring countries. This initiative reflects Tehran’s aspiration to establish a robust new regional system in collaboration with its neighbours. Will the coming days reveal further indications in this direction?
Dr Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
