‘Iran paid dearly for its nuclear aspirations’
http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/01/05/iran-paid-dearly-for-its-nuclear-aspirations/
Brig. Gen. (ret.) Yossi Kuperwasser, formerly the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate’s research division, believes the latest protests in Iran have dealt a strategic blow to the ayatollah regime, and warns of a “domino effect” in Iran.
Even if the Iranian regime survives this, it will have sustained a serious strategic blow,” says Brig. Gen. (ret.) Yossi Kuperwasser, who previously headed the Israel Defense Force’s intelligence research division, referring to the wave of anti-government protests across Iran in recent weeks.
Kuperwasser knows, as does any intelligence expert, that in the Middle East, perception sometimes becomes reality. And like anyone who has served in Israeli intelligence since the 1973 Yom Kippur War debacle, he also knows that sometimes the seemingly impossible can suddenly become a reality.
In his view, the unrest that has engulfed Iran suggests that the Iranian masses have finally managed to smash the concept the ayatollah regime has perpetuated since its rise to power in 1979.
“All of a sudden, it became apparent that there is not a lot of support for the big undertaking – turning Iran into a hegemonic power in the region – and for the Islamic idea. It turns out that it is just an empty slogan,” Kuperwasser says.
He adds that unlike the protests of 2009, when the Iranian masses took to the streets to protest against election fraud, the current protests are not about a specific grievance but against the very idea of the Islamic republic.
“The protests, in large part, reflect a demand not just for reform but for a revolutionary change,” he says.
In 2009, the unrest erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected, defeating reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi in what many believed was a rigged election. The demonstrations were quickly and violently suppressed by the regime, and the West offered the protesters no support. Some claim that it was the White House’s eagerness to strike a nuclear agreement with the Iranian government that prompted the American administration to turn a blind eye to the violent crackdown, allowing the Iranian regime to literally get away with murder.
Kuperwasser argues that the 2009 riots did not only transpire in a different decade, but also in a different world. Today, the protesters are operating under new circumstances, fueled by two critical components: highly developed mass media communication, which is very difficult to control, and the explicit support (and possible technical assistance) of the American administration.
(“The fact that materials are coming out of Iran suggests some American assistance,” Kuperwasser says.)
He calls the latest unrest an unequivocal watershed moment: “The blow sustained by the regime as a result of everything that has happened in the last week is massive. Its entire legitimacy was shaken to the core. It obviously won’t be able to continue to easily justify the support it provides to all kinds of terrorist organizations in the Arab sphere.”
Q: Are we, as Westerners, deluding ourselves into thinking that anything that is anti-regime is in fact pro-West?
“It’s not a question of being pro-West. They don’t want to be a part of an Islamic republic, first and foremost. This idea of having a religious cleric dictate the conduct in the country is no longer acceptable to them. They want much more freedom and much more democracy. Fundamentally, these are Western values, or perhaps human values.
“Will their way of life change radically if the revolution succeeds? No. Islam will always play a key role in the life of Iranians. But it will be a different role. Far more restricted to the privacy of people’s homes. But they are saying ‘we don’t want to live in an Islamic republic, we want to live in an Iranian republic.'”
Weakness beneath power
Kuperwasser, 64, who led the research division of the Military Intelligence Directorate between 2001 and 2006, later served as the director general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry. Today he is a senior project manager at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
He says the regime in Iran needs to decide on a “model” of suppressing unrest, and that this model will largely determine the regime’s fate.
“There’s what happened in Egypt and there’s what’s happening in Syria. I think the Iranian regime is leaning more toward the Syrian direction. The Egyptians were careful not to do it, and as a result they were forced to relinquish their rule.”
Q: On the one hand, you say they’ll do anything to preserve the regime, but on the other hand, Iranian society is rather homogenous, like in Egypt, which means that enormous pressure is being applied by the people on the military.
“That’s true. And therefore, the big test in the coming days will be whether the security forces – in this case the Revolutionary Guards – are willing to take extreme steps. In my opinion, the regime will expect it of them, should the need arise. The question is whether cracks will begin to appear among the ranks. It could set a process into motion that result in a far-reaching domino effect, and could prove very dangerous for the regime.”
Q: Are you seeing anything on the social media platforms that could indicate a general direction?
“There is something different about the social media platforms. You can see that they are actively supporting the struggle. The revolutionary message is the dominant one, more than the reformist message.”
Q: So here, in contrast with the last wave of protests, they want to start a revolution, not just a coup. There hasn’t been an attempt like this since the establishment of the Islamic republic, actually.
“There were incidents here and there, but nothing resembling the scope of the latest events. The current scope [of resistance to the regime] is unprecedented.”
Q: The Iranian people are still patriotic, and the country’s nuclear program is still seen as a national endeavor. Will the nuclear path change if the regime is toppled?
“The nuclear issue hasn’t come up so far in the protests. In my opinion, the protesters understand the Iranian regime’s hubris in this regard. The attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, in a country that is, after all, a second world country, and at the bottom of the list of second world countries at that, is something they [the ayatollahs] have paid dearly for. This is the price. You are right that some view the nuclear project as a national, not just Islamic, endeavor. But why does Iran need this project? It has a lot of oil. Why does it need all this nuclear stuff?”
“Therefore, anyone seeking quality of life and prosperity in Iran understands that the nuclear project is completely unnecessary, and it will lead to the collapse of the current system. It is the culprit behind all the current troubles. The Iranians are going to wise up and start questioning whether it is really in their best interest to insist on a nuclear program.”
Q: As a former intelligence agent, what would be your recommendation for the foreseeable future?
“It is very important for the international community to stand by the protesters, and the protesters, for their part, need to stand up for their right to express their views and fight for their rights. Ultimately, the deciding factor is the Iranian people. No one can intervene.
“It is a little embarrassing to see some of the Western responses to this event, especially in Europe. Their double standard is so obvious, but let’s put it this way: no one really expects much of Europe. Europe has apparently lost its compass long ago.
“This is a blow that will impact all of Iran’s supporters and all its proxies. In the northern front, in Gaza, wherever there is reliance on Iran. Those who thought that Iran was an awakening giant that is progressively expanding its grip on the Middle East, and can become the regional hegemon as a Shiite Iranian axis, understands now that beneath all that power hides a weak system that can’t even enlist the support of its own people. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Soviet Union prior to 1989 – inside, everything was rotten, and ultimately, it collapsed.”
Crisis of expectations
The job of the supervision department in the Intelligence Corps is to play devil’s advocate to the assessments made by the research division and to prove that the opposite view is actually more reasonable. The department was established as part of the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War – considered to be an intelligence failure – as a measure to prevent groupthink.
Q: Perhaps contrary to the prevalent notion, former U.S. President Barack Obama should get the credit for these demonstrations, because the nuclear agreement gave the people hope, and they are now taking to the streets to demand that their leaders follow through on their promises in making the deal with world powers.
“Absolutely not. On the contrary. Today there is an echo chamber of nuclear deal supporters in the U.S., and they are standing by the Iranian regime. It is absolutely unbelievable, and it is shocking.
“If no nuclear agreement had ever been reached, this thing [the protests] would have been even more intense, and if the world were to intensify the pressure on Iran, perhaps there would have been a greater chance of actually starting a revolution.
“The agreement saved Iran and gave it two years of calm. It is true that there is a crisis of expectations among the Iranian people, but it stems from the arrival of [U.S. President Donald] Trump. Everyone waited for the elections and then, [after Trump changed the American policy toward Iran], all the investors realized that the sanctions might be reinstated and it made them hesitate before investing in Iran. That is what brought on this crisis of expectations. Not the agreement. It was Trump reneging on the agreement that created this crisis
Comments are closed.
