The current Iranian regime consistently says one thing and does another, creating a stark contrast between its words and actions. This contradiction has been present since 1979 and is a fixture of its political behavior. From Former Supreme Leader of Iran Ruhollah Khomeini's era to the present, the regime's leaders often discuss the importance of being good neighbors, fostering regional cooperation, and upholding security and stability. However, the reality in our region contradicts these claims and is moving in an opposing and conflicting direction.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Iran's conduct in the region is marked by both hidden and open hostility toward neighboring countries. This antagonism can be traced back to the inception of the "exporting the revolution" policy. Iran has consistently pursued this agenda through covert operations and direct/indirect involvement in the affairs of Arab Gulf states.
These encompass delivering missiles and drones to Yemen's Houthi group, potentially orchestrating and backing attacks on oil facilities in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Additionally, there have been recurrent sea assaults and disruptions of cargo and oil ships. Iran's strategic influence has also grown in countries like Iraq, and that's just scratching the surface.
It's clear that the core beliefs of the Iranian regime remain unchanged. Any apparent shifts are essentially tactical moves that should be evaluated based on their practical outcomes. Platitudes from Iran should not be counted upon. Also, in politics, intentions and interpretations hold no place. We'd rather look at official stances and government policies.
Objectively, the recent improvement in relations between the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Iran is a practical move. This is aimed at enhancing security and stability in our region, particularly considering Iran's publicly stated interest in the same.
However, there's a challenge since the Iranian regime operates on an all-or-nothing principle, which contrasts with conventional policies. It doesn't embrace the win-win approach that fosters genuine consensus for conflict resolution and tension reduction.
Hence, the recent official reconciliation between the Emirates and Iran, involving reciprocal visits and peaceful declarations of a new regional geopolitical reality, might not be entirely surprising. Simultaneously, we see Iran's Revolutionary Guard is conducting military exercises on Abu Musa, an Emirati island occupied by Iran.
Iranian media also states that naval units and forces have been deployed around the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands. It appears that the Iranian military intentionally selected these Emirati islands for their maneuvers, fully aware of the effect this would have on the UAE and its people. The messages and consequences of this maneuver are evident to any keen observer.
Are there two Irans, one participating in official efforts in the Gulf while another is pursuing its own path, adhering to different rules than those influenced by recent geopolitical shifts in the region? That is, do the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their leaders operate independently from Iranian government policies?
As I perceive it as an observer, the hierarchical structure of the Iranian regime, with its various branches and institutions – both revolutionary and official – directly follows the guidance of the Supreme Leader and complies with his instructions.
In actuality, the conflict and discord between factions that some researchers and experts discuss do not appear to exist. The core of the situation lies in differing approaches under the guidance of the Supreme Leader.
The Eqtedar maneuvers conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on Abu Musa Island and near the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands convey negative messages from Iran, despite the outwardly positive diplomatic gestures. These maneuvers, led by Revolutionary Guards Commander General Hossein Salami and Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri, appear to contradict General Salami's claims of seeking security and stability. His references to "sedition," "hidden scenarios," "hostilities," and other statements introduce a complex discourse with multiple potential interpretations.
Notably, Rear Admiral Tangsiri's comments during the maneuvers unjustifiably included the Emirati islands. He said that "Our people attach immense importance to Iranian islands, and we hold the responsibility to defend them resolutely." He underlined that "These islands are an integral part of our homeland's territory."
He also noted that security in the Gulf region "serves the interests of us all" and indicated that "all nations prioritize safeguarding their borders." Interestingly, he conveniently overlooked the fact that he was on occupied islands, and any foreign schemes he mentions in the Gulf, if any exist, feed on this conflicting Iranian stance in words and actions.
The US government is striving to rectify policy errors and restore its reputation. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime seeks to incite emotions domestically and reposition internal factions amid the developments of the past two years. This is occurring within a calculated escalation, a game of heightened tension.
Nevertheless, Tehran appears to be oblivious to the fact that its actions and rhetoric within this deliberate strategy might put at risk the advancements made in its recent efforts to reconcile with neighboring countries.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
