The formation of a broad anti-Iranian coalition may turn against Tel Aviv.
It is argued that the Munich Conference on Security "was not effective, it did not reach any agreements", although it was held against the background of a marked aggravation of the situation in the Middle East. Summing up the results of the meeting, the long-term chairman of the conference, the German diplomatWolfgang Ischingerstated that "the participants did not manage to approach the solution of all the challenges facing the modern world".
Nevertheless, some of the results of the summit in Munich, especially its last day, when, according toDeutsche Welle, "The Middle East has become the main theme", are of some interest from the point of view of building a diagnosis of the situation in this region on the basis of the speeches of the participants in the discussion. First of all, the statements are made by the Prime Minister of IsraelBenjamin Netanyahuin relation to Iran, after which, as the radio station notes, "there was a feeling of an approaching and almost inevitable new hot war."
Netanyahu threatened Tehran, accusing him of wanting to change the status quo in the Middle East, using as a springboard to Syria. The Israeli prime minister made it clear that his country was ready to use force on a large scale. But at the same time he made an important clarification: "There is one positive factor in Iran's aggression. This brought the Arabs and Israelis closer together. Perhaps, in this way, we will still be able to achieve peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. "
The importance of this statement lies in the fact that Israel used to hide its contacts with the same Saudi Arabia, acting in the region as an enemy of Iran. Now, the official representative of the Israeli Foreign MinistryEmmanuel Nahshon, "It is planned to form a kind of community of strategic interests that unites Israel and the moderate Sunni Arab states." According to him, this is "not an alliance, but definitely a similar vision of the situation and a general awareness of the danger, which is a good basis for cooperation."
At the same time, believes the Vice-Rector of Tel Aviv University, ProfessorEyal Zisser,"When forming a map of new alliances, Israel will try to find a balance between a traditional alliance with the United States and relations with other partners, conduct a fruitful dialogue with Russia, and establish contacts with moderate Sunni states, in particular with the countries of the Persian Gulf." At the same time, the tension between Tehran and the Sunni states (primarily Saudi Arabia) is projected to the fore with projections not only to the Middle East, but also, possibly, the Transcaucasus.
There, after Syria, the most promising bridgehead may be Azerbaijan. From the perspective of the director of the Center for Middle East and African Studies named after Moshe Dayan, ProfessorUzi Rabi,the initial basic concept for action is the notion that "the modern Middle East is not a group of national states". And "people here often turn to their primary identity: they perceive themselves primarily as Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Persians, Turks - and only then as citizens of this or that country."
In fact, we are talking about a new version of the redistribution of the region in accordance "with an alternative map that allows to understand where the representatives of various religions and ethnic groups live." What reminds of Sykes' famous agreement is Pico. According to Rabbi, to participate in shaping the future of the Middle East, "you need to travel not only to Washington, you need to spend some time in Moscow, do not forget about China - a giant with huge economic abilities. But the main thing is to wait or see that the Arab countries are ready for cooperation and use this opportunity. "
Well, Israel's plans and projects in the Middle East in the portrayal of Israeli experts are obvious. And what about Transcaucasia, especially with Azerbaijan? In this regard, we drew attention to the article of the Baku political scientist, candidate of political sciencesZaur Mammadov, published on the website of the portal "Sputnik-Azerbaijan ».Arguing about the recent protests in Iran, he notes the presence in them of traces of "both internal and external players, such as the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others."
Further he writes: "The Azerbaijanis have always been the masters of the state, now called Iran. With the beginning of the Shah's rulePahlavithe universal farsization of the entire cultural and historical heritage of the peoples of Iran, turned into an ultranationalist Persian state, began. Today, Iran is attributed to the Persians, but Persia was one of the regions of today's Iran, to be exact - in the south, on the Persian Gulf. In this area lived tribes that created the Achaemenid empire. Over 1000 years, Iran was ruled by Azerbaijani dynasties. In fact, Iran since the tenth century (just then in the east of the Iranian plateau a new military force appeared in the person of the Turks of Central Asia, who defeated the Samanid dynasty in Khorasan and formed the military-feudal state of the Ghaznavids, who reached the greatest power under Mahmud Ghaznavid (998-1030) and spreading its influence on the territory from the Ganges to Kurdistan) and until the year 1924 was a Turkic country. All this fundamentally distinguishes Iranian Azerbaijanis from other peoples of this state. "
At the same time, publications of information about the work of Saudi emissaries among Iranian Azerbaijanis began appearing on the pages of some English-language Western publications. Some Arab and Kurdish sites actively publish articles on "the secrets of origin and appearance in the region of the Turks." What would all this mean?
For example, in the context of the fact that Riyadh, according to his own statement, is studying the principles outlined in the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, which allowed ending medieval wars in Europe, as this can help find a way to peace in the modern Middle East. Recall that the Treaty of Westphalia completed the 30-year war in Europe 1618-48 years, caused by the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, the Czechs and Germans, the emperor of Germany and the German princes. It seems that Saudi Arabia now perceives events in the Middle East primarily through the prism of opposing the Sunnis and Shiites, religiously.
By the way, we note that at the beginning of 2016, the former US Secretary of StateHenry Kissingerstated that "the upheavals in the Middle East will not end without an analogue of the Peace of Westphalia, which meant the end of the Thirty Years' War between various groups with different motives, and led to the creation of a system of states that after that for several centuries formed the basis of international relations. Even now it is considered a fundamental concept. "
But while Israel's desire to build new alliances in the region reduces the effectiveness of a peaceful settlement of the situation. And not only in Syria, but in the region as a whole. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, the Iranian Foreign MinisterMohammad Javad Zarifstressed that Tehran "does not seek hegemony in the region, and without joint efforts of countries to establish peace in the region, chaos will begin." According to him, Iran "offers the countries of the Persian Gulf to jointly take steps to build confidence in the military sphere, which could create a common security system." But who will hear his words?