Book Review - Treacherous Alliance
by Jim Miles
Treacherous Alliance– the secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States . Trita Parsi. Yale University Press, New Haven. 2007
As the prospects of a limited ‘strike’ or a full out attack on Iran become more and more familiar in the media, and as
the end date for the Bush-Cheney regime in the United States draws ever nearer to its close, a better understanding of
the tripartite relationship between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. requires a strong presentation of the underlying so far
verbal conflict between the three governments. Trita Parsi succeeds in this goal in Treacherous Alliance , in which he discusses the relationship between the three. There are two main overlapping views that Parsi uses within
this examination: first, that of the difference between the public rhetoric (ideology) and the often secret governmental
discussions and deals between the three (geostrategy); secondly, he accounts for the many flips in the geostrategy views
depending on the perceptions and needs of a particular moment in time. In sum, it is about the conflicting views of
ideology and geostrategy, with the prime mover of events being geostrategy, not ideology in its many manifestations
(religion, rhetoric, ‘clash of civilizations’).
Within the political triad, the main role falls upon the relationships between Iran and Israel, with Israel mainly
operating under a “doctrine of the periphery” and Iran operating under the view of maintaining or strengthening
(dependent on the era) its “natural” hegemony over its nearby neighbours. The United States arrives as a mainly
dishonest broker, manipulating and being manipulated as it strives towards its own changing goals, from its overblown
opposition to the communist menace, through its muddled behaviour after the Soviet collapse, into today’s even more
muddled “war on terror.”
Parsi provides an excellent summary of his work in the final chapter (as all well written arguments should) and then
proffers suggestions for possible solutions (other than the apparent Bush-Cheney goal of some form of pre-emptive
attack). He concludes “Washington has sought to establish an order that contradicts the natural balance by seeking to
contain and isolate Iran” and follows with his well-developed arguments that “The major transformation of
Israeli-Iranian relations have all coincided with geopolitical rather than ideological shifts.” Contrary to many
perspectives on political Islam, “ideology is not an absolute for the rulers of Tehran,” although the public rhetoric
would make it seem otherwise. While not part of the subject of this book, that same view can be considered for the
Palestinian Hamas, and the Lebanese Hezbollah, both ideologically partnered with Iran to a degree – practicality
over-rules rhetoric. The argument concludes, “no force in Iran’s foreign policy is as dominant as geopolitical
considerations.”
While it may seem tiringly redundant when foreshortened into a review format, Parsi effectively reiterates the
ideology/geostrategy idea throughout his work through strong examples and many quotes from sources that were or are
involved in the apparent and real conflicts of the triad. Another note emphasizes the constraints of geostrategy over
ideology as “Neither the honor of Islam nor the suffering of the Palestinian people figured in the deliberations.”
Although the Israeli-Palestine question “touches everyone…in a profoundly emotional way, it is not a conflict that sets
the geopolitical balance.” As is true with the majority of government to government disputes, the people at times hardly
seem to matter, whether it is the beliefs and rights of one’s own people or the humanitarian rights of other people or
the rights of all people as provided for by the UN charter and many conventions that the vast majority of countries have
signed on to. It is mainly an argument between those in power wishing to retain their power, using the rhetoric and
patriotic hubris and jingoism to keep their own masses in line as much as possible. Interestingly enough, while
Bush-Cheney are dismally low in American polls, they and the media have managed to establish the idea that an attack on
Iran is both feasible and good. Rhetoric has trumped strategy, at least in the opinion polls.
And that returns me from my mini-editorial to Parsi’s work as he sees the current situation in a similar way. The
American administration has a “divorced-from-reality outlook [characterizing] the Bush administration’s approach to the
Middle East since September 11.” Parsi describes as “fantasy” the American belief that with regime change “the problems
between the United States and Iran as well as Israel and Iran, would more or less automatically be resolved,” a “dubious
conclusion,” as “there is little to suggest that a secular Iran [as compared to the Ayatollahs] would be less inclined
to seek pre-eminence and more prone to accept a timid role in regional affairs.” That again is another way of saying
that for Iran – pardon the repetition - strategy is more important than ideology.
Iran is viewed as a rational actor in all this in spite of the rhetoric. The evidence Parsi works through strongly
supports this rationality as “Iran has acted with greater savvy and caution than have many of Israel’s traditional foes”
and that “may also be the reason why thus far it has not shared chemical or biological weapons with any of its Arab
proxies [Hezbollah]…and why a nuclear Iran likely would not share nuclear weapons with terrorist groups,” (look to an
increasingly volatile Pakistan for that scary possibility).
As for Israel, they fear a nuclear Iran, even if with only the capability of building the weapons, as it would
“significantly damage Israel’s ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations,” mainly through
destroying the myth of Israeli invincibility. While the argument was made that the Palestinians do not affect the
geopolitical balance, the Lebanon war of 2006 strengthened Iran through its Hezbollah proxy, and it also weakened Iran’s
Arab rivals. Israel, as always, retains the myth of its vulnerability to Arab attack at home and within America and
Europe, and at the same time balances it within its own mid-east geopolitical sphere with its unstated threat of nuclear
annihilation for any transgression against its claims to Eretz Israel.
Israel of course has a partner in all this, the United States. The Israelis have, mainly through the actions of the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), manipulated the U.S. government, the Senate and the House of
Representatives (collectively the Congress), into providing full support for all recent Israeli objectives, whether it
be the acceptance of the ongoing illegal settlements internally, or its foreign adventures in Lebanon and its desire to
pre-emptively eliminate even the remote chance of Iran having nuclear weapons. In a subsection titled “AIPAC – The King
of Lobbies”, Parsi indicates that as early as 1994 “Washington started to adopt the Israeli line on Iran. In response to
Israeli pressure – and not to Iranian actions – Washington’s rhetoric on Iran began to mirror Israel’s talking points.”
A Clinton era White House worker, Ken Pollack alleges, “Washington’s recycling of Israel’s argument back to Tel Aviv
reflected the success of Rabin and Perez’s campaign against Iran…[the] turnaround was a direct result of Israel’s
pressure.” This argument is not fully developed as in Mearsheimer and Walt, but it is recognized that the “alliance
between AIPAC and evangelical Christian Republicans on Capital Hill turned out to be particularly helpful….” The lobby -
described as efficient, sophisticated, and ruthless - the Christian evangelical right, and the political
neoconservatives formed a powerful expression of anti-Iranian views in Washington. No group in Congress – Democrat or
Republican - is able to do anything without encountering the financial and media weight of AIPAC, nor can they be
elected without undergoing the scrutiny and manipulations of the group.
The current situation has been long in developing. It is a history of deceit, conceit, rhetoric, back room dealings,
back room stabbings (figuratively), and treachery. Each side has at one time or another played off one side against the
other, switching tactics and rhetoric as the geostrategic interests shifted. Included in Parsi’s story are excursions
around the Middle East, mainly into Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and on the other side into Pakistan and Afghanistan,
outlining the various relationships with the Taliban and other political groups. It is not a story of humanitarian
principles, but of the greed and hunger for power and dominance at the governmental level. Iran - although as culpable
in its manipulations as are the others – appears to my reading as truly being the most rational of the triad in spite of
the current rhetoric captured so well by the western media.
For those unversed in Iranian-Israeli affairs – other than perhaps the hysterical rhetoric on nuclear weapons and the
carefully crafted ‘history’ of the 1979 hostage taking - Trita Parsi provides a well-documented, easily readable, and at
times captivating story of this “Treacherous Alliance .” With nuclear armed Pakistan on the boil, with neighbouring Afghanistan becoming more and more susceptible to Taliban
and other warlord tactics, with Iraq superficially calmer as the Sunnis and Shias have cleansed themselves of each other
but not the occupation, with Turkey knocking on the Kurdish back door, with Hezbollah demonstrating military readiness
in recent war ‘games’, with the Horn of Africa now embroiled in more “terror wars”, this work should be on the ‘to read’
list as the U.S.- Israeli partnership threatens further instability throughout the region. Even though rhetoric appears
to have trumped geostrategy (and plain common sense) within U.S. and Israeli political circles, the reader can only hope
that the previous secret intrigues are still continuing out of sight in order to avoid what could become the greatest of
all ‘unexpected outcomes’ for the Middle East and the world.
*************
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine
Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses the
militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by
the American government. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news
publications.