Barsam Mohammadi – Expert on regional affairs
The upcoming elections of the Israeli regime are at the center of attention of the region’s media and political circles. One of the main questions is what impact the possibility of Benjamin Netanyahu’s defeat and the transfer of power in Tel Aviv will have on the Axis of Resistance and this regime’s policies toward Palestine and Iran?
Some believe that a change in the regime’s cabinet can reduce the intensity of regional tensions and provide the ground for moderating its hostile policies. However, assessing this possibility requires distinguishing between political and tactical changes and strategic transformations. The historical experience of the Israeli regime and the positions of its political currents show that a change of prime minister, by itself, will not be a guarantee for a fundamental transformation of its security and regional policies. From this perspective, the elections should be examined within the broader framework of the power structure and the sustainable priorities of this regime.
The regime’s existence depends on its structural link with war and crisis
Since the formation of the Israeli regime, war, occupation, and the conflict over the land of Palestine have been determining factors in its political and security developments. The continuation of conflicts and the emphasis on the existence of external threats, in addition to influencing the security environment, have also played a role in its domestic politics and its relations with Western powers, especially the United States.
In this framework, all developments cannot be attributed solely to Netanyahu’s person or the interests of a single party; the political structure, security considerations, and internal differences together affect the decision-making of governments. Moreover, electoral competitions can affect the way crises are managed and drive some currents toward adopting more hardline positions. However, the claim that every government necessarily needs the continuation of war to maintain internal cohesion is a general assertion that must be assessed according to the conditions of each period.
Despite the political differences among the cabinets and parties of the Israeli regime, their positions on the main issues of Palestine and regional security are not identical. However, on issues such as the security of settlements, confronting Hamas, policy toward Iran and Hezbollah, and opposition to certain arrangements related to the formation of an independent Palestinian state, there are overlaps among parts of this regime’s political currents.
For example, Gadi Eisenkot and some other opposition figures, while criticizing Netanyahu’s performance, have emphasized the necessity of confronting Hamas and adopting a hardline stance toward Iran and Hezbollah. At the same time, disagreement over the conduct of the war, the management of foreign relations, and the manner of dealing with the Palestine issue can still affect the decisions of the future government.
Therefore, the possibility of change in the intensity of military operations, the prioritization of threats, or the manner of diplomatic engagement should not be overlooked; but such changes do not necessarily mean a transformation in main orientations. Holding elections also does not by itself determine how settlement policies, the status of the occupied territories, or the security approach toward Iran will change. These issues will depend on the composition of the government, parliamentary coalitions, and the practical decisions of the future cabinet.
The stability of the Axis of Resistance’s strategy against political changes
On the other side, the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance toward the Palestine issue is based on principles that are not directly related to the outcome of the Israeli regime’s elections. Supporting the rights of the Palestinian people, opposing occupation, and emphasizing the self-determination of this people are among the main and constant axes of the declared positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In this framework, the two principles of resistance against occupation as the strategic basis of the Axis of Resistance, as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including through a referendum with the participation of the original inhabitants of the historical land of Palestine, hold a central place. These principles have been raised in the official discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a change of government in Tel Aviv will not by itself mean a revision of them.
However, the stability of strategic principles does not necessarily mean that all instruments and tactics remain constant. Field developments, regional considerations, and changing political conditions can affect the manner of pursuing objectives. From this perspective, the Axis of Resistance can distinguish between temporary changes in the Israeli regime’s political arrangement and its own long-term assessment of the Palestine conflict, and not base its decisions solely on the outcome of an election.
On this basis, the Israeli regime’s elections should be considered one of the factors affecting the internal power arrangement and the manner of managing regional conflicts, not a factor that alone determines the course of this regime’s foreign and security policy. A change of cabinet may affect the intensity of operations, political priorities, and the manner of interaction with regional actors; but the continuation of certain common positions among the main political currents shows that tactical changes do not necessarily lead to strategic transformation.
Nevertheless, understanding the real differences among governments and assessing their consequences for the regional environment remains important. Ultimately, the future of this conflict will depend less on the replacement of a prime minister and more on field developments, the decisions of the future government, Palestine’s internal situation, and broader regional equations.
No comments:
Post a Comment