Talking to Indian global broadcaster WION about Iran's weekend missile strike on Israel

This morning’s 8 minute interview on India’s premier English language global broadcaster was high level and covered a number of issues well outside the narrow confines of what Mr. Netanyahu may or may not do next. I expect many readers will find value in it.

Transcript below by a reader

Hem Kaur Saroya: 0:01
World leaders have urged Israel not to retaliate after Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles towards its territory. Nearly three-quarters of the Israeli public opposes a retaliatory strike on Iran for its massive missile attack on the country, and that is if such an action would harm Israel's security alliance with its allies. Washington intends to hit Iran with new sanctions, and on the other hand, according to official Kremlin statement, President Vladimir Putin has expressed hope that all sides will show reasonable restraint and prevent a confrontation that could have catastrophic consequences for the entire region.

The question remains, how will things pan out in the West Asian region? My name is Hem Kaur Soroya, and to discuss this further, we're now being joined by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, political analyst, author and historian. Thank you so much for joining us.

Doctorow:
Thanks for the invitation.

Hem Kaur Saroya:
Now, sir, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has told his soldiers that the country will know how to defeat its enemies, should conflict in West Asia escalate further. Israel has not mentioned when or how it will respond to the Iranian strikes, but it appears to be keen on a response. What's your assessment of this?

Doctorow: 1:11
Well, yes, I understand from a political standpoint, he, as the leader of the military, is obliged to pledge at least a token response to appease the hardliners within the Netanyahu cabinet. However, he is under-- and the Israeli military in general is under-- a very stern reprimand, one can say, from its backers in the United States and from its allies abroad, because they, the United States in particular, are now held hostage by Iran, who have threatened to attack any bases, any forces in the region that would enable an Israeli strike on Iran.

Hem Kaur Saroya: 2:01
Right sir, in fact I was just going to come to this. Allies of both Iran and Israel, they have urged for de-escalation. In fact Moscow has urged restraint in talks with the Iranian president as well. Do you think Israel will still go ahead and that do alone if it has to in retaliating?

Doctorow:
Well, we have to understand what is meant by urging restraint and why they are urging restraint. It is not out of humanitarian considerations. It is out of their own self-interest and desire to preserve the equilibrium in the Middle East as it is today, because it is relatively speaking favorable to Israel and its allies. Should they respond, should Israel not heed the warnings, the very clear warnings from the United States and others, and proceed on an emotional basis to respond to the Iranian attack, they risk being isolated, they risk losing their supplies of weaponry, which are critical, not quite as critical to Israel as these supplies from outside are to Ukraine. But if there's a prolonged conflict, the situation with Israel and its neighborhood will be as adverse and as dangerous for Israel as Ukraine has, pending the limited supplies it's receiving from abroad. So Israel runs a very great risk if it should not listen to the sage advice coming out of Washington.

Hem Kaur Saroya: 3:31
All right. Now, when we speak of allies of both sides, Moscow as well as the United States, what sort of a role do you think they play here? Do you think both sides can effectively help de-escalate tensions in the region?

Doctorow:
The interests of Russia and also of China in bringing Iran into a group of constructive world leaders, has already occurred, going back to the membership of Iran in the Shanghai organization and in BRICS. This membership, which is demonstrated by the recent statements both from Moscow and from Beijing-- that they support Iran in its self-defense measures, which are legitimate under the Article 51 of the United Nations charter-- this political support coming from these two fellow members of BRICS, of course, tempers the behavior of Iran and is all to the good.

Hem Kaur Saroya: 4:42
All right. Now, if we come to the polls here, some polls suggest that nearly three quarters of the Israeli public opposes a retaliatory strike on Iran for its attack on the country. At a time when the Israeli prime minister has already been facing growing pressure over its operations in Gaza, how do you see things actually panning out for the Israeli prime minister and also in the region?

Doctorow:
Well, polls have been a very poor indicator of what the Netanyahu government will do. And that's not surprising, because in general, governments do not follow what the street tells them, unless a revolution is imminent. The role of governments in foreign policy is exclusively theirs, and they are under no obligation-- whether it's the United States, whether it's France, whether it's Russia or any other country-- they're under no obligation to listen to the polls or what the street is telling them.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Netanyahu does what he believes is essential within the political context of his cabinet and survival in power. That being said, the majority of his cabinet surely is for moderation. It is only a couple of extreme conservative, orthodox members of his cabinet who are troublemakers.

Hem Kaur Saroya: 5:59
All right. Now, also speaking of Iran now, for many, the growing partnership between Tehran and Moscow, that's a cause of concern as well. It's seen as strengthening the capabilities of both the countries. What are your thoughts on this?

Doctorow:
Well, why should that be unusual? The United States has its allies, and why shouldn't the rest of the world also find common interests? Iran and Russia are not natural allies. The preference of the middle classes and perhaps large part of the government cadres within Iran was always to have some accommodation with the United States and with the West in general. It was only the complete break-off that followed Mr. Trump's decision to leave the agreement over the pause in the Iranian nuclear program, it was only that which forced Iran to look for a new political orientation in foreign affairs.

7:03
Having said that, they have found a very remarkable complementarity of interests, both with Russia and with China. And so, the notion coming out of Washington that instructing Beijing to instruct Iran to stop supporting Russia is nonsense, is juvenile. The interests of countries, particularly countries that are following a realist foreign policy-- as opposed to a romantic values-driven foreign policy-- the interests of these countries is dominant in their individual foreign policy decisions. There is nothing whatever transactional in this. It is an ideological identity in the primacy of interest-based foreign policy.

Hem Kaur Saroya:
All right. Well, Dr. Doctorow, thank you so much for joining us on WION with your insights and your perspective on this.

Doctorow:
Thanks again.