When popular movements sprang in the Arab world, some in Iran welcomed them as Islamic and religious movements. Yet some others supported the movements as civil and non-religious in nature. Regardless of which view is correct, one cannot doubt that the groups that have since managed to attract majority support and more-or-less take over the reigns of power have Islamist tendencies. Early into the Arab Spring, I wrote an article arguing that the religious nature of these movements does not necessarily benefit the Iranian regime and its foreign policy. I provided two reasons for my claim. First, any religious movement that comes to power in the Arab world will, like governments before it, confront Iran in light of its own national interests, and in fact may enhance that confrontation with religious overtones, especially in light of the Shia-Sunni divide in the Muslim world. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the recognition of Israel by Arab governments that both enjoy popular support and have Islamist tendencies (most notably, in Egypt, because of its heavy dependence on the United States). Not let us recap recent developments since the Arab Spring.
1. Mohammad Morsi’s visit to Iran was for the sole purpose of handing over the leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement. Otherwise, he would never have visited Iran, especially given the short nature of his visit and his multiple undiplomatic speeches. We can compare Morsi’s visit to Iran with his recent visit to Turkey to really see the difference.
2. The relations of Hammas and especially Khaled Mashal with Turkey and Syria are also very important. Mashal, who had no supporter other than Syria for more than two decades, first left Syria when the country became unstable and then attended the ruling party’s congress in Turkey – a main supporter of Syrian rebels – and referred to Erdogan as a major leader in the Muslim world, precisely when Iran had terrible relations with Turkey.
3. Iran’s hatred for Qaddafi in Lybia is no secret, and Iran sent several delegations to Libya to hasten the fall of Qaddafi, but one of the delegations was kidnapped and held captive for several months by the anti-Qaddafi rebels.
4. The same situation pervades in Tunisia and Yemen, where the newly-formed governments have kept their distance from Iran.
Overall, not only have the Islamist movements that seized power across the Arab world not said anything to support Iran’s stance towards Israel and undermine the Camp David Accords have, but they have actually accepted Turkey’s leadership in this area, which is predicated on Israel’s recognition. Most importantly, Egypt has adopted Turkey’s policy. In light of this development, one can say that decision makers in the Middle East, even those that hold the mantle of a social or Islamist movement, make decisions based on their countries’ respective national interests and as dictated by realities and necessities of the time, not ideology. If the Palestinians’ national interests dictated remaining on Syrian soil and even supporting the Syrian regime, they would remain in Syria and even denounce Turkey from Syrian soil. Now that they have to stay in Turkey and denounce Syria, they would do that too. When they treat Iran based on a fuzzy logic, Iran must treat them based on a fuzzy logic too. Confining the art of politics to zeros and ones only harms Iran’s national interests.
