In an unexpected development, Iranian reformist leaders have sparked intense debate within the country, questioning Tehran’s long-standing opposition to a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This shift, once considered unthinkable within the Islamic Republic, challenges the bedrock principles of Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which has opposed Israel's existence since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Now, amid deepening geopolitical complexities, and Israel's display of military dominance over the Islamic State and their proxies, certain reformist factions argue that pragmatic shifts may better serve Iran’s national interests.
A Revolutionary Legacy: Iran’s Ingrained Opposition to Israel
Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has positioned itself as an uncompromising opponent of Israel, echoing anti-Zionist slogans and rejecting Israel’s legitimacy. The mantra “Death to Zionism” became central to Iran’s revolutionary identity and foreign policy, symbolizing a broader anti-Western and anti-colonial stance. Iran’s leaders historically aligned with organizations like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which initially shared similar anti-Israel positions before softening under the Oslo Accords in the 1990s.
Iran’s stance has been reinforced over decades through both rhetoric and policy. Notably, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his foreign minister Kamal Kharazi previously suggested a referendum-based single-state solution, where only those “present before the Zionist invasion” could vote, effectively excluding most Israeli Jews. This vision saw Israel as a colonial imposition in the Middle East, an artificial state created by Western powers, a stance even fortified by the promotion of Holocaust denial among Iran’s most hardline elements.
Will Iran at long last perceive Israel? Tehran banters after reformist pastors back two-country arrangement?#Iran #Israel #tehranexplosion #Tehran #Palestinian #Khatami #Iranians pic.twitter.com/iTKUb433xc
— WorldFeedTopStory (@worlds_topstory) November 5, 2024
The Stirring of Change: Qom Scholars Call for 1967 Borders
In a rare and startling divergence from the status quo, the Assembly of Lecturers and Scholars at Qom Seminary, a respected and reformist-aligned clerical body, issued a statement on October 21 suggesting a new approach. This declaration called for Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state—a clear nod to the two-state solution model advocated internationally.
The response was swift and vitriolic. Protests erupted outside the assembly’s offices in Qom, with hardline factions denouncing the clerics for “recognizing the fabricated regime of Israel.” Tehran’s influential hardline daily, Kayhan, slammed the assembly as a “propaganda machine for the enemy,” while Iran’s judiciary chief warned of potential “corrective action,” suggesting that even institutional crackdowns might be imminent. The seminary clarified that, while it did not recognize Israel and condemned its “heinous crimes,” it believed in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as a path to regional peace.
Strategic Dilemmas: Iran’s Regional Standing and Diplomatic Conundrums
Iran’s unyielding opposition to the two-state solution has increasingly isolated it on the diplomatic stage, even among Muslim-majority countries. Last week, Iran notably absented itself from a high-profile conference on the two-state solution in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, attended by numerous nations, signaling Iran’s reluctance to engage in mainstream diplomatic dialogues on the issue.
Iranian historian Arash Azizi, an influential voice on Iranian politics, argued that the debate over Israel’s existence reveals a schism between two competing visions for Iran’s future. On one side are those advocating for continued revolutionary fervor and a role as a bastion of Islamist anti-Zionism; on the other are pragmatists who see a need for diplomatic flexibility. “Iran is in transition,” Azizi noted. “The supreme leader is 85, and power is moving to a new generation. Khomeini’s strategy of ‘no war, no peace’ has faltered, and Iran is struggling to manage a perpetual state of crisis. It’s time for clarity: is destroying Israel Iran’s business, or can Iran shift toward national interests?”
Signs of Pragmatism: Calls for Reforms in Iran’s Stance on Israel
Hints of flexibility surfaced as early as the presidency of Ebrahim Raisi. Under his administration, Iran took unprecedented steps by backing a Jordanian resolution at the UN in December, which endorsed the two-state solution as a viable resolution framework. Although Iran’s support came with strong reservations, the act signaled that Iranian policy might not be as unchangeable as once believed.
"The discourse in Iran is no longer reform. The discourse in Iran is now revolution."
— 𝗡𝗶𝗼𝗵 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗴 ♛ ✡︎ (@NiohBerg) November 4, 2024
- HIH Reza Pahlavi on Patrick Bet David's podcast.
Everyone should go watch and in particular Iranians. pic.twitter.com/LI5RW7NDE5
Further reinforcing this trend, former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently spoke on Iranians’ frustration over a government “more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.” This sentiment underscores an internal fatigue with Iran’s intractable stance, as many Iranians question the prioritization of foreign causes over domestic well-being.
The Road Ahead: A Moment of Truth for Iranian Policy
This moment of reflection within Iran’s political sphere could signal an unprecedented pivot, challenging Tehran’s role in the region. For decades, Iran has postured as the uncompromising champion of Palestinian rights, yet if the Palestinians themselves were to embrace a two-state framework in negotiations with Israel, Iran’s stance would risk rendering it isolated and irrelevant on the issue.
The discourse emerging within Iran reflects both a historical reckoning and a push for a recalibrated foreign policy.
