Iran Warns Israel over Escalating Attacks on Lebanon After Iran, Israel Exchange Strikes: Trita Parsi

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN : In the most serious escalation since a U.S.-Iranian so-called truce was reached in April, Iran and Israel exchanged fire overnight. Iran launched a wave of missiles at northern Israel, saying it was in response to Israeli attacks near Beirut on Sunday. Israel responded with attacks on several areas of Iran, including the capital Tehran. Earlier today, Iran announced it’s halting strikes on Israel, but warned it will carry out a more severe response if Israel continues to attack Lebanon. Israel attacked Iran despite President Trump telling Axios on Sunday that he planned to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to urge him not to respond to the first wave of Iranian missiles.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei spoke in Tehran earlier today.

ESMAIL BAGHAEI : [translated] America has direct responsibility in any action that the Zionist regime carries out in relation to violation of regional peace and security against Iran.

AMY GOODMAN : We’re joined now by Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, author of several books, including Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy . His latest piece for Responsible Statecraft is “Iran Strikes Israel, proving it will use hard power on behalf of Lebanon.”

Why don’t you elaborate on that? Were you surprised by this major violation of the so-called ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran? And what this says about how much power President Trump has over Netanyahu? He said he warned him not to do this, not to respond to Iran attacking Israel for Israel attacking Lebanon.

TRITA PARSI : Thank you, Amy. Good to be with you.

I was not surprised by the Iranian attack on Israel. In fact, a couple of days ago, just before Trump had his first colorful conversation with Netanyahu, the Iranians had already signaled that they were about to strike Israel. They were probably 45 to 60 minutes away of doing so. That’s when Trump intervened, and the situation was defused. So, the fact that the Iranians were going to enforce their red line in Lebanon, I don’t think was a surprise, and I think the U.S. government took it seriously, as well. What is perhaps a bit surprising is the immediate reaction that Trump had, and, of course, then, that the Israelis defied Trump’s expressed wishes. And where that goes from now, we will have to see.

But it’s important to understand that what the Iranians were trying to do, and what really worries the Israelis, is that they were trying to extend their deterrence. They had already established their own deterrence, in the sense that any attack on Iran clearly would be retaliated against, but now they were trying to say that even if the Israelis were to attack Lebanon, southern Lebanon, they would also face Iranian retaliation, which would be the first time in a very long time that a major power would put real hard power behind a warning or a deterrent against an attack by Israel on a third country. And this is part of what the Israelis are worried about, because if it suddenly means that they can no longer have that complete maneuverability in Lebanon and Gaza and elsewhere that they enjoy, that they are enjoying because the West is, more and less, enabling that to happen, they’re politically defending it, etc., and for the last couple of decades it has not been challenged by any regional state in a sincere or serious way — this appears to have been an attempt by the Iranians to challenge that, to establish this extended deterrence, and this is part of the reason why the Israelis have acted so aggressively against this attempt, as they call it, to establish a new equation in the region.

AMY GOODMAN : I mean, it’s interesting —

TRITA PARSI : — because it would dramatically minimize Israel’s maneuverability if it were to stand.

AMY GOODMAN : So, Trump has spoken to Netanyahu. It’s interesting that it’s Iran first that says they’re not going to attack Israel if Israel doesn’t attack again Iran or, I presume, Lebanon. And is this Iran saying, “You can’t have a side agreement that’s being negotiated in Washington that excludes Hezbollah between Israel and Lebanon. It is part of the ceasefire, so-called ceasefire, with Iran”?

TRITA PARSI : Iranians have, from the outset, said that if there is to be a ceasefire and an end to the war between the U.S. and Iran, then it has to be regionwide, meaning that it has to encompass Israel, as well. If it doesn’t, if Israel is unrestrained, it will have an ability to restart the war and the ability to drag the U.S. back into the war. Since the objective is to end the war and to end it in a durable manner, making sure that the Israelis cannot have the freedom of starting the war again or bombing Lebanon or other places has to be included. That is the Iranian perspective.

The question is: If now when they are signaling that they’re willing to back off, ar…