Iran Gets In On Gaza Aid Ship Action (Updated)

By Steve Hynd

The Iranian branch of the Red Crescent organisation is sending at least three aid ships to try to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, with the first two vessels expected to sail as soon as this coming weekend.

The first two ships will head to Gaza in coordination with the Turkish government, Rohama reported.

Of the two ships, "one will carry 70 aid workers such as nurses and medics and the other will have foodstuffs and medicines," Adibzadeh said.

"The (two) ships will be sent to Gaza by end of this week," Adibzadeh said.

The third vessel would be equipped with an onboard operating theatre and would head for the Palestinian territory at a later date.

Adibzadeh said the Red Crescent has called for Iranian volunteers to act as relief workers and accompany the first two vessels.

According to other reports, there have been over 8,000 volunteers. Meanwhile, the Iranian Guards have offered a military escort to the aid ships although there's been no indication from either the Red Crescent or the Iranian government that this offer has been accepted.

So far, it looks as if the ships will sail un-escorted, then. But will the Israeli Defense Forces be quite so sanguine about stopping these ships in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara assault? An anonymous Israeli official told the Jerusalem Post:

�If we didn�t let an Irish ship reach Gaza, we are certainly not going to let Iranian ships pass."

My good friend Alex Lobov compares the Mavi Marama atrocity to a bad chess player going for a short term advantage that in the long-term has him checkmated. "The activist 'pawn' was suddenly 'queened' by Turkey's emboldenment & media attention." Seizing other vessels just compounds that problem - the peaceful capture of the Rachel Corrie got far more attention than it would have a year ago - and further erodes Israel's international standing, especially as more people come to understand the "butter not guns" nature of the collective punishment being inflicted on Palestinians by Israel. Now that the issue has become a long burn story rather than a six day wonder, and with the Iranian ships to be followed by others - sent by Arab nations, by a Jewish consortium of peace groups and by the original funders of the Mavi Marama convoy - all through this Summer and Autumn, they're on to a PR loser whether things all go peacefully or not. At the end of the day, peaceful seizures mean that the crews have decided to aquiese to Israel's guns, so peaceful seizures still don't reflect well on Israel.

As far as Israel is concerned, then, Iran has very little downside in backing these aid ships, behind the absolutely golden "brand name" of the Red Crescent organisation. If things go badly, then justified Muslim outrage at Israel will work in Iran's favor in several theatres, not least in their attempts to derail pushes for sanctions or even attacks on Iran over its nuclear program. If things go peacefully but the ships don't make it, then they can point to events as showing that they can be non-confrontational even with arch-rival Israel, and if the ships get through then Iran will be the hero for finally breaking the blockade.

Likewise, there's no real downside to Iran's support for aid ships vis-a-vis its competition with Turkey to become the regional leader. Turkey has had a tremendous boost among Muslims for its support of the original convoy, overshadowing Iran which had always considered itself the leading voice of support for Palestine's plight in the region. By backing ships sent by Iran's red Crescent, Iran goes a long way to re-establishing parity in public opinion and again, no matter what happens when those ships get to Gaza, Iran can parlay that into a diplomatic and public opinion win.

As for Israel, it jumped on an obvious "capture" without looking several moves ahead. It has done so again by deciding that it would ignore growing calls for an international enquiry and instead appoint a retired general to investigate the IDF's actions last week. With even US officials giving anonymous comments suggesting the blockade has to end, it looks increasingly like it has checkmated itself.

Update: Via Alex Lobov, Stephen Walt has a revolutionary but workable idea for ending the Gaza seige.

 why doesn�t the United States use its considerable power to lift the blockade of Gaza unilaterally? It�s clear that the blockade of Gaza is causing enormous human suffering and making both the United States and Israel look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world. It has also failed to achieve any positive political purpose, like defeating Hamas. So why doesn�t the United States take the bull by the horns and organize a relief flotilla of its own, and use the U.S. Navy to escort the ships into Gaza? I�ll bet we could easily get a few NATO allies to help too, and if money�s the issue, we can get some EU members or Scandinavians to help pay for the relief supplies. And somehow I don�t think the IDF would try to stop us, or board any of the vessels.

The advantages of this course of action seem obvious. The United States has been looking both ineffective and hypocritical ever since the Cairo speech a year ago, and many people in the Arab and Islamic world are beginning to see Barack Obama as just a smooth-talking version of George W. Bush. By taking concrete steps to relieve Palestinian suffering, Obama would be showing the world that the United States was not in thrall to Israel or its hard-core lobbyists here in the United States. What better way to discredit the fulminations of anti-American terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who constantly accuse us of being indifferent to Muslim suffering? The photo ops of U.S. personnel unloading tons of relief supplies would go a long way to repairing our tarnished image in that part of the world. Remember the Berlin airlift, or our relief operations in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami? Doing good for others can win a lot of good will.

Second, having the U.S. and NATO take charge of a relief operation would alleviate Israel�s security concerns. The Israeli government claims the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. That is surely a legitimate concern, but if the United States and its allies are bringing relief aid in, then we can determine what goes on the ships and we obviously won�t bring in weaponry.

But wait a minute: wouldn�t bringing relief aid to Gaza end up strengthening Hamas? Not if we arrange for the relief aid to be distributed through the United Nations or other independent relief agencies. Some of it might end up in Hamas�s hands indirectly but most of it won�t, and reducing the level of deprivation and suffering would undercut the influence Hamas gains as a provider of social services.

It makes a lot of sense, but would require US lawmakers to be courageous, innovative, and for them to give up all those campaign dollars from ultra-hardline pro-Israel lobby groups and donors. So it's not going to happen.