Reaction to Iran’s attack displeases Israel and distances Brazil from the West

Itamaraty once again caused dissatisfaction with the Israeli government by avoiding condemning Iran’s attacks. For Israel, the statement released by the ministry was insufficient to reflect the scale of the attacks committed by the Iranians. Experts assess that the declaration once again shows Brazil’s distancing from Western countries, in addition to increasing diplomatic noise with Israel, given the friction of recent months.

In the note in question, Itamaraty only says that it “follows with grave concern” the attacks carried out by Iran against Israel. Last Saturday, Iran launched an attack with around 300 drones and missiles against Israel, but the Israeli air defense system intercepted 99% of the projectiles. It was the first attack of this nature by Iran against Israel, as stated by the country’s ambassador to Brazil, Daniel Zonshine.

In an interview with People’s Gazette, Zonshine lamented the lack of a condemnation by Brazil for the attacks suffered by the country. “Brazil did not condemn [os ataques do Irã contra Israel]I don’t know if they wanted to wait for what could happen… But, from the beginning, after the first information about Iran’s attack against Israel, the expectation was that the Itamaraty’s announcement would be of condemnation”, lamented Zonshine.

Brazilian Chancellor Mauro Vieira said this Monday (15) that the note was written at the beginning of the attacks on Saturday, when Itamaraty still did not know the real extent of the attacks. But, when asked if he would add any position now that he knows the magnitude of the bombing, he stated that Brazil condemns any act of violence.

In the opposite direction of the G7, Brazil’s position was similar to China and Russia

For experts, the stance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs once again highlights a distancing of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) and Brazil from Western countries. The countries that make up the G7 (a group made up of Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan) and the European Union were categorical in condemning the attacks.

On the other hand, countries like China, Russia and even Venezuela, dictatorships that Lula has been accused of maintaining a worrying approach to, have positioned themselves in a similar way to Brazil. Through their statements, Beijing and Moscow stated that they were “following with concern” the situation in the Middle East and called for “containment” of the conflict.

“The note [publicada pelo Itamaraty] does not follow the constitutional dictates that guide Brazil’s international relations, especially with regard to the repudiation of terrorism”, assesses Cezar Roedel, PhD in Philosophy from PUC-RS and Master in International Relations from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) .

The expert also assesses that the stance adopted reflects a mistaken view of the Brazilian leader that Brazil can be the leader of the “Global South”. “In the end, it means that the government is just a pawn on the geopolitical board of autocracies, which even want to replace the dollar and the Western regime”, points out Roedel.

Double weights, two measures?

At the beginning of the month, Itamaraty adopted a different stance than last Saturday and condemned the attacks suffered by the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria. “The Brazilian government condemns the air attack, on April 1, against the consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syria,” wrote the Brazilian Foreign Ministry in a note published two days after the attacks.

The attacks resulted in the deaths of two of Tehran’s top generals and five other military advisers in the country. It is believed that at least one of them would be linked to the training of terrorists in foreign countries. Syria and Iran accused the Israeli government of coordinating the attacks. Israel, on the other hand, never claimed responsibility for the aggression. The Israeli position, however, did not prevent threats from Iran or even last Saturday’s attacks.

After the offensive, Iran’s mission to the United Nations (UN), in New York, stated that the issue with Israel could “be considered concluded”.

For Israeli ambassador Daniel Zonshine, the “open” attack, carried out by Iran, demonstrates an escalation in the relationship between the two countries. “Israel did not take responsibility for the attack in Syria. It is not a case of action and reaction. They are very different things in nature. Iran’s direct attack on Israel is something entirely different,” Zonshine told People’s Gazette.

For analysts, the situation once again highlights the Brazilian government’s “double standards” approach to ongoing geopolitical issues. This Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mauro Vieira, was questioned by the press about the tone of the position published by the ministry. In response, the chancellor stated that the position had been made when there was still “not so much clarity” about the scale of what happened in Israel.

“She [nota do Itamaraty] It was done at night, at 11pm, when all the action started. And we expressed the fear that the matter, the beginning of the operation, could contaminate other countries. This was done at night, at a time when we were not clear about the extent and scope of the measures taken; and we have always appealed for restraint and understanding between the parties”, stated the chancellor.

This Monday (15), when clarifying Brazil’s position on the attacks, Vieira stated that “Brazil always condemns any act of violence and we call for understanding between the two parties”.

Despite the new stance, the People’s Gazette found out from Itamaraty members that the department should not release a new note on the topic for now, given that the situation was controlled by Israel.

The situation worsens noise between Brazil and Israel

For political scientist specialized in Israel and the Middle East, André Lajst, the recent position could “increase the strain on relations” between Brazil and Israel. In recent months, some of President Lula’s speeches have caused an uproar with Israeli diplomacy – the PT member accused Israel of committing “genocide” against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

Furthermore, Brazil supported a South African complaint against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which the African country accused Jerusalem of committing genocide in Gaza by counter-attacking the terrorist group Hamas. The trigger, however, came when Lula compared the Israeli counteroffensive in Gaza to the Holocaust committed by Adolf Hitler during the Second World War.

“What is happening in the Gaza Strip and with the Palestinian people does not exist at any other historical moment. In fact, it existed when Hitler decided to kill the Jews,” the president told journalists during a trip to Ethiopia in February. Lula’s statement caused an almost immediate reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who condemned the statements.

The PT member was also considered persona non grata by Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz. The title has a pejorative diplomatic content and, in theory, indicates that that figure is considered unwanted or unacceptable in relationships with that country. Since then, the PT member has avoided making comments about Israel.

The relationship between Brazil and Iran

Since his first term, Lula has always emphasized the need to maintain diplomatic dialogue with Iran. The extremist country is accused of crimes against human rights and women’s rights, and is viewed with concern by the international community. In addition to supporting and financing various terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and the Houthis, in Yemen, the country has a worrying nuclear program.

In mid-2009, the UN Security Council was about to approve a series of sanctions against Iran, intended to make it stop uranium enrichment. The country argued that the program had medicinal purposes, while the West accused the Iranian government of enriching the element to produce an atomic bomb — which Iran has always denied.

During the negotiation process with the UN, the Iranian government even said that Brazil was doing the same thing as Iran by maintaining a uranium enrichment program to generate electricity at the nuclear plants in Angra dos Reis (RJ). The Lula government’s diplomacy tried to convince Americans to trust Iran in 2008. Diplomat Roberto Jaguaribe even praised the theocratic dictatorship led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stating that Iran was “the most democratic country in the Middle East”, after Israel, according to American diplomatic documents leaked by Wikileaks.

The result of this joint diplomatic effort between Brazil and Iran was that President Lula tried to mediate negotiations to reach a “friendly” agreement with both sides and avoid further sanctions on the Iranian government. Brazil and Turkey formulated, in 2010, the Tehran Agreement.

According to the treaty, Iran was supposed to send low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for fuel for a nuclear reactor that was supposed to be used in medical research in Tehran, the country’s capital. The agreement, however, did not have any effect.

The negotiation brokered by Lula was rejected by the United States, on the grounds that the treaty would still “leave Iran with enough uranium to produce nuclear weapons”. The agreement that became known as JPCOA (an acronym in English that designates a comprehensive action plan) was signed in 2015, but abandoned three years later by then American President Donald Trump.