The Iranian foreign minister left for Moscow this week, to salvage negotiations with the US in Vienna. At the same time, the Iranian "Revolutionary Guards" went out of their way to make it clear that they did not fire missiles at an American base, but at an Israeli base in Iraq. They even quoted an Iraqi news agency about Israeli casualties. If that was not enough, the Tehran Times announced that Israel had indeed hit Iran's drone base.

Israel did not respond to information about the attack on the drone base in Iran and confirmed the information about the thwarting of two Iranian drones that were on their way to Israel. The two countries thus made the war between them visible, and the relations between them thus became a political occurrence.
In the arena of political events, war is but one event; Beside it is the more common event: the political discourse. Since both countries are developed, and aware that this is how the policy is conducted, there is no mistake here; At most it is a distraction on the way into a sharp political consciousness, or on the way to a clearer political formulation. The recent actions of the two countries also indicate that on the one hand Iran is no longer necessarily part of the China, Russia, North Korea axis, and that the conflict of interest between it and Russia in Syria, and between it and Russia regarding the nuclear negotiations in Vienna, which for the sake of completeness hurried out of the Iranian Foreign Minister to Moscow, are not trivial things, and it is open to proposals. On the other hand, Israel has said that it will not let the nuclear agreement turn it into a Viennese, and it is sharpening this line.

Inspired by Benjamin Netanyahu's policy of looking at Iran only through the telescopic aiming of the rifle, and with a bullet in the barrel, the current government has also maintained this policy. To be honest, not a single politician dares to say: maybe there is a place to talk to Iran. Dialogue with Iran is a taboo that Netanyahu has stuck in the heart of Israeli consciousness. The tyrannical and violent Iranian regime, of course, helped this position develop, with threats to destroy Israel, a political behavior that is an unequivocal pretext for war. The war waged by Israel is therefore completely vindicated, and any sensible state would have behaved like it if it had a disturbed and violent neighbor who threatens her life every morning.
But now the events on the ground point in another direction: the war between the countries reaches a geographical arena, and not just an ideological one, and thus paints itself as a political event. Second, Iran's positioning within the Eastern Axis has recently suffered two shocks: one, Russia saw in its interest the need to push Iran out of Syria. Second, Russia is using the negotiations in Vienna as a tool to balance the West's reactions against it for attacking Ukraine. Iran therefore sees an important political need to complete the agreement with the West and may see the Eastern Axis as a wrong address.
To this can be added China's separation from everything, including its automatic political connection to Russia. Dialogue with Israel, and the division of spheres of influence in the Middle East, may be a new commodity on the shelf.

Should all past events be forgiven on the way to a political dialogue with Iran? of course not. To paraphrase Yitzhak Rabin's remarks about the PLO, it can be said that a dialogue can be held with Iran as if there is no war, and that it can be fought as if there is no dialogue. Of course, at the heart of this recognition must be a clear knowledge that neither of the two great cultures has a real possibility of overpowering the other. There is also no need.