The orientalist questioned the success of the "Helsinki detente" in the Middle East

The initiative for the countries of the Middle East to conclude a non-aggression pact based on the Helsinki Accords of 1975 with Iran is causing skepticism, Danila Krylov, a researcher at the Department of the Middle and Post-Soviet East of the INION RAS, Candidate of Political Sciences, said in an interview with Izvestia. The main question, in his opinion, is who will act as the guarantor of such transactions and monitor their implementation.

Stage negative: what are the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon leading to?

And how does the political crisis inside the Jewish state affect the conflict in the Middle East

"Iran is a victim country. And the aggression came from Israel and the United States, Tehran did not fall on anyone, but only responded. The Israelis have supplied their Iron Dome air defense/missile defense systems to some Arab monarchies, and whether the Arabs have the moral right to accuse Iran of unprovoked aggression is debatable," the political scientist explained.

At the same time, multilateral agreements do not work well in the Middle East, the expert noted. Therefore, the Helsinki Pact, in the version that was adopted in 1975, will not be valid at all in this case. For effective functioning, according to him, it is necessary that the agreement be bilateral in a multilateral format. But what happens if the pact is violated is a separate question that currently has no answer.

In addition, as the source pointed out, for the agreements to work effectively, Israel must join the pact.

"But it is impossible to create an agreement in which Iran and Israel will simultaneously be on equal terms, with equal responsibility and with equal fulfillment of obligations," the expert concluded.

Read more in the Izvestia article:

Helsinki Syndrome: Will a non-aggression pact be able to stabilize the Middle East