1) Statism: the state’s “sovereignty” is paramount, even while routinely tramping the sovereignty of other peoples – peoples’ sovereignty is null
2) Terrorism terrorism terrorism: terrorism (non-state) is the root of all evils and does not derive from any context or reality. Projective nature of the accusation; both states having engaged themselves in massive terrorism (defined by the actual meaning of the word of ‘terrorising’ people, rather than the political usage of ‘non-state actors that we don’t like’) and yet both launch massive propaganda campaigns to convince people of the opposite (their reacting to ‘terrorism’)
3) *Mainstream* Islamic religious extremism is the problem in the region (‘Islamists’/’Sunni Islamists’), backed by ‘sectarian’ hostile regional allies (usually proven by anti-Jewish rhetoric/anti-Shia rhetoric). This is a) despite the fact that the two states that make this accusation are themselves based on religious-sectarian grounds, and b) that beyond such rhetoric these ‘allies’ are overwhelmingly a let down when it comes to concrete help, whether in Palestine or Syria; for for too long we have seen videos of civilians whose homes have been bombed, whether in Palesine or in Syria, saying the immemorial phrase, ‘where are the Arabs’.
Emphasis on ‘mainstream’ because the problem is not cited as fringes of the general Islamic community, but an entrenched and widespread problem within the majority of the mainstream (mainly Sunni) Islamic umma. From listening to their rhetoric on ‘religious extremism’ one would forget that Israel insists that it be defined in terms of a Jewish state, or one would almost assume that Iran was a secular state, rather than an ‘Islamic Republic’.
4) Deals with the devil where necessary; both are pragmatic states and have cooperated with the ‘devil’ in various points in their history; the US (currently and in the past) and Israel in the case of Iran as an example, Hamas, Syria (during the 1970s-1980s against Arafat’s PLO) and Iran in the case of Israel.
5) Conspiracy against evidence: There is a regional/global conspiracy closing in against the state in turn requiring militarist reactions. This is cited regardless of the realities of the ground; claims of the Obama administration being an existential threat to Israel whilst US vetoes any UN motions targeting Israel and gives billions of dollars in aid; or Iran posing as anti-US force whilst working hand-in-hand with the US in two different states (Iraq, Lebanon) and being appeased in the third one (Syria) (although ‘appeasement’ implies a dilution of values, when my personal belief is that an overthrow of the Syrian state was never in the US interest), with its affiliates receiving billions of dollars in US aid – effectively replacing Saudi Arabia as the regional lynchpin-in-making (this is not to mention a rich history of cooperating in the rendition and torture of US War on Terror prisoners, trading with Israel, receiving weapons from Israel, and facilitating the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq)
6) Starvation sieges are justified against ‘terrorist havens’ (be they in Yarmouk or Gaza) as ‘necessary’ and ultimately to be blamed on the ‘terrorists’ holding ‘human shields’ inside the open-air prison camp(s)
7) Expansionist nature is denied, or argued to be legitimate form of ‘self-defence’
Iran and Israel share much more in common then they would like to admit, and indeed, it is merely a case of outward admission. However, they both serve as useful bogeymen to each other, and although Iran is increasingly showing its reactionary/status-quo conservative nature (as opposed to previous ‘revolutionary’ potential), this may continue into the future.