25 May 2017

* The Saudi-Iran war of words keeps the region in a fragile state


It was nearly 50 years ago when Her Majesty’s government let it be known that it would no longer be able to sustain Britain’s traditional role east of Suez. The announcement could not have come at a worse time for the American administration, already over-burdened in Southeast Asia.

Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger promulgated a doctrine in which selective partners of the US would henceforth be provided the means to take on the lion’s share of looking after their own security and limiting Soviet influence in their respective parts of the world. Washington turned to Saudi Arabia and Iran to play this role in the Gulf and Arabian peninsula. They were happy to do so, given the military equipment that came their way in exchange for the dollars they received from the US for their oil. But the “twin pillars” era came to an abrupt end when the shah lost his throne and revolution brought a hostile Islamic Republic into power in 1979. Saudi Arabia and Iran remain the region’s most powerful countries. But there any resemblance to the past ends, as the two are intense rivals engaged in wars of words and proxy struggles that could easily become more destructive. The animosity is difficult to exaggerate. Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi deputy crown prince, recently gave an interview in which he rejected talking to Iran, described it as expansionist and motivated by extremist religious interpretations, and suggested indirect conflict could soon give way to something more direct. He warned: “We will not wait until the battle is in Saudi Arabia but we will work so the battle is there in Iran.”


Iran, needless to say, responded with outrage. Many will interpret Iran’s election result as evidence so-called moderates have the upper hand there, but this is an over-simplification Shared concerns about Iran explain as much as anything else the warm welcome extended to Donald Trump when the president arrived in Riyadh on Saturday. But how much a partner Saudi Arabia will be for the US is unclear, given its buffeting by low oil prices, high levels of unemployment, widespread corruption and inequality, and a proxy war with Iran in Yemen. Prince Mohammed’s modernising ambitions are being hindered by conservative political and social forces, a weak educational system and a looming succession struggle.

Meanwhile, Iran is not standing still. President Hassan Rouhani has just won re-election, decisively defeating his more conservative rival. Mr Rouhani’s victory resulted from better economic times in large part brought about by the sanctions relief from the 2015 accord that placed temporary constraints on Iran’s nuclear activities. Many will interpret it as evidence that so-called moderates have the upper hand, but this is an over-simplification. It is not just that any moderation is relative, but also that many of the instruments of power will remain in the hands of still dominant conservative leaders backed by some 40 per cent of the population. Iran will remain a hybrid political system for the foreseeable future, with limited reform. Expect also the continuation of an imperial foreign policy that employs militant groups such as Hizbollah and Hamas and projects armed force directly. The election campaign did not in any way promise a reining in of Iran’s reach. This is likely to translate into prolonged conflict in Yemen, the survival of the Assad regime and more civil war in Syria and growing influence throughout the region. Saudi and its conservative Sunni allies will be hard-pressed to match Iran, even with their new arms purchased from the US. It is unlikely, too, that Mr Trump will want to translate his anti-Iranian rhetoric into a full-fledged anti-Iranian policy, given what that would entail. All of which is to say there are no signs that the Saudi-Iranian relationship is about to take a turn for the better. Indeed, as the deputy crown prince warned, it could all too easily take a turn for the worse. The writer is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of ‘A World in Disarray’

No comments: