Relations between the two regional superpowers of the Middle East - Iran and Saudi Arabia - have never been simple. The two Middle Eastern countries have long-standing contradictions that are associated with a whole range of problems. Countries diverge on religious, economic and political issues. Kingdom Saudi Arabia(KSA) is a Sunni monarchy, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is the Shiite center of the world. Both countries are major producers of energy resources and constantly compete for markets for their main export products - oil and gas.
In the 1960s and 1970s, relations between the Shah of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were on the rise, although tensions remained between the countries on certain issues. Saudi Arabia feared the hegemonic aspirations of the Shah and the emergence of Iran as a regional power.
After the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran, bilateral relations took on the character of regional rivalry. The aggravation of relations between the two countries in the early eighties of the last century was due to a number of factors. Firstly, ideological. By the beginning of this period, the Shiite and Sunni versions of Islamic fundamentalism were recognized as official doctrines in both states. The leader of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, used the term “American Islam” in his works in relation to the Saudi political model. Secondly, the contradictions between the two countries were caused by the ethno-confessional factor. The Shiite community of Saudi Arabia constitutes, according to various sources, from 10 to 15% of the country's population.
Thirdly, relations between the two countries were greatly influenced by the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, especially in the Persian Gulf area. The slogan of “exporting the Islamic revolution” put forward by Khomeini’s revolutionary government aroused fears in Riyadh of a possible Shiite revolution in Iraq with the subsequent spread of Iranian expansion to other countries of the Persian Gulf.
The Saudi elite welcomed the Iraqi aggression against Iran in September 1980 and provided Baghdad with significant financial and economic assistance during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.
Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalated further after the outbreak of the so-called tanker war, when Iraq and Iran tried to undermine each other's economies by attacking oil terminals and tankers from third countries that were used to export oil from the warring states. Fighting soon spread to almost the entire Persian Gulf, and since Saudi Arabian tankers also actively participated in the transportation of Iraqi oil, it came to direct clashes between the Saudi and Iranian air forces.
But bilateral relations deteriorated the most after the events of July 31, 1987 in Mecca. Then, during the Hajj, pilgrims from Iran and several other countries demonstrated in support of Iran. Saudi police tried to disperse it, starting large-scale clashes with pilgrims. Saudi security forces used firearms en masse, which led to numerous casualties among pilgrims. The countries then exchanged extremely harsh statements addressed to each other and diplomatic relations between the countries were reduced to a minimum.
In 1988, the Saudi government broke off diplomatic relations with Iran, preventing Iranians from making the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Relationship between two largest countries The Middle East began to gradually change in 1990, after the Iraqi aggression in Kuwait and the start of Operation Desert Storm, tacitly supported by Tehran. In this case, the geopolitical goals of Tehran and Riyadh to weaken Saddam’s Iraq, which was considered by both countries in the early 1990s as the main threat, coincided.
The collapse of the USSR and Russia's virtual withdrawal from the Middle East led to a sharp weakening of the positions of former pro-Soviet countries and left-wing parties and movements.
Iran, severely damaged by the decades-long war with Iraq, was in dire need of peace and foreign investment to ensure economic recovery and continued growth. At this time, there was a partial normalization of relations between Tehran and Riyadh. In the 1990s and early 2000s, many bilateral agreements were concluded in the fields of politics, economics and security, and Iranian Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami visited Saudi Arabia on official visits.
The easing of tensions in Saudi-Iranian relations in the 1990s was facilitated by the then Crown Prince, later King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who has effectively led the KSA since 1996. During that period, Abdullah established good personal relations with the President (1989-1997), and later the Chairman of the Council of Experts of Iran, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and members of his family.
The sharp deterioration of relations between the two main Middle Eastern regional entities was facilitated by the changes that took place in the Middle East in 2003-2006. The main reason was the American occupation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, after which the growth of Iranian influence in Iraq began with the prospect of reformatting the regional political map.
The signing of the Iran-Iraq agreement on military cooperation on July 7, 2005 caused great discontent in Riyadh. Lebanon has become another “front” for the clash of Iranian and Saudi geopolitical interests, starting from 2005-2006.
At the same time, in 2006-2008, both sides made certain attempts to ease tensions in Iranian-Saudi relations. In March 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia at the invitation of King Abdullah.
The radical deterioration of relations between the two regional superpowers of the Middle East was facilitated by the process of large-scale socio-political changes in the region in 2011, called the “Arab Spring”. At the same time, Syria became the main front of the political struggle between KSA and Iran.
Riyadh and Tehran are bitterly divided over the Syrian conflict. Iran supports the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Saudi Arabia, in turn, is the main sponsor of the Syrian opposition.
Another factor complicating the already difficult relationship was the situation in Yemen, where Shiite militias seized power in the country, overthrowing the pro-Saudi government. According to Saudi Arabia, Iran was behind the militias.
Economic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia declined during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). Currently, the Islamic Republic's exports to Saudi Arabia are limited to carpets and food products, including fruits, nuts, raisins, spices and honey.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
The think tank SouthFront recently released a very interesting video about the possibility of a war involving Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Syria, Iran and Israel. This, of course, also means that Russia and the United States will take part in this war.
Now let's move on to what this scenario means.
Context: total failure of the Anglo-Zionist Empire on all fronts
To understand the context of these events, we first need to briefly summarize what has happened in Syria and other countries in the Middle East in recent years.
The original Anglo-Zionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with takfiri madmen (Daesh/ISIS*, Al-Qaeda**, Al-Nusra***). Thus, it was planned to solve the following problems:
- Sweep away the strong secular Arab state along with its political culture, military and security services.
- To create total chaos and horror in Syria, which would justify the creation by Israel of a “security zone” not only in the Golan, but also further to the north.
- Launch the mechanism of civil war in Lebanon by pitting takfirists against Hezbollah.
- Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed to death, and then create a “safe zone” - this time in Lebanon.
- Prevent the creation of a “Shiite axis” of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
- The division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
- Creation of Kurdistan to then use it against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
- Give Israel the opportunity to become the undisputed power player and force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to turn to Israel for permission to carry out any oil and gas projects.
- Gradually isolate Iran, threaten it, undermine it, and ultimately attack it with a broad regional coalition.
- Remove all Shia power centers in the Middle East.
It was an ambitious plan, but the Israelis had full confidence that their vassal state of the United States would provide all the resources necessary to achieve it. And now this plan has collapsed thanks to the high effectiveness of the informal, but nevertheless formidable alliance between Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
To say that the Israelis are seething with rage and in a state of total panic would be an understatement. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Then look at it from Israel's point of view:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed forces and security services are now much more capable than they were before the war began. Remember how they “almost” lost the war at first? The Syrians were forced to retreat, they had to learn some very hard lessons, but, by all accounts, they achieved a lot. At a critical moment, Iran and Hezbollah were literally “plugging holes” on the fronts in Syria and “putting out fires” in many places. Now the Syrians are doing an excellent job of liberating large territories and cities. Today, not only has Syria become stronger, but Iran and Hezbollah have occupied the entire country. And this plunges the Israelis into a state of panic and rage. Stability remains in Lebanon. Even the Saudis' recent attempt to kidnap Prime Minister Hariri failed. Syria will remain a unitary state, and the state of Kurdistan will not appear. Millions of displaced people and refugees are returning home. Israel and the US look like absolute idiots and, worse than that, losers in whom there is no trust left.
All this is a disaster for the Anglo-Zionists, who, in retreat, resort to their typical tactic: if we can't control something, then let's destroy it.
Plan: Force the US to attack Iraq
I have no way of knowing what the Axis of Good (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) has come up with, but I feel like I can make an educated guess. First of all, this is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spoken in favor of intervention in Syria in the past, and we know that the Saudis have intervened in Bahrain and Yemen. As for the Israelis. Their achievement list of completely criminal military interventions is so long that we can confidently say that the Israelis will participate in “any” terrible and evil plan that will turn this region into ruins.
For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem is that they have poor militaries. Dear ones - yes. High-tech - yes. But their problem is that their only area of expertise is the slaughter of defenseless civilians. They are real experts at this. But from the point of view of real military operations, especially against a truly formidable enemy - such as the Iranians or Hezbollah - the “Sio-Wahhabis” (what a combination!) do not have a single chance, and they know it, even if they never are not recognized.
Imagine how frustrating this must be - you basically control the US, which you have turned into a vassal state, you have spent billions and billions of dollars on arming and training your bloated military, and in the end the Shiites just laugh at you face. And - for some reason you can't quite put your finger on - every time you try to "teach them a lesson", you're the one who has to crawl home in complete shame to lick your wounds and try to hide the extent of your defeat. This is both very painful and very humiliating. So, it is simply necessary to come up with at least some plan to make the Shiites pay a high price.
And this is what I think the plan will be.
First, the goal will not be to defeat Hezbollah or Iran somewhere. For all their racist rhetoric and arrogance, the Israelis know that neither they nor, especially the Saudis, are in a position to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan, I think, is much cruder - to start a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene.
I have repeatedly explained that the US military does not have the means to win a war against Iran. And that may be the problem - American commanders they know very well this is why they are doing everything to prove to the neocons “forgive me, but we can’t!” This is the only reason why the US attack on Iran did not take place. From the Israeli point of view, this is completely unacceptable, and the solution is simple - simply force the United States to take part in a war that it does not really want. After all, who cares how many goyim Americans die? As for the Iranians, the purpose of the Israeli-provoked US attack on Iran is not to defeat Iran, but only to damage it. Very, very big damage. This is the real goal.
As for the Israelis, they not only do not care how many non-Jews die, as long as their Master Race benefits from it. To put it simply, we are just tools for them; tools capable of thinking, but still tools. And of course, the neocons look at us the same way.
In fact, I can imagine the jubilation of the Israelis when they see Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims killing each other. If a few Christians are killed, it will only be better.
So, it's simple - let the Saudis attack Lebanon and/or Iran. You watch them fail, then you turn on the propaganda machine full blast and explain to the average TV-watching goyim that Iran is a threat to the entire region, that it is the aggressor here, that the Saudis are only defending themselves from Iranian aggression . And if this is not enough, then they are screaming in the US Congress " oh gevalt! “****, and prostitutes on Capitol Hill, at their behest, explain to the American people that the United States must “lead the Free World” in order to “defend” the “only democracy in the Middle East” against the Iranian “aggression” that the United States bears “ responsibility” in preventing the “seizure of Saudi oil fields” by Iran, etc., etc.
For the Israelis, this is a win-win situation on all sides, as long as they are not caught red-handed in their manipulations. But we can count on our beloved Sio-media that no “anti-Semitic” accusations will ever be made, even if Israel's fingerprints are everywhere.
Counterplan
Iranians good choice No. The least bad option for them is to do what Putin is doing in Donbass - remain outwardly passive, risking being accused by someone who is not very gifted of giving up. But be that as it may - if your opponent plans not to win, but to lose, then it makes sense to refuse to enter into confrontation with him, at least at the strategic level and for the short term.
I am not suggesting that the Iranians give up resistance at the tactical level. Even the group of Russian armed forces in Syria has official orders to defend itself in the event of an attack. I'm talking about the strategic level. As tempting as it may be, the Iranians should refrain from retaliating against Saudi Arabia. The same applies to Israel. It is paradoxical, but Iran cannot do what Hezbollah did in 2006. ***** The reason for this is simple - by the time the first Hezbollah rockets began to fall on Israel, the Israelis had already reached top level escalation (as always in such cases, the civilian population pays for everything).
But in the case of Iran, the Anglo-Zionist Empire can raise the level of violence far beyond what the Israelis and Saudis can achieve on their own. The combined power of Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot be compared with the firepower that the United States (CENTCOM+NATO) can oppose to Iran. It is therefore critical that the Iranians do not provide any pretext for the Americans to officially join in the attack. Instead of destroying the regime in Riyadh, the Iranians should allow - or at least help - the regime in Riyadh to destroy itself. I think the Saudis have much less chance of surviving than the US or Israel. Therefore, there is no need to force the outbreak of war between Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Needless to say, if the Anglo-Zionist Empire joins in hostile actions against Iran and unleashes all its military power against that country - which I believe is a very real possibility - then all bets are off and Iran must, and will, respond with a full range of symmetric and asymmetric responses, including strikes on Israel and Saudi Arabia and even on CENTCOM bases throughout the region. However, such a situation would have disastrous consequences for Iran and should therefore be avoided if at all possible.
In the end, the best hope for the world is that some American patriot will see through the fog of the tail-wags-the-dog conspiracy and tell the Sio-Wahhabis "not on my watch" - as the Admiral did Fallon in 2007.****** Maybe this worthy man will receive the historical recognition he deserves, say, in the form Nobel Prize peace?
By themselves, the Israelis and Saudis are just a bunch of medieval bandits, whom even Hezbollah drives into fear and puts to flight. The only real power they have is the power of the American Congress and the SIO-media, this is the power of corruption, the power of the ability and ability to lie and betray. I know for a fact that there are many American officers at every level of the US military who can clearly see through this Zionist smokescreen. They remain loyal to the United States and not to the Zionist Territorial Entity in Palestine. I served and worked with such patriots. Many of them are subscribers to my blog.
I'm not saying we should expect senior US military leaders to refuse to carry out the president's orders. Anyone who has served in the military, especially in high command positions (Pentagon, CENTCOM), knows that there are many different creative ways to ensure that a given order is not carried out. And finally, I have not yet completely lost hope that Trump may, after all, do the right thing. Yes, he is a weak person. Yes, now he is driven into a corner and has no allies left. But when he faces the dire consequences of an attack on Iran, he may still be able to say no and order his staff to come up with a different plan. Trump may also realize that not going to war with Iran could be best view revenge on those who slandered him and who now seem to be trying to impeach him.
Conclusions: Will an attack happen?
The short answer is probably yes. The simple truth is that the crazy regimes in power in Israel and Saudi Arabia are cornered and desperate. And the inability of the Sio-Wahhabis to force even tiny Qatar to obey speaks of the decay of power within these regimes. I believe that the recent visits to Moscow by Bibi Netanyahu and even the King of Saudi Arabia were part of an effort to gauge the likely Russian reaction in the event of an attack on Iran.
It is unlikely that we will know what was said behind closed doors. But it seems to me that Putin made it clear to the Sio-Wahhabis that Russia will not stand aside and will not allow them to strike Iran. In truth, Russia has a very limited range of options. Russia cannot simply participate in a war in an open and formal manner unless Russian personnel are directly attacked. This would be too dangerous, especially against the United States. But Russia can significantly (and very quickly) strengthen Iranian air defenses by stationing its A-50 and MiG-31 aircraft in Iran or sending them on reconnaissance flights from airfields on Russian territory.
Russia can provide the Iranians with intelligence data that the Iranians themselves will never be able to obtain. The Russians may be secretly placing some of their electronic warfare systems at key locations inside Iran. The Americans will quickly discover this, but at the political level the Russians will still have the possibility of “plausible deniability.” Ultimately, the Russians could do for Iran what they have already done for Syria and integrate all Iranian and Russian air defenses into a single network. This will significantly enhance the capabilities of Iran's current rather modest, but rapidly improving, air defense systems.
It is now quite clear that an attack on Iran is being prepared. This attack is possible and even probable. But this is not a settled issue yet. Both the Saudis and the Israelis have made empty threats many times. For all their feigned bravery, they actually understand that Iran is a formidable and highly sophisticated adversary. They may also remember what happened when the Iraqis - with the full cooperation and support of the United States, Soviet Union, France, Britain and everyone else - attacked Iran when Iran was weak. A long and terrible war ensued, but Iran is now stronger than ever. Saddam Hussein is dead and the Iranians are more or less in control of Iraq. Iran is simply not a country worth attacking, especially without a clear vision of what “victory” looks like. You'd have to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and Israelis are crazy. And they have proven this many times. So, we can only hope that we are “crazy,” but “not that crazy.” It's not a great hope, but it's all we have.
Author(published under a pseudonym The Saker) is a widely known blogger in the West. Born in Zurich (Switzerland). Father is Dutch, mother is Russian. Served as an analyst in the Swiss armed forces and in UN research structures. Specializes in the study of post-Soviet states. Lives in Florida (USA).
Today is certainly one of the most discussed events in the Muslim world. Arabist Murad Aslanov tried to figure out what position the states of the region took.
From the very beginning of this crisis, the Saudis threatened the Iranians with complete international isolation and boycott by all civilized countries. The kingdom relied primarily on its "brothers" from the neighboring Arabian monarchies, and each of these states took some measures against Tehran to express support for Riyadh.
But has a united front really formed on the opposite coast of Iran to fight it?
The united position of the Gulf countries was expressed on January 9 at an emergency meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Cooperation Council Arab states Persian Gulf. They all unanimously condemned Iran's actions to escalate the situation in the region and held the Iranian authorities fully responsible for the arson of the Saudi missions in Tehran and Mashhad, as a result of which Saudi diplomatic personnel in Iran were urgently evacuated from the country and relations between the two states were severed.
This is not the first time that Gulf monarchies blame Iran for the region's ills. In essence, they are Once again repeated the position that was developed back in December 2015 at the summit of heads of state. In their general opinion, the Iranians are grossly interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries, supporting anti-government extremist organizations there and, with their aggressive policies, destabilizing the already difficult situation.
However, in bilateral relations, each state is guided primarily by its own national interests.
Therefore, in this crisis, one can clearly see how important for each of the “oil monarchies” a good relationship with Iran.
It is not surprising that the harshest position was taken by Bahrain, which the day after the rupture of Saudi-Iranian relations took the same step and banned air traffic with Iran. The Sunni Al Khalifa dynasty at the head of predominantly Shiite Bahrain is entirely dependent on support from the Saudis, who are the guarantor of the security and stability of this tiny island monarchy, three times the size of Moscow.
Iran has always been an existential enemy: until 1971, the Iranians considered Bahrain their fourteenth province and still hint that its territory should belong to them.
Instability in relations with Iran was evident even before rebel Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr was executed in Saudi Arabia for “inciting separatism” and “calling for violence.” In October 2015, Bahrain recalled its ambassador from Tehran and declared the Iranian charge d'affaires persona non grata for allegedly arming radical Shiite groups in the kingdom and coordinating their activities. As one would expect, the Bahraini leadership called the mass anti-Saudi demonstrations on the island itself after the “treacherous murder” of al-Nimr the work of Iran.
In terms of the severity of its position, Kuwait follows Bahrain. Over the past two weeks, Kuwaiti authorities have downgraded diplomatic relations, recalled their ambassador, and now have imposed a death sentence in absentia on Iranian citizen Abdulreza Haidar, who is accused of espionage activities in Kuwait.
Such actions suggest that the country does not value Iran enough to question its loyalty to Saudi Arabia.
Adding fuel to the fire are materials in the Iranian media that criticize discrimination against Kuwait's Shia minority - almost a third of the country's population.
The United States found themselves in a difficult situation United Arab Emirates, who, although they supported the Saudis by lowering the level of diplomatic relations with Iran, did not burn all their bridges.
On the one hand, there is an unresolved territorial dispute between the Emiratis and Iranians over three islands in the Persian Gulf - Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunb. On the other hand, the Emirates received significant benefits from cooperation with the Islamic Republic, which had been under sanctions for years.
The UAE is its main partner for the import of goods and a transit point for foreign trade transactions. Most likely, they will continue to be limited primarily to political statements without taking concrete measures.
Despite rather difficult relations with the Saudis, Qatar did not want to become a “black sheep” and also recalled its ambassador. At the same time, the Qatari foreign ministry called on the parties for a serious dialogue, and called its relations with Iran nothing less than excellent. Qatar plays a similar role to the Emirates for Iran, but in the field of investment in the gas industry, and is unlikely to abandon it.
Brotherhood is brotherhood, but business is separate, and that means economic cooperation with the Iranians will continue.
Only Oman remained “non-aligned”. This country has long-standing and very friendly relations with Iran. For many decades, Omani authorities have sought to promote peaceful coexistence on both sides of the Persian Gulf, cooperating with all its neighbors. Oman's policy of neutrality may now be seriously tested, as Saudi Arabia is determined to unite the entire peninsula in the fight against Iran. Before everyone thought that the Omanis had joined the “diplomatic war,” the head of the Omani Foreign Ministry went to Tehran to establish a dialogue with his Iranian counterpart.
Unlike other countries in the region, the majority of the population in Oman are Ibadis - Muslims who consider themselves neither Shiites nor Sunnis, so disagreements on religious grounds are not at all close to them.
It is Oman's impartiality that has earned him a reputation as one of the most successful mediators in the Syrian and Yemeni crises. Time will tell whether the Omani leadership will be able to maintain neutrality in this crisis.
Saudi Arabia has not yet managed to form a united front in the fight against “Iranian aggression.” Iran plays too large a role in the life of the region, so trying to isolate it from other Persian Gulf countries can benefit few people. Most international sanctions have already been lifted, and the opportunity to cause irreparable damage to the Islamic Republic has already been lost. This means that the Arabian monarchies will continue to trade with Iran, invest financial resources in the promising Iranian market and play on the Tehran Stock Exchange, whose indices, unlike the main Saudi stock exchange, are now going up. Each Gulf state will decide for itself how exactly to show its solidarity with its “big brother” in the person of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi-Iranian break in relations is the most serious conflict between the leaders of the Islamic world in 30 years. RBC figured out how it arose, whether it can develop into a war, how it threatens negotiations on Syria and oil prices
Shia protesters hold portraits of executed preacher Nimr al-Nimr, Baghdad, Iraq, January 4, 2016 (Photo: AP)
On January 3, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Iran due to an attack on the kingdom's diplomatic missions after the execution of Shiite preacher Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia. Following Riyadh similar solutions Bahrain and Sudan accepted. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has downgraded its mutual diplomatic representation with Iran to the level of charge d'affaires. On January 5, Kuwait recalled its ambassador from Iran. What threatens the escalation of the conflict between the two largest powers in the Middle East?
Difficult relationships
Relations between predominantly Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia have remained tense for years due to differences in the most various issues— interpretations of Islam, policy in the field of oil exports, relations with the United States and the West. Each country is considered an informal leader in its own segment of the Islamic world - Iran in the Shia, Saudi Arabia in the Sunni, and both have historically fought among themselves for leadership in the entire Muslim community.
Relations between the countries deteriorated significantly after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which abolished the monarchy in Iran and returned the disgraced Ayatollah Khomeini , after which Iran actually became a theocratic state. The sharply anti-American orientation of the revolution also made the country natural opponents: Saudi Arabia is traditionally the main ally of the United States in the Islamic world. The revolution challenged Saudi Arabia's leadership in the Islamic world and also alarmed the Sunni kingdom and other Gulf countries with significant Shiite populations, whose authorities were wary of exporting the Islamic revolution.
Who is causing the conflict?
Nimr al-Nimr was born in 1959 in the east of Saudi Arabia, where the country's Shiite population is concentrated, studied for about ten years in the holy Shiite city of Qom (Iran), then in Syria, and became a popular preacher among Shiite youth. Al-Nimr criticized the Saudi government, advocated for free elections and other reforms, and against oppression of Shiites. He argued that the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, where there is a large Shiite population, should secede from the kingdom if discrimination against Shiites continues. In 2008, American diplomats who met with him called the sheikh the second most important Shiite figure in the country.
In 2004 and 2006, Nimr al-Nimr was briefly arrested. His last arrest during Shiite demonstrations in July 2012 played a role decisive role A video of al-Nimr’s speech appeared on social networks on the occasion of the death of the kingdom’s Interior Minister, Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who had been in charge of the religious police since 1975. “He will be devoured by worms, while he himself will suffer hellish torment in his grave,” al-Nimr said in the video.
Sentenced to death for “inciting hatred and threatening national unity.” The sheikh was accused of calling for intervention foreign countries in the affairs of Saudi Arabia, the use of weapons against law enforcement forces and disobedience to authorities. Executed on January 2, 2016.
But Iran did not officially support Islamic revolutions in other countries, and then a large-scale conflict between the two states was avoided. It began only in 1988, after demonstrators attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran, which resulted in the death of one diplomat. The reason for the conflict was the death in 1987 of about 400 Iranian pilgrims who arrived in the kingdom for the Hajj and died in clashes with local police. That was the first time the countries broke off diplomatic relations.
Since then, both countries have constantly put forward mutual claims. Riyadh accuses Tehran of supporting the Shiite opposition existing in the country, seeking to extend its influence to Iraq, the Levant countries and other areas of the Middle East, as well as attempting to destabilize the region by creating nuclear weapon. Iran, in turn, accuses Saudi Arabia of violating the rights of the Shiite minority.
The latest event to strain Iranian-Saudi relations was the agreement on nuclear program Iran, which, if removed from Islamic Republic sanctions will give Tehran more financial and political opportunities to defend its interests in the region.
In conflicts in the Middle East, both countries have always supported polar factions, and the current Middle East conflict is no exception. In Syrian civil war Iran is President Bashar al-Assad's main Middle Eastern ally, and Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of the Syrian armed opposition. In the fight against the Islamic State (banned in Russia), both countries are also involved in different coalitions - Saudi Arabia in the West, led by its ally the United States, and Iran in a coalition with Iraq and Russia.
Risks of escalation
“The situation that has arisen as a result of the confrontation between the two most influential countries in the region is unpredictable. The hybrid war [in Yemen] is already underway. It could spiral out of control in the coming weeks or months,” Fawaz Jerdes, a Middle East specialist at the London School of Economics, told CNN. Experts suggest that Saudi Arabia and Iran will not agree to an open military confrontation in the near future, but local conflicts in the Middle East, almost all of which involve both countries, will escalate. “Since 1979, both states have indirectly entered into a number of local military conflicts throughout the Middle East and often exchanged threats and insults. But in the end, they always stopped one step away from direct conflict and came to a cold truce,” Karim Sajapour, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment, told Reuters.
The standoff between Riyadh and Tehran threatens to exacerbate the situation in one such local conflict in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is backing the Sunni government in the war against Shiite Houthi rebels backed by Iran. Also, Sajapour suggests, Iran could provoke unrest among the Shiites of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. “The tension is rising, and I’m not sure tensions will subside any time soon,” Bloomberg said former ambassador USA in Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan.
One of the most important immediate consequences of the conflict between their patrons could be the breakdown of negotiations between the government of Bashar al-Assad and the moderate Syrian opposition, scheduled for early this year. At the end of December 2015, the special envoy Secretary General UN on Syria Stefan de Mistura said that consultations between the warring parties will be held in Geneva on January 25. Officially, the West has no doubt that negotiations will take place even now: “We continue to hope and expect that meetings between the opposition and the Syrian authorities will take place this month,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on January 4.
Off the record, one Western diplomat told Foreign Policy that “the general background is clearly unfavorable.” Now n representatives of the opposition may take a tougher position towards Assad, Iran and Russia and will be less ready to compromise, the publication’s interlocutor said. In these conditions, much will depend on the diplomatic efforts of the United States and Russia, he added. “The current crisis will significantly complicate the negotiation process,” one US official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Another official quoted by the agency calls the situation “very fragile.”
Saudi Arabia's representative to the UN, Abdullah al-Muallimi, said on January 4 that the Saudi delegation would take part in the negotiations, but did not place high hopes on their success.
Saudi Arabia's conflict with Iran will not affect the situation in Syria
(Video: RBC TV channel)
Oil conflicts will not help
Last year proved that in the current economic situation, rising tensions in the Middle East do not cause an increase in oil prices, as has always been the case: p At the end of 2015, the price of Brent, falling for the third year in a row, decreased by 35%. In conditions of market oversaturation, the Iran-Saudi crisis can only cause a short-term rise in oil prices - by $1-3 per barrel, the agency cites the opinion of John Auers, vice president of the consulting agency Turner, Mason & Co. According to him, the conflict with Iran is unlikely to force Saudi Arabia, the informal leader of OPEC, to change its strategy of excess production in order to put pressure on prices and push Western shale companies out of the market.
Indeed, in the first hours of trading on Monday, news of the severance of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia caused a sharp jump in Brent from $37 to $39 per barrel, despite the decline in stock indices in China, Japan and Europe. But by the end of the trading day immediately after this, oil returned to the level of $37.
20:19 — REGNUM
The execution of 47 “terrorists” in Saudi Arabia, including the Shiite preacher Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, led to very serious consequences - now the entire Middle East region is on the verge of a regional war. Moreover, what happened looks completely planned: the reaction of Iran and Iranian society was quite predictable, and the chain of breaks in diplomatic relations with the main Shiite country by the states of the “Islamic Military Coalition” (Saudi Arabia announced its creation in December 2015) looks agreed upon in advance. On this moment Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan have already announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Iran; Kuwait has recalled its ambassador from Tehran. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have interrupted flights with Iran.
In fact, an indirect war between the “Sunni” and “Shiite” worlds is already in full swing - Syria, Iraq and Yemen have become the main battlefields. Now there is a far from zero probability of a major regional war between the Shiites, led by Iran, and the Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it will be interesting to assess the strengths of the parties and the scale of what could happen in such an extremely negative scenario.
Is Saudi Arabia a “colossus with feet of clay”?
The armed forces of Saudi Arabia are equipped with the most modern military equipment and in sufficient quantities. The country's military budget ranks 4th in the world, approaching $60 billion. In total, armed forces is 233 thousand people. Ground troops are armed with up to 450 modern American tanks M1A2 Abrams, about 400 M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, more than 2,000 armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers, a large number of cannon and rocket artillery, including 50 American jet systems volley fire(MLRS) M270. In addition, the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces are armed with up to 60 Dongfeng-3 ballistic missiles purchased from China. Initially, they are designed to deliver nuclear weapons over distances of up to 2,500 km, but in this case they carry high-explosive warheads, and the missile’s hit accuracy is very low. There are also rumors about the purchase of more modern Dongfeng-21.
As for the Air Force, they are armed with 152 American F-15 fighters of various modifications, 81 European Tornados and 32 European Eurofighter Typhoons. Also in service are long-range radar detection and control aircraft (AWACS) and a large number of military transport aircraft.
Air defense is strong - 16 batteries anti-aircraft missile systems long-range PatriotPAC-2, numerous Hawk and Crotale air defense systems, hundreds Stinger MANPADS and so on.
The naval forces are divided into 2 parts: the Western Fleet in the Red Sea and the Eastern Fleet in the Persian Gulf. In the Persian Gulf there are 3 AlRiyadh class frigates (modernization of the French LaFayette) with Exocet MM40 block II anti-ship missiles with a launch range of up to 72 km. In the Red Sea there are 4 Al Madinah class frigates with Otomat Mk2 anti-ship missiles with a maximum launch range of up to 180 km, 4 American Badr class corvettes with Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Missile and patrol boats are evenly distributed across the fleets. As for landing ships, there are 8 of them, and the maximum total landing force can be up to 800 people at a time.
As we see, the armed forces are impressively equipped, but there is one problem: despite such equipment and numbers, Saudi Arabia has been unable to achieve any serious success in neighboring Yemen for 10 months, where they are confronted by an army of Houthi rebels armed with outdated weapons . This shows how low the real combat capability of the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces and their allies actually is.
Iran's armed forces are the largest in the region
The Iranian Armed Forces have a strength of 550 thousand people - the largest in the region. At the same time, the military budget in 2015 amounted to approximately $10 billion, which is quite small for such a number. There are more than 1,600 tanks in service, of which about 480 are relatively modern T-72Z and 150 Zulfiqar tanks of its own production (presumably based on the T-72 and the American M60). War vehicles infantry and armored personnel carriers are represented by hundreds of outdated and aging Soviet models, as well as artillery.
The Air Force is represented by a large number of aircraft of various classes and different countries production. True, there are no new products among them, and the long sanctions period certainly affected the combat readiness of aviation - hardly more than 50% of them are in flight condition. It is armed with American F-14 supersonic interceptors, long-outdated F-4 Phantom and F-5Tiger fighters, and French Mirage-F1s. Soviet aircraft include MiG-29 fighters, Su-24 front-line bombers, and Su-25 attack aircraft. In total there are about 300 units of the above equipment.
As for the air defense system, fundamental changes are taking place here - several years ago the Tor-M1 short-range air defense system was purchased from Russia, and deliveries of the S-300 PMU-2 long-range air defense system began. Thus, very soon Iran will not be inferior to Saudi Arabia in this aspect.
As for the Navy, the variety here is noticeably greater than that of Saudi Arabia. In addition, most of the ships are concentrated in the Persian Gulf (a small part of the ships is in the Caspian Sea). There are 3 Project 877 Halibut submarines, another 26 locally produced small submarines carrying mines and torpedoes, 5 frigates, 6 corvettes (all of their own production), more than 50 missile boats (Chinese, Iranian and German production). Interestingly, all Iranian missile ships use Chinese-made anti-ship missiles - S-701 (range 35 km, anti-submarine) and YJ-82 (range up to 120 km).
Thus, Iran has an advantage over a potential adversary in terms of naval forces. In addition, as a result of many years of existence under economic sanctions, Iran has its own military-industrial complex - perhaps its products do not differ in any great characteristics, however, it provides the country with some independence from external supplies. The missile program has achieved quite a lot of success - the country is armed with a number of small and small ballistic missiles. medium range, cruise missiles, etc. In total, their number can exceed 200−300 units.
The most likely scenario is a further increase in the intensity of conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen
The geographical location is not very conducive to the start of a direct military clash between the countries - Saudi Arabia and Iran do not border each other. Therefore, the parties will most likely increase their involvement in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. This will not lead to anything good for these countries, but will only further prolong the hybrid wars going on in them. True, for Saudi Arabia, Yemen may turn out to be a “weak point” - despite a 150,000-strong ground force, 185 aviation units (including allies), the operation against the Houthis does not lead to any results. The reason for this is both the very low combat capability of the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces and the competent actions of the rebels, who are probably supported by Iranian specialists. If this support increases (technically this is not easy, since Iran can only maintain contact with Yemen by sea), coupled with the presence of Shiites living compactly in Saudi Arabia, such a situation could lead to disaster for Riyadh. In any case, such a scenario is a further stage of the war of attrition - a war that is also combined with the struggle for oil markets, as a result of which everyone increases the production of “black gold” and brings down prices on the exchanges. In such a scenario, the side that “strains itself” first will lose.
A full-scale war - chaos for many years?
If a full-scale war does break out, the main “battlefields” will be the Persian Gulf, and, probably, the territory of Iraq and Kuwait (they are located between Saudi Arabia and Iran). At the same time, Qatar is clearly an ally of the Saudis, and the current authorities of Iraq are allies of the Iranians. Despite the apparent superiority of Saudi Arabia and its allies, Iran has several trump cards - it controls the Strait of Hormuz and does not have a war in the rear, near its borders (like Yemen for the Saudis). The Iranian Navy is quite capable of “slamming” the strait for the passage of any enemy ships. Such a step would lead to economic disaster for the Gulf countries that are part of the coalition against Iran, while the Iranians themselves would be able to continue exporting oil. In addition to stopping the flow of money from the sale of oil, which is still a temporary factor in one way or another, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other Gulf countries may lose all their sales markets, which will be gladly occupied by the USA, Russia and the same Iran.
If the war drags on, it will have completely unpredictable results - both sides will strike each other ballistic missiles(here Iran will cause more damage), try to “ignite” local opposition forces, and set neighboring countries against each other. All this could completely destroy the Middle East as we know it and in a few years lead to the formation of a completely different map of the region.
The most main question question that arises is what Saudi Arabia's major Sunni allies like Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey will do. Pakistan's direct intervention in the conflict seems extremely unlikely, since the country has an “old friend” in India and being distracted by major conflicts with someone else could be suicidal. Turkey can intensify its actions in Syria and Iraq, and, given the rather aggressive policy inherent in this country, intervene in the conflict. This could greatly help the Saudis, but Kurdish forces in Turkey may well seize the moment and strike from within. As for Egypt, the country is quite far from the possible theater of military operations and is unlikely to interfere more than it does now (the country is currently participating in a blockade of the Yemeni coast).