Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / / Articles
Competition and/or confrontation
Material posted: Pankratenko Igor N.Publication date: 16-01-2016
The relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran remain former.

Relations between two leaders of the Islamic world never were cloudless, and in the beginning of year they have considerably deteriorated after in kingdom the known Shiit preacher has been executed.

Iran has sharply condemned execution of the preacher, in the country have passed mass protest actions, have been attacked embassy of Saudi Arabia in Teheran and consulate in Meshed. In reply to it Saudi Arabia has broken off diplomatic relations with Iran. To its example Bahrain, Djibouti, Sudan and Somalia have followed. Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have lowered level dipotnosheny.

In a press already there were many various interpretation of the next strain of relations between Riyadh and Teheran. Some experts predict the big war. About the developed state of affairs between two states and in region in interview to the newspaper "Kaspy" the Russian orientalist, the doctor of historical sciences Igor Pankratenko has told.

- In what a conflict essence between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Whether really the main reason has religious roots and consists in opposition sunnitov and Shiits?

- Know, in my opinion, any person seriously studying the Near East, will not tell that conflicts between sunnitami and Shiits occur exclusively because of religious opposition. It some kind of a marker - as soon as the expert starts to say that all business in «the immemorial conflict between sunnitami and Shiits» thereby it undersigns for own incompetence. So-called «sunnito-Shiit opposition» is a tool for political manipulations, for the decision of quite applied tasks which do not have something in common with religious disagreements.

If to speak as a whole Islamic republic Iran (IRI) and Kingdom Saudi Arabia (KSA) are the states-antipodes, embodiments of absolutely opposite social models and carriers of opposite sights at what should be architecture of safety and mutual relations in region, well and so on. Their relations and before Islamic revolution in Iran did not differ warmth but then though there were some things in common - anticommunism, struggle against «the Arabian socialism», partnership against the USA.

After revolution in Iran the quantity of these points was reduced to anticommunism. Too like as the base for some partnership, but - has burst aggression of Iraq against Iran in which saudity unconditionally have supported Hussein, having accompanied this support by the military help to Bagdad for the sum about 40 billion dollars.

In general, after that relations of Riyadh and Teheran keep within the formula «a double To»: a competition and-or confrontation. From time to time all it is valid rather peace competition, as, for example, during the period when presidents of Iran were Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsandzhani (1989-1997) having huge influence on the present Iranian president, or Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005). In its stay in power, by the way, in 2001 the agreement on cooperation IRI and KSA in fight against terrorism and a drug trafficking has been signed.

From time to time there were rather serious conflicts as it was in 1984 - saudity force down a fighter of the Iranian Air Forces. Or in 1987 - collision of Shiit pilgrims in Mecca with the Saudi police, 200 victims. Or in 2011 when in reply to performance of Shiits in Bahrain Riyadh has sent there the forwarding case which has cruelly suppressed the protest.

By the way, and attack to the Saudi embassy to Teheran already was - in 1987. And dipotnoshenija Riyadh broke off - with 1988 on 1991. And pulls on the travelled all over citation: «Truly: there is nothing new under the Moon».

And so these relations also develop almost forty years. And «sunnito-Shiit opposition» remember only when there is a necessity a certain political manipulation to arrange «spiritual skrepami».

- That is in execution of sheikh Nimra an-Nimra after which all also has begun, there was no religious underlying reason?

- Absolutely. The pure policy, and, first of all - internal. Look, the first persons of a ruling dynasty begin modernisation without which carrying out they will not keep the state, physically to survive, most likely, cannot. The present king - the transitive figure, which task consists in transferring a throne from "gerontokratov" to new generation of leaders, the same to crown prince Muhammadu ibn to Naifu (to the second assistant to the prime minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the chairman of the council on policy and safety questions) and to the assistant to crown prince Muhammadu ibn to Salmanu, (also the second assistant to the prime minister and the Minister of Defence). Both of them it is indecent to the Saudi measures are young. The first - 1959 year of birth, the second - in general 1985.

How conservative circles in Kingdom argue today? Not only that present actual governors are young, so also from their giving to women permit for a wheel sits down and in elections to participate. Economy intend to diversify, dependence on oil want to reduce, with Washington in an antiterrorist coalition have united. No, terrorists, of course, not a gift, but they ideologically close natives some in general of decent families, and pursue them, money prohibits to send to them … And many other things that is unprecedented, against traditions and rules.

Therefore "trouble-makers" should be punished approximately, having truncated on a head. And that the sheikh an-Nimr has got to this list - so it and to protesting Shiits of East province caution, and to conservative circles the soothing message - do not worry, modernisation has the borders, the quantity of full citizens at the expense of inclusion in this category of Shiits will not increase. And this message, by the way, very important. Expenses on grants and benefits "radical", «true saudovtsam» in the budget will be reduced, therefore sunnitskuju the elite is disturbed by a question - instead of whether it is necessary with whom shares?

So here one especial the pragmatist, without any religious motives. Discrimination of Shiits is caused, first of all, by the social and economic reasons. And the ruling elite remembers religion questions only in process of political necessity. The part of local clergy (at once I will make a reservation that is the conditional term which I use only that was to clearly secular reader), of course, adheres to other position, but it with a dynasty has enough difficult relations.

- Whether the situation can become aggravated so, what between the countries the confrontation will flash?

- Certainly, no. The direct confrontation of Riyadh and Teheran is impossible. Well and then, unsolemn war between Teheran and Riyadh goes for a long time already and on a substantial scale. It is Enough to name territories of residing of Shiits in monarchy of Persian gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon - and already to Pakistan.

- To whom from the countries - not residents of this region the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is favourable?

- In this case - to anybody. It is a lot of problems - "wool" a little if under "wool" to understand certain benefits. For the USA at present this confrontation - a frank headache, out of place and not at the right time. Were at a hope number of persons that this conflict will cause a rise in prices for oil - has not grown together. But the main reason of disinterest of extraregional players, the same Washington and Beijing, consists not so much in absence of benefits, how many in adequate understanding of simple circumstance - the present conflict at all does not carry that apocalyptic character which to it mass media try to give. In its one Russian edition named even «the new conflict of year». What, the right, visionaries.

- To become how much great chances intermediaries in this conflict at Moscow and Ankara?

- The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia Adele al-Dzhubejr has already given an irrefragable answer concerning possible intermediary of Moscow. I will quote once again: «As to intermediary it is not necessary for us. We know a position of Iran, Iran knows a position of Saudi Arabia. They know, in what our claims consist, and they need to show to us that they are adjusted seriously».

Well and Ankara and itself does not aspire to it, understanding and underlying reason of a situation, and that Riyadh and Teheran among themselves will understand. A situation for Turkey, it is final favourable, two its competitors in region clash, that is why there are no doubts that Ankara uses developed circumstances in interests of the economy and foreign policy.

- How deterioration of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran will be reflected in the conflict in Syria?

- In my opinion - in any way as worse, than there is - simply cannot be. There is no Syria. There is a kit of the territories which are at war among themselves, there is a front without a front line - that in such situation it is possible to worsen?

- Some experts believe, what in the circumstances Riyadh can go on acquisition of the nuclear weapon in addition to secure itself from Iran?

- Well, it absolutely fantastic assumption. First, the same Washington the similar will not admit. Secondly, it simply is not necessary for kingdom. It receives such quantity of difficult and modern military technology from the USA that completely blocks the inquiries in the field of safety. As plans of PersoPRO, an antiballistic missile system of monarchy of the Gulf from as they consider, possible, Iranian attack are on the sly implemented. Let and not too quickly, nevertheless system very expensive, but - it is methodical.



RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics