Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Iran would be ready for restoring relations with Saudi Arabia, if Riyadh stopped these 2 things

Iran’s suggestions are not only doable, but they represent a “win-win” solution disguised as an improbable scenario.

Published

on

6,027 Views

Iran has long been a stalwart defender of the Palestinian cause, while Saudi Arabia has all but made public, their de-facto alliance with the Israeli regime. However, because of the universal condemnation of Donald Trump’s controversial Jerusalem/al-Quds declaration, the entire Arab world, has for the first time in decades, publicly condemned the US over its stance on Israel.

Iran is not calling Saudi Arabia’s bluff, asking Riyadh to put many differences aside with Iran in order to restore diplomatic relations, which were cut off in 2016 after years of tension.

Iran has stated that if Riyadh ceases its aggressive bombing campaign in Yemen and cuts off its ties with Israel, Tehran will be willing to restore relations in spite of many differences in both policy and ideology.

Iran remains one of the oldest countries to exercise self-government in the world. Iran traces its roots to the year 678 B.C., while by contrast, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932. As the 20th century wore on, the two states went in entirely different directions with Saudi Arabia continuing to practice a reactionary Wahhabi ideology while Iran in 1979 was home to the Islamic Revolution, which ushered in modern Islamic Republicanism.

In spite of these very different realities, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has today stated,

“Saudi Arabia should suspend it bombardment of Yemen and stop begging for contacts with the Zionist regime. We want Saudi Arabia to stop two things, the misguided friendship with Israel and the inhuman bombardment of Yemen”.

Is is possible? 

1. Yemen 

Surprisingly, in Yemen, Saudi ceasing its bombardment is possible. Riyadh and in particular de-facto leader Crown Price Muhammad bin Salman is anxious to end the war he spearheaded in 2015. Saudi Arabia’s inability to subdue a Houthi rebellion in northern Yemen, in spite of having vastly superior military technology, has become a long running embarrassment for Riyadh.

At the moment, the lines of control in Yemen, correspond almost precisely to the pre-1990 borders of the two states of South and North Yemen.

As geo-political expert Andrew Korbyko suggested, it would not be entirely impossible to re-constitute South Yemen as either a fully fledged independent state or half of a deeply federated Yemen. Today’s ‘South Yemen’ has a relatively stable government under President Hadi and wealthy allies in both Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The question here is what of North Yemen? With President Saleh dead, the most realistic yet unsustainable solution, might be for a kind of Houthi government in Sana’a that remains under a kind of semi-permanent Saudi blockade. This would effectively make a new North Yemen, a kind of Transnistria in the Arabian Peninsula, a small statelet cut off on all sides from possible allies, in spite of its coasts. With such a state would have an Iranian ally, Saudi Arabia would not realistically agree to a pro-Iranian state on its borders.

As this could not be a truly permanent solution, Saudi Arabia would eventually have to agree that North Yemen could be supplied via a neutral power. This could realistically be China, which is rapidly consolidating its position in the Horn of Africa, most specifically with the opening of its first overseas military logistics base early this year in Djibouti.

China, as a partner of Iran and a country with extremely healthy relations with Saudi Arabia, would be all too happy to transform Yemen from an impoverished country into an important stop on the Red-to-Med maritime belt of One Belt–One Road.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran would particularly mind China doing commerce in a region, where one way or another, they’ll be doing it anyway. This, a would be Yemeni Republic of Houthistan would transform into a kind of One Belt–One Road republic.

2. Israel 

While many Iranians looked with worry when Saudi King Salman completed a successful first ever visit to Moscow, just months ago, I took a decidedly different view.

So long as President Putin and Rouhani, or those with similar outlooks remain in power in Moscow and Tehran, the partnership between Iran and Russia is assured.

Likewise, while Russia will never endorse pro-Takfiri foreign policies of Riyadh, Russia continues to cooperate with Saudi Arabia over stabilising global oil prices.  Instead of engaging in a counter-productive race to the bottom, Russia recently agreed to extend a previous agreement with the Saudi dominated OPEC, to keep oil prices inflated enough to satisfy Riyadh, via production cuts.

Because Russia has an incredibly diverse economy, while Saudi Arabia does not, it is clear that in respect of the OPEC agreements, Russia is the senior partner that holds a big key to Saudi’s economic solvency.

Russia is therefore in a position to leverage Saudi’s position against Iran to force some kind of detente. As I previously wrote,

“Russia has a natural interest, as most key energy exporters do, in not engaging in a race to the bottom with would-be, let alone actual competitors. In this sense, while Russia as a military and geo-political superpower does not need the protection of OPEC that less powerful energy producers do, it is nevertheless in Moscow’s interest to cooperate with OPEC on a case by case basis. In this sense, Russia has made the decision to value stability of international oil prices more than a would-be ability to undercut competitors and win on volume, while prices plummet in all directions.

Saudi Arabia, for its part, is happy to work with the implied understanding (that may well have been voiced in private) that in exchange for Russian cooperation with OPEC, Saudi will use its surplus sovereign wealth funds which are almost entirely derived from the energy trade, to invest in the Russian economy.

In this sense, Russia’s technology, scientific expertise and growing Eurasian trading routes make a good partner for Saudi’s copious amounts of sovereign wealth.

There is another factor that is also at play. Future Saudi King and current Crown Prince  Mohammad  bin Salman, is eager to diversify the Saudi economy. His pet project, Vision 2030, is already seen as overly ambitious and therefore, Saudi needs all the help it can get in becoming less dependant on oil and on foreign expertise to run the domestic economy.

Russia’s key geographic and geo-political placement on China’s One Belt–One Road combined with Saudi’s already (surprisingly to ideologues) good relations with China, means that Russia is a natural economic partner to Saudi in this sense. Saudi wants and needs as much as it can from One Belt–One Road and now Riyadh is officially working on good terms with the two largest countries along One Belt–One Road.

As for lingering foreign policy agreements which have the potential to make life difficult for Saudi and Russia, the short answer is that Russia is not concerned about this and increasingly, nor is Saudi, in spite of what Saudi propaganda designed for a regional Arab audience may indicate.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy is far more limited than many acknowledge. While expensively armed, the Saudi armed forces are not well trained and by most accounts, not incredibly capable. The Saudi led air-war against Yemen which has created a humanitarian disaster, has not given Saudi any clear geo-political advantage. It has only further antagonised Iran and created bad publicity for Saudi among human rights activists in the west, including some left-leaning political figures like Jeremy Corbyn. Yet at the end of the day, Saudi’s misadventure in Yemen, which is privately criticised by many in the Saudi deep state, has done Saudi more harm than good, but at this juncture, such geo-political harm is mostly limited to Shi’a states in the Middle East.

While Saudi has been notorious for funding terrorism, this too has done little to weaken its Arab rivals, especially compared with decades of sustained Israeli aggression which has done far more to create instability and chaos  in the Arab world.

This is not to say that Saudi foreign policy is moral, ethical or well-intentioned, it is none of those things, but nor has it been particularly effective in the crucial long term perspective. This distinction is often lost in impassioned arguments over the Saudi regime’s tactics….

 

…The Russian geo-political ‘insurance policy’ has also helped to bring Turkey and Iran closer together. Again, while Kurdish nationalism and Israeli aggression has mutually infuriated Ankara and Tehran, it was first and foremost, Russia’s friendship with both powers that allowed Iran and Turkey to develop a newfound sense of trust and mutually beneficial economic relations.

Turning to the dispute between Riyadh and Doha, Russia’s genuinely neutral stance on the row between Qatar on the one hand and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt on the other, has earned Russia genuine respect on all sides of this conflict.

And then one has to necessarily turn to the Saudi/Iranian conflict. MBS is considered one of the more anti-Iranian figures in a Saudi state that is de-facto anti-Iran. While some ideologically motivated commentators think that the Saudi monarch’s visit to Moscow is a betrayal of the Moscow-Tehran partnership, this is no more the case than Russia’s increasingly good relations with Turkey has been a threat to Russia’s Syrian partner.

The slow-moving but increasingly obvious outcome of good Russian relations with Turkey has meant that Turkey is now playing a less destructive and detracting role in Syria.  While Damascus and Ankara still do not have official diplomatic channels, the fact that Damascus welcomed the Turkish policed de-escalation zone in Syria’s Idlib Governorate, is a sign of a small yet significant rapprochement, albeit via a third party.

Likewise, if both Iran and Saudi become increasingly intertwined in an economic partnership with Russia and also China, there will be less of a chance that Saudi would ever make good on its threats against Iran. Even now, the threats against Iran are mostly rhetorical as Saudi simply does not have the ability to even attempt to win a war against Iran’s superior armed forces.

In this sense, Russia is helping create stability in the Middle East by making previous and current rival nations into countries that each have an economic interest in a common partner. That partner is Russia which increasingly also means China, by extrapolation, as well as overriding realities of Chinese investment in the Middle East. There is only one nation that is one good to very good terms with nations as diverse as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Qatar, Palestine, Israel and in many ways, event the notoriously difficult Lebanon. This country is Russia.

Just as Nawaz Sharif’s ouster from the Premiership in Islamabad has not negatively impacted Pakistan’s close economic and geo-political relations with China, so too would any would-be palace coup in Saudi, or any other Persian Gulf monarchy, not effect relations with Russia as much as some would hope or in other cases, fear. There is only so much that any ideological state can do to resist pragmatism. This far, Russia has quietly made sure that in all such states, pragmatic thinking beats out ideological rhetoric. Saudi Arabia is no exception, it in fact, proves the rule”.

Russia and Saudi Arabia: A case of ‘PEACE FOR OIL and OIL FOR PEACE’

In respect of Israel, Russia has been able to maintain healthy relations with both Israel and Palestine as well as with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course, Russia remains a close partner of Syria as well, while effectively re-establishing long lost good relations with Iraq.

If Russia could somehow broker a deal whereby Saudi’s relations with Israel were reduced to economic rather than geo-political cooperation, while encouraging Riyadh to at least partly cease parroting Israeli rhetoric about Iran, Russia could help to “reduce” Riyadh’s levels of relations with Tel Aviv to that which Tehran might find acceptable for the purposes of using pan-Islamic leverage against Tel Aviv on the issue of Jerusalem/al-Quds.

CONCLUSION: 

While Iran’s position on rapprochement with Saudi Arabia remains a tall order, it is not as tall as it appears at first glace. The war in Yemen has been costly and embarrassing to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is looking for a way out, but thus far have not been able to do so in a manner that preserves the internal “dignity” of the regime among domestic critics.

In respect of Israel, while Saudi will likely continue its burgeoning business contacts with Israel, the idea of teaming up to threaten Iran would be a suicide mission for Muhammad bin Salman and his regime and deep down most Saudis do realise this.

If China and Russia could both use their economic and diplomatic influence over Riyadh to try and force some agreement on key issues, it could be a “win-win” situation for the entire Middle East.

Saudi Arabia would save face and money over Yemen, as well as restore much needed prestige on the issue of Palestine, where most Arabs feel that Saudi Arabia now cares far less than the non-Arab powers of Iran and Turkey. Iran of course would lose nothing in such a deal, but gain a substantial diplomatic upper hand which would show that Tehran is able to take the high road with its opponents, without surrendering its principles.

Saudi’s burgeoning relations with Israel could kill the two state solution in more ways than one

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending