Iranian clerics
Rivals – Iran vs. Saudi Arabia
Christopher Boucek and Karim Sadjadpour
Q&A September 20, 2011
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have caused uncertainty and insecurity and a myriad of challenges, which Saudi Arabia perceives as threatening yet Iran sees as an opportunity to spread its influence. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia – and its western backers – would prefer the Middle East to remain in the status quo, more fearful of the consequences of new and unknown governments. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia feels the US has not intervened appropriately, thus fuelling some additional tensions.
But why do Saudi Arabia and Iran have such a rivalry at this point in time? Author Dr. Christopher Boucek, an associate of the Carnegie Middle East Programme whose research has focused on the Arabian Peninsula, explains how each nation takes great pride in its heritage and feels an obligation to protect their culture. Boucek rightfully points out that the “historical animosities” will not disappear quickly, therefore a so-called Cold War is brewing with each nation trying to counter any potential increase in power by the other. Boucek argues the rivalries are obvious in Iraq, Lebanon, and particularly Bahrain.
This is perhaps how Saudi Arabia can successfully unite GCC countries via a narrative which paints Iran as the enemy. Interestingly, Iran has been quick to point out its progressivism in the last few years. From Iran there is resentment over the role of the US, as the Americans have friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, yet Iranian political discourse has thrived in denouncing the evils of the American empire. It is this anti-imperialist stance and anti-western sentiment through which Iran tries to unite its Middle Eastern neighbors. For the West, it’s clear to see which regional hegemon would create the most favorable situation, though from Boucek’s analysis no one country is “winning” this regional competition just yet.
Karim Sadjadpour, another Carnegie associate with a research focus on Iran, highlights that the upheaval in Syria and the potential fall of the Assad family would be detrimental to Iran as this has been its only ally since the 1979 revolution. Tehran, however, has viewed the Arab Spring as beneficial in the hopes that anti-western governments would replace autocratic regimes and produce “political systems much closer in nature to Tehran than Washington.” But Iran’s style of democracy conjures images of the 2009 student protests and violent aftermath. This type of democracy is a far cry from the democracy envisioned by revolutionaries leading the political uprisings in the rest of the Middle East.
There are, however, interesting parallels between the two nations. Sadjadpour eloquently describes that the US views them as the “twin pillars of the Persian Gulf.” Both Iran and Saudi Arabia attempt to influence other political factions and nations. And though in the past Riyadh and Tehran had differing views on a favorable price for oil, now both have aligned. Both countries have realized that more money is needed to create social programs.
Still hanging in the balance is the role of the US, which has been too focused on “military solutions to political problems.” Despite the US’s military and financial support to Saudi Arabia, Iran’s influence in the region has grown in the last decade. America’s failures in nearby interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have no doubt contributed to this. While Boucek emphasizes the need for Washington and Riyadh to align their objectives during the tumultuous times that the protest movement has brought to the region, this will only be a successful strategy if Iran’s anti-American narrative does not resonate with the new governments emerging from the Arab Spring.
You can read the report in full here