Iranian-Saudi Reconciliation: New BFFs? What’s The Deal? Why Are They Suddenly “Making Nice”? Consequences? KGNU – Hemispheres, Middle East Dialogues for April 25, 2023. Hosted by Jim Nelson. Transcript Part One

____________________________

It turns out that, despite their religious differences, that Iran and Saudi Arabia can find common ground and work together based on common interests. The interests in common that they have include infra-structural development, trade expansion, in the case of the Iranians, the need for increased investment. The Saudis have made it clear that these opportunities can only be achieved in an environment of regional stability.

Ibrahim Kazerooni

____________________________

Jim Nelson: Well, good evening and thanks for tuning in to this edition of Hemispheres on Tuesday April 25 at 2023. I’m your host Jim Nelson. Thanks for tuning in to our listener supported radio, KGNU Denver, Boulder and Ft. Collins. You can also listen to us on the world wide web at http://www.kgnu.org.

This evening on Hemispheres we continue with the Middle East Dialogues. As always our regular panelists are Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince. Ibrahim Kazerooni is a regular contributor to our International Press Roundtable. Ibrahim has a PhD from the Joint Iliff-University of Denver PhD program. His focus was Religion and Social Change. Rob Prince is also on the line. Rob is a retired Senior Lecturer of International Studies at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies. He’s published in online magazines such as Foreign Policy in Focus, Algeria Watch and the award-winning Tunisian site Nawaat.com/

Rob, welcome back…

Tonight we’ll be discussing what could be one of the biggest news stories of 2023, the diplomatic reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia ending seven years with no diplomatic relations between the two countries. The rest of the cable news media seems to be fixated on the firing of Tucker Carlson from Fox News is nowhere to be found.

Such an important breakthrough – the easing of two major players in the Middle East certainly rivals – and maybe surpasses – the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) – in its importance for the region despite Washington’s silence on the matter. And that is where we’re going to begin, talking about this important agreement.

Rob, why don’t you begin.

Rob Prince: Your introduction was well done Jim because this agreement, this “making nice” agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia is quite unique and significant.

The current moment suggests something of an epochal struggle consequential for the remaking of the World Order. Decades happening in only four weeks imply precious time needed to put it all in perspective. It’s all happening so fast it’s difficult to put into perspective. To quote Chinese President, Xi Jinping, “changes that haven’t been seen in 100 years” do have a knack of affecting us all in more ways than one. This global power shift can be seen in the startling flow of events in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

Ibrahim Kazerooni: To begin with, Rob, I want to underscore what you have just said regarding what is happening in the region.

If we were to contextualized this as just a conflict between China and the United States it would not reflect the depth of the changes that are taking place. Local commentators are referring to the changes as nothing short of a “tectonic shift” in the region (Middle East).

It’s a new Middle East being created but not the one that the United States was trying to establish during the Clinton, Bush or Obama Administrations. It’s a new Middle East which is trying to drift away from U.S. hegemonic control in the region.

As far as the question that you posed, Rob, regarding China’s goal in the region … China has a unique strategy to expand its authority or influence around the world in a manner totally different from the United States. China believes in stability, coordination, cooperation, respect for individual sovereignty, etc., etc. To do that and be able to connect to various countries and bring them into its own strategy – it requires stability of the whole region (Middle East).

For that plan to take shape in the Middle East two major players need to be “on board” and they should be working together – the Saudis and the Iranians. The Chinese need to Iranians as a gateway to European markets by way of “the Silk Road” from the Far East, into Iran, then going north towards Europe. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is China’s gateway into the Horn of Africa and Africa in general.

This approach is supported by a number of African leaders. They have talked about this and have noted that while the Chinese emphasize infrastructural development, that Washington’s Africa policy is one of partition and “controlled” regional instability.

If I ask you, Rob, how do you see the Chinese influence unpacking itself differently from how U.S influence in the Middle East has worked.

Rob Prince: The U.S. and Chinese approaches to the Middle East are quite different, starkly so.

To start off with we should ask a question: why is it that so many countries in the Middle East and Africa want more intensive relations with China and frankly, less, with the United States?

Have to start off with the question – why is it that so many countries want more relations with China and frankly, less with the United States?

This is the key to understanding what is happening in the Middle East. Looking at the differences between the two (U.S., Chinese policies in the Middle East) some of the things that Ibrahim just discussed come into play. For example, let’s contrast the United States and China in terms of the number of military bases in the greater Middle East. The number of U.S. military bases in the region – 30? 40? – maybe more. I would frankly say that China has no bases but it actually has one, in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. So China has one military base that exists to protect shipping routes from Europe through the Suez Canal to Asia while Washington has so many military bases in the region – major, minor ones – that it is difficult to keep track of the number.

The U.S. approach – use its military to secure its interests, with all that can entail. China’s approach quite different – not necessary to secure military bases as China is not trying to insure that governments in the region share its ideological approach. Instead, it is interested in trade, commerce, business regardless of the ideological underpinnings of the different governments.

Jim Nelson: Rob, I think the U.S. has well over 700 military bases around the world as well. Yes there are forty or so in the Middle East but the overall global military might of the U.S. is rather extraordinary. No other country is even close in the number of military bases on foreign soil.

Rob Prince: You’re right Jim, in fact, I’ve seen different numbers (Chalmers Johnson) for the total number of U.S. military bases – somewhere above 800. But then there are these little ones in Africa – so-called lily pads. Quite possibly the number of U.S. military bases in the world could exceed 1000.

Talking about military bases does not merely refer to weapons and troops. It also is a question of political influence exerted on the countries where these bases are found that can facilitate political pressures and different forms of intervention.

So on the one hand we can see that this system of bases represents a card that the United States has been playing since the end of World War II. China is not playing this card. The key to these differences between the U.S. and China’s Middle Eastern policies is found in what Ibrahim referred to earlier – What is it that China is look for in the Middle East?

China is looking expand its trade network; it’s looking to extend its Belt and Road Initiative. In order to do that, what it is looking for, what it tries to promote in the Middle East is overall regional stability. Where as the American plans – and here it’s actually been codified in a specific term. The Clintons – both Bill and Hillary – along with Condoleezza Rice – Dems and Republicans alike – describe the goal of U.S. Middle East policy as “managed instability”, an interesting term that we can explore more.

China is looking expand its trade network; it’s looking to extend its Belt and Road Initiative. In order to do that, what it is looking for, what it tries to promote in the Middle East is overall regional stability. Where as the American plans – and here it’s actually been codified in a specific term. The Clintons – both Bill and Hillary – along with Condoleezza Rice – Dems and Republicans alike – describe the goal of U.S. Middle East policy as “managed instability”, an interesting term that we can explore more.

What is China actually doing in the Middle East? It’s building infrastructure, providing low-interest loans, technical assistance whereas, for the most part what Washington has provided for these countries is bombs, weapons, assassination campaigns, partition of countries whose policies it disagrees with (and whose oil and natural gas it wants to control).

Jim Nelson: Rob, I just wanted to jump to reinforce your remarks. That is what Andrew Bacevich’s Foreign Affairs article, “The Reckoning That Wasn’t: Why America Remains Trapped by False Dreams Hegemony,” argues. His take on our discussion is that the U.S. is “going with bombs” rather than diplomacy over the years since World War II.

Rob Prince: Yes, and I would add one more thing: What the United States is doing in the Middle East is trying to maintain the status quo that has existed since the end of WW2 and is now breaking down some: that is to say to inhibit changes in policies that might lead to structural changes in the region. Washington fears such changes, which are taking place anyways. And that is precisely what the region needs – far reaching structural change and that is what Washington has avoided promoting: infra structural regional development.

Ibrahim, what does all this mean for the countries in the region. Let’s focus on Saudi Arabia because for many of us the shift in its orientation is the big surprise if not shock to see the way that Saudi Arabia is shifting is political alliances today in the world.

Ibrahim Kazerooni: Yes, before I go there, there’s a point that Jim raised regarding control and hegemony which reminds me of a comment from Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks – Gramsci, the Communist leader in the 1930s who talks about cultural hegemony; part of it is that geopolitical domination exercised by the Empire making dominated people think that their interests are served by the ruling class – which is the Empire itself. Saudi Arabia was “number one” on the list that thought that America protects its interests and hence submitted to Washington, did whatever it was asked to do … That way of thinking on the Saudi part is now “shelved”; the Saudis have realized that their national interests could be better served only by themselves, not by the United States, which is, in turn, only protecting its own interests.

This kind of issue (for the Saudis – buckling to U.S. pressure) has come up again and again.

The ramification of what is going on can be established by a number of articles that are coming out. Although the Western media, particularly that which exists in the United States, remains silent about the huge deal that was brokered by China between Saudi Arabia and Iran … from the day that the Islamic Revolution came to power and succeeded in Iran, the United States has working to fracture the relationship between Arabs and Iranians and painted the Iranians as a kind of evil genie. Having created the image of the “evil Iran” Washington has been able to sell weapon system after weapon system to different Middle East countries, playing on Arab fears that “the Iranians are coming to get you.”

Now it turns out that, despite their religious differences, that Iran and Saudi Arabia can find common ground and work together based on common interests. The interests in common that they have include infra-structural development, trade expansion, in the case of the Iranians, the need for increased investment. The Saudis have made it clear that these opportunities can only be achieved in an environment of regional stability.

_________________________________

Part Two of this series

China – doing what Washington seems incapable of – reducing Middle East tensions