Political Conflict In Riyadh And Iran

regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more

For the United States, the Gulf region remains one of the most geo-strategically important locations in the world for diplomatic, intelligence cooperation, and business opportunities such as hydrocarbons and arms. This strategic cooperation has provided the region some stability, particularly with the rise of Iran and the Shi’a crescent and the chaotic outcome of the war in Iraq. The council members have also relied on the United State to fend off some of the domestic challenges to the existing regimes that are both internally and regionally rooted.

The [Bush] administration found it consistently difficult to get the measure of Tehran. Bush depicted it as a “nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is repressing and isolating its people,” but the reality was far more complex. (482)

The Iranian nuclear deal and sanctions is a very convoluted and confusing dilemma. Thomas Friedman a foreign affairs, globalization and technology correspondent for The New York Times, wrote the article titled, “Look Before Leaping” in which he writes about the basic ins and outs of the Iranian nuclear deal. He discusses the most probable possibilities of the deal going into depth about the likelihood that Iran is a potential economic and social ally in the sense that “Iran is a real country and civilization, with competitive (yet restricted) elections, educated women and a powerful military. Patching up the US-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria” (Friedman). He also goes into the possibility that Iran could, once the nuclear sanctions are lifted, attack Israel and lead not only the region, but also the globe into absolute and complete disarray. The complexities of this issue stem all the way back to 1979, when Iran revolted against its Shah and transitioned to “its ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps — to gradually move Iran from being a revolutionary state to a normal one” (Friedman). For far too long Iran has been involved in

Saudi Arabia’s fear after the fall of Iran in 1979 is two-fold. In the South Eastern part of the country there was a large Shia population that they feared would take up arms against the current regime. In addition, Saudi Arabia had no military, while Iran had a huge force. From looking at a map, it is evident that Iran and Saudi Arabia are only separated by a few miles. This is one of the major reasons that Saudi Arabia bought the access to nuclear weapons from Pakistan; they would look like more of a threat to Iran. Added U.S. presence brought with it culture that would penetrate the native culture and become intertwined with it. US intervention in Saudi Arabia is crucial in the rise of fast food and the development of chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity there.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are two countries that sit on opposite sides of the Sunni/Shiite divide, which can be argued as being the most prominent issue the Middle East faces today. Saudi Arabia is predominantly known to be a Sunni state, while Iran is largely inhabited by Shia Muslims. Both countries aspire to be the hegemonic powers of the region. Ethnically, Iran is known to be a Persian land, unlike Saudi Arabia that is known to be in the heart of the Arab world. These two countries are separated by the Arabian Gulf and throughout the twentieth century and up until today, the relationship between the two countries has been notoriously contentious. Within the past few years especially relationships between the two states have been very fragile with Saudi Arabia ending diplomatic ties early in 2016. The two states are strained over many issues of which are, interpretations of Islam, oil export policy and hegemonic regional leadership.

The conflict also links to the power struggle between the Shia government of Iran and Sunni government of Saudi Arabia as they border each other. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are against a Houthi takeover because they fear they may no longer have free passage through Yemen. Saudi Arabia and members of a coalition first got involved when they launched a military operation which aimed to bering back the rule of President Hadi.

Conflict over energy resources—and the wealth and power they create—has become an increasingly prominent feature for geopolitics particularly in the Middle East . The discovery of oil in the late nineteenth century added a dimension to the region as major outside states powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The U.S.’s efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to ever increasing involvement in the Middle East region’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military establishment. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.

It is at this backdrop that the paper will look into the relationship of these two gulf counties including Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria. Besides the proxy war, there is also the fervor of armed militants in the Gulf that are motivated by their

Hamda Hassan Abdullah is student that studies political science and international relation in civil service institute in hargeisa Somaliland

Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

As the latest wave of revolutionary uncertainty sweeps across the Middle East, Iran remains one of the region’s biggest question marks. The Islamic regime that temporarily crushed the Green Movement after Iran’s controversial presidential elections of 2009 still faces serious internal challenges to its power, with no clear indication of how events will play out.

Power relations shift when global capitalism and modernity, terms used almost interchangeably in this piece due to western view of what modern means, enter the scene. Power relations mean everything from the very visible ruler and subject dynamic, to that of the family, and to that of the whole county to the world. The Middle East had a very different relationship to the global economy than the growing European Empire did. In a way modernization did the exact opposite to places like the Ottoman Empire than it did to European nation states. While Europe entered as a global superpower there was decline in Ottoman power that came with the shift. The Middle East, while some would argue had never been recognized the same way that the West has, saw a major decline in their

The rationale behind such efforts by President Obama and his team, many of who are still holding critical planning and operational positions in the US government, was that as more money and investment flows into Iran its government will become more moderate. That has been proven to be a wrong assumption. As Iran’s access to hard currency and international financial markets expanded, it has double downed on its aggressive foreign policy and support for terrorism; president Rouhani and the parliament has increased the IRGC budget while

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz warned that, “Iran’s representatives (including its Su-preme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order” (Beinart)