I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.
If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness.
We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability.
Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)
PS: the fact that Iran knows how to play the Western media, speaking in terms that resonate with Western audiences, is very troubling.
The best solution for that whole region is more secular governments. That will not happen because the only one is Jewish. The only other thing is to be neutral in this whole sunni-shia divide. If they want to fight and kill over whether to follow the son-in-law or father-in-law of muhammad we cannot stop them but the US should not be a part of it. If that means giving some leeway to Iran I think we should do that instead of coming exclusively on the side of Sunni arabs.
More secular governments would be a good thing, but that's not really going to happen. See Shadi Hamid's writings on the matter. Essentially, the future of the Muslim Middle East is more illiberalism and more Islamism.
As you mentioned, currently the only democracy in the ME is Israel, though I have hope for a secular and democratic Kurdistan. I've heard whispers that the main reason the US isn't backing an independent Kurdistan separating from Iraq is the worry that the lack of the Kurds as a moderating force on Iraq will enable Iran to fully control the state (more so than it already does), essentially allowing it to become an Iranian client state.
Being neutral in the Sunni-Shi'a divide is functionally impossible for a number of reasons, but to easily understand why it's impossible, just try to imagine what neutrality in that context would actually look like. There's no answer that all sides would agree is neutral. The US has to be a part of it because the US has no choice - Americans benefit from the US dominated world order (as do most other people of the world). When you're a superpower with stakes in virtually every matter, even inaction is an action; even not choosing is a choice.
Enabling Iran hurts American interests. Iran is a destabilizing force, rather than a status quo power. Iran has had, and continues to have a choice: is it a movement, or is it a respectable state? It's leaders have consistently chosen to be a movement, exporting its revolution wherever it can, and upending the region and the world according to its vision. And let's not forget, a part of that vision is the annihilation of America's one reliable ally in the region, Israel, and the murder of all of its Jewish inhabitants.
We can only say that Iran acts rationally if we understand its motives. Its leaders view power and geopolitics as a zero-sum game, and it cannot win as long as the US, Israel, and the Sunnis are not dominated by its Shi'a axis.
I don't actually think that the Rouhani administration is any more moderate than the hardliners - just more strategic. Their goals align with the conservatives goals, but they are more willing to take a conciliatory tone with the West, even if it is only tone and not strategic realignment. So, then if it's just a matter of how to achieve hegemony - whether by direct conflict (hardliners) or subversion and manipulation of the West (Rouhani), does it really benefit the West to empower the moderates? Obviously, I think not. Besides, the Rouhani government is also just acting as political cover for Iran's other operations, whereby Rouhani and Zarif play good cop, while the IRGC and alike play bad cop.
The Sunni status quo powers (which does not include Qatar) are in de facto alignment with Israel because the biggest threat to both is the Iranian destabilization (mostly via proxy forces). Iran understands that if its actions empower Sunni radicals to the detriment of relatively moderate Sunnis, Iran wins, because then it positions itself as a bulwark against radical Sunni Islamism - even if its actions help create the environment conducive to those forces gaining strength.
As for 'meddling' in the Syria conflict being pro-Sunni, I just disagree. The Assad regime is the biggest draw for Sunni violent extremism, and the longer Iran enables Assad's slaughter of his people, the biggest the problem is going to be for the West.
As for Syria I completely disagree, this version that Assad is slaughtering his people as if he is another demon with nothing better to do is just more US propaganda. He was fighting rebels but was just not careful and there are many civilian casualties. We don't need another headless state for radicals to occupy. The US meddled in Iraq, Libya and now is strengthening ISIS even more by destroying the sovereign nation (Syria) that is fighting it. If the US has a problem with Syria, then Congress should debate and then declare war on it. Talk of no-fly zones is ridiculous. We only don't like Syria because they are close to Iran. Saudi has reportedly pumped $700 million into rebel groups. Supporting these Sunni extremists and then claiming to also fight ISIS is foolish. Saudi and their coalition are attempting to establish their Sunni Islam across the middle east. And that is not better than Iran. At least in Congress Tulsi Gabbard is the one congressperson saying we need to let Assad stay and focus efforts on ISIS.
So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place.
>delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war
The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. The draw for radicals to fight in Syria is the Assad regime.
>SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal
I definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. There's really no evidence of that, and it's illogical because there's almost no way it could do that. Read the Pollack article above to understand the likely reason as to why SA killed him.
I can't believe I'm hear almost defending Saudi Arabia. I just think they're less despicable than Iran, but both are absolutely abhorrent. Both regimes push their own version of violent Islamism and are a pox on the world.
I think the SA regime is the single biggest reason why the population is still stuck in the middle ages (but what do you expect of a regime that treats woman like second class citizen). The money from oil might hide this fact a bit but SA has virtually no cultural or civilizing accomplishments
>The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah.
Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc). If you watch the videos on liveleak you see all those groups running around with TOWs and modern weapons.
> definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal.
What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran. Luckily the Iranian government (especially the moderate ones like Rohani,Zarif) decided not to escalate further. But this was a clear attempt to provocate a stupid reaction from the iranian side. Nimr was no threat to SA and if you really think that a cleric is thread to a regime like SA, then it's probably better if this regime vanishes rather earlier than later.
> I just think they're less despicable than Iran
If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.
I'm not sure if the regime is the reason for the repressive Islamist culture of Saudi Arabia. While they enforce the Wahhabi establishment's strict version of Sharia, the regime draws its legitimacy from the religious establishment. Essentially, my guess is that the SA regime is actually a pretty accurate reflection of the will of the Sunni majority, and might even be more moderate than the populace. If we're talking about treating women like second-class citizens, Iran is definitely in the same boat, even if they have moderately more rights than do women in SA.
>Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc).
The historical alignment of Russia and Iran with the Assad regime isn't the problem. What draws in the foreign fighters and what pushes relative moderates (essentially non- or semi-Islamists) in Syria to join the most extreme religious groups is the continuous barbarity of the Assad regime. Needless to say, without the support of Iran, and to a lesser degree, Russia, the Assad regime would have likely folded long ago, and the domination of the opposition groups by Sunni radicals would have been far less likely to have occurred. That's not to let Qater, Turkey, and SA off the hook. Those three countries (especially Qatar and Turkey) are definitely guilty of supporting Islamists, but the size of the opportunity for them to do so was largely contingent on the draw of the fight with Assad's regime.
>What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran.
I think that Kenneth Pollack's article (cited above) is worth the read to fully understand why SA executed Nimr, but here is another excerpt to answer your question:
"So, the Saudis are scared of the rising tide of popular mobilization and Shiite mobilization; they are scared by their loss of control over the oil market and what that is forcing them to do domestically; they are scared by the spillover from the region’s civil wars and the costs that they are being forced to bear to try to prevent that spillover from affecting them; and they are scared that we are abandoning them for Iran. The Saudis’ world, in other words, is pretty scary. And their modus operandi today is the same as it always has been: to lash out to try to beat back the threats that they see and regain control of their circumstances. Hence their stunning intervention in Yemen, their constant escalation in Syria, and now this latest flare-up with Iran."
I'd actually argue that the destruction of the SA embassy was a tremendous provocation by Iran. The destruction of diplomatic embassies is a huge no-no, and just goes to show how callously the Iranian regime treats its commitments under international law and reasonable morality. The destruction was certainly sanctioned by high levels of the Iranian government, and the police did nothing to quell the violence until it was already too late.
>If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.
I don't think I ever made the argument that Saudi Arabia's populace was more modern or liberal than Iran's. It's the Iranian regime that I'm critiquing (though, admittedly, the Iranian regime does draw significant support from its populace). Assuredly, the Iranian people and their culture are more admirable that Saudi's, but they're not the policy-makers.
Well if you treat half of the population like second class citizen, then you shouldn't be suprsided about the repressive culture. This is a vicious circle. How should the culture improve if the government provides such as role model ?
> If we're talking about treating women like second-class citizens, Iran is definitely in the same boat,
Sorry but that must be a huge boat, because women in Iran can vote, drive a car, travel alone, etc.
> The historical alignment of Russia and Iran with the Assad regime isn't the problem.
I won't argue that the Assad regime is terrible but fueling the oppositions with weapons and money was a huge mistake. But we tend to make mistakes over and over again (see Libya). Also where do you draw the line ? What about the civil war in the east of turkey ?
> So, the Saudis are scared of the rising tide of popular mobilization and Shiite mobilization
I want to add to this that SA is mostly afraid of the economic rise of Iran once the sanctions are lifted and rightly so. I really don't believe that the timing of the execution of Nimr was a coincidence. SA did everything they could to stop the atom deal, so I would't be suprised that they would also use those means to sabotage it.
It might be true that the destruction of the embassy was sanctioned by high levels or at least tolerated, but the iranian government and politics is not as homogeneous as one might think. You have moderate people like Rohani and Katami and then also extremist like Khamanei (although he recently also condemned the descruction of the embassy) and Ahmadinejad.
I would even claim Iran is probably the country in the middle east with one of the most repressive regimes but with the most tolerant populace
As an aside, when I see hyperbole like that in a comment, I stop reading. I assume the reader is just ranting (and I really don't need to read yet another rant on the Internet) and even the valuable content is going to have subtle facts, analysis and judgement sacrificed for dramatic overstatement.
(Sorry to pick on this comment, I know it's a widespread phenomenon.)
This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation.
To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote:
>Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize.
[0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...