Iran and Saudi Arabia: Mortal Enemies

November 14th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In quite a fascinating post for The Moderate Voice, Elyas Bakhtiari argues that when talking about the Middle East and the balance of power in that region, Westerners often make the mistake to think that the main enemy or rival for most Middle Eastern regimes is the United States. Bakhtiari argues that this is not the case: instead, it are other regional regimes who are considered the true enemy and against whom foreign policy is truly aimed.

He is right, and it is important for us to realize this whenever we talk about the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia do not get along very well, and both have supported militants in Iraq and in other places. In fact, ideologically seen, these two countries are each other’s mortal enemies. They are truly each other’s main ideological enemies. The Shiite radicals in charge of Iran consider the Saudis fundamentalist Sunnis bend on converting Shiites to Sunni Islam.

The Salafi radicals in charge of the Saudi Kingdom, meanwhile, consider the Shiite radicals in Iran to be blasphemers or, worse, apostates. They fear that the Iranians are trying to convert Sunni Muslims to Shiite Islam, which is truly a horrendous thing for these people.

The two are fighting each other through proxies and fundamentalist organizations all throughout the Middle East. They are active in Iraq, where the Saudis try to prevent a complete Shiite takeover while the Iranians are trying to prevent the Sunni majority from taking back power and turning towards Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim states in the region rather than to Iran. They are also active in other countries such as Afghanistan, where they fight each other for the same reasons.

A correct term to describe this situation is “Middle Eastern Cold War.” And it has been waged for decades. Most steps taken by both regimes are not because they want to do something against the West, but against each other. Iran does not want to develop nuclear weapons because it will help it attack Israel or the U.S., but because it will enable her to dominate the region. If Iran dominates the region, it will force back the forces of (radical) Sunni Islam.

That and nothing else is the goal.

U.S. policy should deal with both regional powers based on the above.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. andy jackson
    November 15th, 2008 at 13:14
    Reply | Quote | #1

    “..the Saudis try to prevent a complete Shiite takeover while the Iranians are trying to prevent the Sunni majority from taking back power and turning towards Saudi Arabia..”
    Michael van der Galien is not aware of a basic fact that the shia are the majority in iraq. He is aslo mistaken about the sophistication of Iranian foreign policy which is much more then merely trying to stop Saudi domination of the region. The Iranians are enetitled to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT. It would be nice for them to have the option of going nuclear but main aim is to master the technology for nuclear energy. All those who say its a cover stroy because Iranians dont need it because of oil reserves should think about why the UK and USA are going to build many more nuclear power palnts when they have oil reserves of their own…. because its too risky to put all all your energy eggs in one basket.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.