Geopolitics, Religion, Economy and Energy in Syria

 The armed conflict in Syria has left one of the worst humanitarian crises since World War II, which has lasted in time since the Arab Spring in 2011, which brought with it a wave of social protests in the Middle East and was violently repressed by the authoritarian government of Bashar Al Assad. It is a complex conflict with a multiplicity of international, regional, state and non-state actors "putting in" for the variety of interests (geopolitical, economic and religious influence in the region, strategic exit points, energy, etc.) that surround the territory. In this context, several questions are generated. Is a regime change possible? How long can this conflict continue over time? Has it lost relevance for the West to intervene?

 

This article intends to make an analysis of the armed conflict in Syria, from an International Relations perspective, taking into account variables: geopolitical, religious, economic and energetic, and to propose possible future scenarios for the conflict based on the questions raised above.

 

Background

 

In order to have a little more clarity on the panorama, it is necessary to make a historical account of the region, and the consequences that are reflected today in Syria. During the Ottoman Empire and until World War I the concept of the Nation-State did not exist, nor did Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait or Palestine; in the Middle East there were only clans grouped according to religious beliefs and ethnic groups, separated by geography

 

These States were born after the breach of the Sykes-Picot Agreements by France and England after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. France and England used the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 as a reference for International Law, betrayed the promises to the leaders of the tribes to grant them a Unified Arab Kingdom and drew lines on the map of the Middle East to divide the territory, thus forcing clans and opposing religions to come together under the same territory, Syria ended on the mandate of the French government

 

In 1971 when Hafez Al Assad positioned himself as Syrian president (with the ideal of building a Unified Arab), a position he held for 30 years and after his death he succeeded his son Bashar Al Assad. It should be noted that Syria is a country in which more than 70% of the population is Muslim and, like any monotheistic religion, it is divided into different branches, Sunnis and Shiites in the case of Islam, which do not mutually recognize themselves as Muslims; In this sense, the political caste of Al Assad is Shiite and represents only 11% of the population, while 76% of the population identifies as Sunni (The Global Economy, 2013). In other words, the leader does not represent the majority of his population in a region where religion plays a key role when it comes to making politics, not to mention that although the transition of power from father to son took place through voting, these they were not transparent nor did the majority of citizens get to vote.

 

As mentioned above, in 2011, after a decade since Bashar Al Assad took power, a wave of protests called the "Arab Spring" began in Tunisia and spread throughout the Middle East, from which Syria was not exempt. . Bashar Al Assad's response was violent and repressive, and this is how the Free Syrian Army, terrorist groups, armies of the Bashar Al Assad regime, alliances and counter-alliances that began the armed conflict that today turns 10 years old and that is unknown how long will it last.

 

Armed conflict

 

  Any confrontation carried out by groups of different kinds (such as regular or irregular military forces, guerrillas, armed opposition groups, paramilitary groups, or ethnic or religious communities that, using weapons or other destructive measures, cause more than 100 victims in a year

 

This is a concept that is applied to classify the Syrian conflict as an armed conflict since the UNHCR (2021) counts as of March 2021 6.7 million internally displaced persons, 6.6 million refugees in In addition, according to the DW (2021) in the world, in these 10 years there have been more than 400,000 deaths and 200,000 missing. On the other hand, we find a diversity of actors, their connections and external support in the logic of alliances, which explains the duration of the conflict and the failure of all resolution attempts, as well as the decision of Western governments not to intervene, which which are classified as follows:

 

International.

 

 Supporting the regime:

 

China is mainly a supplier of arms to the regime, but also has strong economic relations with it

 

Russia, a strategic ally of Iran and the regime, also benefits from the energy wealth of the territory

 

Iran, because it is a Shiite majority, is in its interests to establish itself as hegemon and maintain its influence in the region. Not counting his strong economic ties.

 

Against the Regime:

 

During the Obama and Trump administrations, US interests in Syria were based on obtaining oil and maintaining their influence in the region, but recently Biden has decided to continue intervening in favor of the humanitarian crisis. The first of his intentions is to prevent Russia and China, backers of the Syrian government in the UN Security Council, from carrying out his plan to close all access points for food and medicine to northern opposition areas.

 

Turkey finds itself in both a warlike and a diplomatic confrontation, due to the position that the Turkish government acquired in the Syrian civil war, since despite having different interests they have identical ambitions that can be observed since the civil war, when Turkey provided material, support and training for opposition Islamist groups such as the Free Syrian Army against the Assad regime; similarly, Ankara's both political and military approach to the Assad regime made the Syrian Kurds its enemies.

 

Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, is a Sunni monarchy, which also seeks to maintain its position of influence in the region and reduce Iran's, it is also a strategic ally of the United States

Israel, a strategic ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States, is constantly threatened by Iran, Syria and the Lebanese jihadist group Hezbollah, who do not recognize it as a State

 

The ONU.

 

The international community wonders if the UN will be able to peacefully end the armed conflict in Syria, but the truth is that its hands are constantly tied by Russia and China using their veto power in the Security Council to stop any resolution that is mandatory and has teeth for the Syrian regime. Until 2019, Russia has vetoed 17 resolutions on the conflict in Syria, especially those that punish the use of chemical weapons during the conflict.

 

Terrorists.

 

Islamic State or Daesh, an organization seeks the achievement of the United Arab Kingdom that was taken from them by the West with the Treaty of Versailles, and was consolidated in 2014 after the Arab Spring in Iraq and Syria. Although they have lost prominence, they control much of the territory of both countries and have contributed greatly to the number of humanitarian victims. It should be noted that they are not supported by the Syrian regime or by the countries of the East or the West.

 

Hezbollah is a Lebanese jihadist terrorist group that has used Syrian territory over the years to carry out attacks on the Israel.

 

Kurdistan.

 

Although the government of Iraq views the Kurdish population as terrorists, in this analysis we will understand them as a nation without a state. Most of its population is distributed between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, however, its case in Syria is particular because they have a "state attempt" called Rojiva in the northeast of the country, here the Kurdish people have autonomous control over the territory. It could be inferred that this town simply pursues its interests of establishing itself in a territory beyond being influenced by any faction.

 

Nationals.

 

The military army of the Syrian regime, violently protects and maintains the government of Bashar Al Assad, is financed and armed by its strategic partners (China, Russia and Iran).

 

The Free Syrian Army, born in response to the repression of the Bashar Al Assad dictatorship in the midst of protests and seeks to protect civil society, is mainly supported in arms and financing by Western countries such as the United States, some European countries and Saudi Arabia

 

Civil Society is not generally considered an actor in the conflict, but the truth is that they have been the victims of crossfire, repression and the political, economic and religious interests of the previously mentioned actors.

 

This dynamic of the actors evidently reflects their intentions to maintain political, economic, religious and energy power and also shows us the residue of the bilateral world during the cold war, but no longer between capitalism and socialism but between the West and the East. It is not only Iran that uses the conflicts of other countries in the region to stay in power and weaken the enemy, this is an act of the majority of the regional, international and terrorist actors involved; Saudi Arabia, being the other side of the coin, works in conjunction with its Western allies. Syria has become a stage in which foreign powers look out for their own interests. Arab countries back the opposition, but not all the same groups: the Saudis and the Qataris, for example, are vying for influence, each helping different sides to do so.

 

The game of geopolitics, energy and religion in the conflict

 

We must keep in mind that Syria is very attractive to regional and international players due to its geostrategic position and the richness of its territory. Turkey, that is, with the main players in the region; it also has a strategic exit point to the Mediterranean Sea and a large part of the Euphrates River.

 

Energy is another of the reasons that make Syria attractive, although it is known that Syria does not have large amounts of resources oriented to oil reserves, it has a territory that has been coveted by many since it is rich in gases and hydrocarbons. It should be reiterated that the fact that Syria has direct access to the Mediterranean Sea makes the country a strategic point and this privilege gives it the power to have the last word when deciding which of the gas export route projects will be carried out. : Qatar-Turkey-Syria or Iran, Iraq and Syria

 

Let's remember that Qatar and Turkey are allies and are against the Bashar Al Assad regime (which is the one that can make a decision up to now); On the other hand, we have Iran and Iraq, partners since the beginning of the Syrian regime, but that is not the only thing, these States are Shiite governments, not monarchists, and, moreover, allies of Russia and China. Without a doubt, a strategic gas export route that connects the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean Sea and that passes through Iraq, Iran and Syria would be destabilizing and would completely change the balance of power in the region, and would send a direct message to their enemies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, United States, Turkey, etc).

 

Therefore, in order to understand the different aspects of the armed conflict in Syria, it is necessary to refer to both the control and distribution of hydrocarbons in the Middle East, since due to its geostrategic position it has made its conflicts due to interests This implies that they are coveted by the great powers, which is why, although we know that Syria does not have large amounts of oil reserves, it has a territory that has been coveted by many, because it is also a communication bridge between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea make it easier to send hydrocarbons to the European market

 

On the other hand, the first explorations in search of oil deposits in Syria occurred in the second half of the 20th century, but large-scale extractions began in the late 1970s based on the Syrian Petroleum Company, where they began to discover new oil wells; even so, compared to other places such as the United Arab Emirates, which have reserves in larger quantities of oil, Syria has reserves that can only satisfy its internal demand, it is now that we ask ourselves why there are conflicts around oil when Syria does not Do you have so many reserves of it?

 

What happens is that, as has already been stated, Syria is at a key strategic point for the export of oil, it has 2,500 million barrels of crude compared to the 300,000 million barrels that Saudi Arabia has or Iran's 150,000. and Iraq and although compared to the other countries it does not produce as much oil, its control is symbolic from a political perspective, while from an economic perspective the loss of control of the deposits has impacted the Al Assad regime since its exploitation represented a quarter of the income of Damascus, and which is exported mainly to countries like Russia, China. In 2014, the Islamic State, due to its advances in the control of Syrian territory, took over a large part of the oil business in the region, from which previously the Bashar Al Assad regime mainly benefited. Later, due to the weakening of the Islamic State, it is the Kurdish population that acquired control of the oil fields located in the Raqqa region.

 

In the same way, it is important to remember how this energy resource directly affects the social conflict in the region, since after the uprising against the Bashar al Assad regime, the European Union imposed sanctions and among them is the prohibition Syrian oil imports. This effectively affected the economy of oil in Syria dramatically, causing an economic downturn due to the fact that, after Russia and China, most of its potential customers were members of the European Union.

 

Conclusion

 

The Syrian conflict should not be tried to be understood in a disjointed or simplistic way since, due to the dynamism that characterizes the region, the geopolitical, religious and energy variables complement each other to give us a broader and more complete panorama of what that it is a conflict as complex as the one that Syria has been experiencing for ten years.

 

Religious sectarianism, together with a governance crisis and a lack of citizen representation, gave way to a series of demonstrations that were met with a repressive state response and the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State. Add to this Syria's important geographical position for gas and oil export routes, its hydrocarbon wealth and its quest to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East region and we have the perfect recipe for a conflict fraught with alliances and against regional and international alliances that seek to be able to "get their hands on" and get the most out of it. But above all, a conflict with devastating humanitarian consequences.

 

It is striking, but not surprising, that the humanitarian and migration crisis is not the main concern of most of the intervening actors, however, during the Biden administration, the United States put the issue on the table again, showing the intention of wanting to push harder to weaken Bashar Al Assad's government; A US intervention that intends to contemplate more issues on the agenda regarding the Syrian conflict would not necessarily be linked to energetic motivations, but rather to maintain its influence and counteract Russian influence over the region.

Refutation of the thesis "Being is one" by Aristotle.

Reading of Aristotle, in Physics, chapter 3: Refutation of the thesis "Being is one".

If we proceed in this way, it seems impossible that all entities are one, and the arguments used to prove it are not difficult to refute. Because both Parmenides and Melisso make eristic reasoning (since they start from false premises and their conclusions are not followed; Melisso's is rather crude and presents no problems, but if one absurdity is allowed to pass, one reaches others without difficulty).

 

The multiple being of Aristotle. It is clear that Melisso commits a fallacy, since he thinks that if "everything that has come to be had a beginning", then "what has not come to be does not". And it is also absurd to suppose that everything has a beginning, not of time, but of the thing, and that there must be a beginning not only of an absolute generation, but also of the generation of a quality, as if there could be no instantaneous changes. . Furthermore, why does the All, if it is one, have to be immobile? If a part of the Whole that is one, like this part of water, can move in itself, why shouldn't the Whole be able to do it? And why can there be no alteration? On the other hand, the Being cannot be one in terms of form, but only in terms of matter —some physicists speak of this unity, but not of the other—; for a man and a horse are different in form, and so are the opposites of each other. The same objections can be made to Parmenides, although there are also others that can be applied more appropriately. He is refuted by showing that his premises are false and his conclusions do not follow. His premises are false because he supposes that "being" is only said in an absolute sense, since it has many senses. And his conclusions do not follow, because if there were only white things, and if "white" had only one meaning, what is white would nevertheless be multiple and not one. What is white would not be one either by continuity or by definition. Because the being of the white is different from the being of that which receives it, even though the white does not exist separately, outside of what is white; for the white and that to which it belongs are not distinguished by being separate but by their being34. This is what Parmenides did not see. Indeed, Parmenides is necessarily assuming not only that "is" has a single meaning, whatever it is attributed to, but also that it means "what properly is", and "is one" > "what properly is". one», because an attribute is that which is predicated of a subject; therefore, if "being" were an attribute, that to which it is attributed would not be, since it would be something other than what it is; then something that is not. Therefore, "what properly is" cannot be predicated of something, since that of which it is predicated would not be an entity, unless it is admitted that "is" has more than one meaning, in such a way that each thing is a certain thing. be. But it has been assumed that "is" has only one meaning. But, on the other hand, if "what properly is" is not an attribute of something, but something else is attributed to it, why should "what properly is" mean "is" rather than "not"? is"? Because on the assumption that "what properly is" not only "is" but is also "white", what is white would not be "what properly is" (since being cannot belong to it, because what is not it is "that which properly is", is not); therefore white is not, and it is not that it is not in a particular sense, but that it is not at all. Therefore "what properly is" is not, because if one truly says that it is white, this means saying that it is not. Consequently, also "white" will have to mean "what properly is"; but then "is" would have more than one meaning. Furthermore, if being is "what it properly is", then it will not have magnitude, because in such a case the being of each of its parts would be different.

 

On the other hand, that "what properly is" is divisible into others that "properly are" is also evident from the point of view of definition. For example, if "man" were "what it properly is", "animal" and "biped" would also have to be "what it properly is". Because, if they were not, then they would be attributes of man or of some other subject. But both alternatives are impossible. By attribute is understood: either what may or may not belong <to a subject>, or that in whose definition it is present of which it is an attribute or that to which the definition of the subject of which it is an attribute belongs. For example, "to be sitting" is a separable attribute, but "flat" cannot be defined without the definition of "nose," to which we say it belongs as an attribute. Furthermore, the definition of the whole is not present in the definition of each of the parts or elements of what is defined; for example, the definition of "man" is not included in that of "biped," nor that of "white man" in that of "white." If this is so, and if "biped" is the attribute of "man", then either "biped" will have to be separable from "man", so that there could be men who are not bipedal, or else the definition of "man" will have to be present in the definition of "biped"; but this is impossible, because "biped" is contained in the definition of "man." And if "biped" and "animal" were attributes of something else, and if neither were "what it properly is", then "man" would also be an attribute of something else. But "what properly is" cannot be an attribute of anything, and that of which both and each one in particular are predicated ("biped" and "animal") must also be that of which the compound is predicated (" bipedal animal"). Will we have to say, then, that the Whole is made up of indivisibles? Some have transmitted both arguments to us: a) the one that affirms that all things are one, because "being" only means one thing, which means that non-being is, and b) the dichotomy argument, which supposes indivisible magnitudes . But obviously it is not true that if "being" only means one thing and contradiction is not possible at the same time, then non-being is not. Because nothing prevents there being, not absolute non-being, but a certain non-being. On the other hand, it is absurd to say that All is one because there can be nothing outside of Being itself. For what is to be understood by Being itself if not "what properly is"? But if this is so, nothing prevents things from being multiple. It is evident, then, that the being cannot be one in this sense.

 

Zizeck. Crisis, ideology, capital and freedom

  What is a crisis? Ignoring the fact that the cause of the crisis is found in the very germs of the economic system that produces it, Zizeck tries to address this question by analyzing the behavior of the individual and of capitalist society as a whole in the face of the consequences of an economic collapse. In this way, without focusing so much on the causes already known to all, he analyzes how these behaviors drive the impregnable perpetuation and justification of the system, so that the capitalist system is perpetuated while the lower classes can only abide by the consequences.

 

 

   One of the fundamental pillars with which the capitalist machine works in this sense, is the greatest of the sponsors concepts, freedom. For the lower class individual it represents the freedom to vote, while for the bank agent it represents the freedom of growth and development. It is well known that the freedom that the capitalist system preaches is the freedom to act, beyond having previously stopped to think about the consequences of actions, the famous prerogative: don't think, act! In this way, in capitalist societies everything must be practical, useful, and profitable, so that bank agents allow themselves to speculate on the risk that a society as a whole really assumes. Risk societies defend themselves in this way against an economic collapse: while risk imposes itself as an unavoidable destiny for the lower class individual, those who know the risk, the bank agents, withdraw, taking responsibility for the economic collapse. .

 

 

Politically, the capitalist network also has its own methods. One of the great capitalist inventions of political liberalism was to socialize the banking system in order to stabilize the system. Said in more everyday terms, to pay the debt that the banks left because of their destructive behavior, with public money. If we reflect a little, we can see that this political behavior is even more serious when it comes to acting in the face of collapse and crisis because it adds a moral hazard: if the capitalist machine is saved, things can continue to go well. The banking system then has an advantage, a priori, the beliefs that whatever it is, money should be managed and distributed by the political-banking system and not by the one that has generated wealth. What we can conclude from all this behavior is that state interventionism exposed in this way is not healthy, in such a way that the question that should ultimately concern us is not whether there should be intervention, that is taken for granted, but rather what type of intervention is. necessary.

 

 

Of all the attitudes that drive the great capitalist machine in the face of crises, it is that of naturalizing behaviors that are above all cultural realities, the one that most justifies the foundations of a system, just as fascism does. For example, by naturalizing history, the idea that capitalism should continue as a natural law is perpetuated. In this sense, the idea of Naomi Klein is relevant: the crisis as shock therapy. The history of the free market is written based on instilling fear with the possibility of a destabilization of what "is natural", so that the establishment allows itself more repressive and radical measures that imply more control over the population, especially over the classes lower and segregated. The system must allow itself to "keep dreaming", on the one hand it will provide the necessary means for "structural or creative adjustments" and all kinds of "technical measures" while on the other, it will not face the problem face to face (what to produce or consume, or what energy to lean on). In this way, the lower classes are convinced that the crisis shows the possibility of progress within the system while ignoring that the only thing it reveals is its contradiction.

 

We see that the situation that capitalism tries to perpetuate is impregnated with pure ideology, later being confused with theology because according to Zizeck, "it defends the existing order against any serious criticism, since it is legitimized as a direct expression of human nature." In this way, all classes ignore the imperfection of the system, taking it as "the best of all possible worlds". Having reached this point, it is worth asking, what is the role of propaganda in all this? First of all, propaganda tries to annihilate the inadvertent possibility of the situation (a potential revolution), relying if necessary on technical or structural adjustments as we have already said, creating what is known as the "subject of the supposed knowledge" that acts self-interestedly. for his own benefit, the one who is called in the propaganda “creative capitalist”. In this way, liberal cynicism develops a double standard: in private it knows that the subject of the supposed knowledge does not exist while publicly it defends its perpetuation, thus ensuring that the lower classes trust the system more. Finally, the culture war becomes a class war, so it is important to reflect on the new forms of charity (ecocapitalism); When analyzing this situation, keep in mind the difference between legitimate investments and wild speculation, since the latter borrows everyone's future.

 

 

The consequences, as seen, are always collective, so individual subjects should not be blamed for economic collapses due to their greed or excess consumption, since this would amplify the spiritual strength of the capitalist machine. Rather, it is about being aware that individual and collective behavior within the system is doubly irrational: on the one hand, the system works without taking into account the consequences, and on the other, the lower class votes against its own interests, influenced by the material power of ideology. This fact is conclusive proof that the society that defines itself as post-ideological, however, is immersed in the complete ideology. The fact that the common people consider current rights as natural consequences of the development of capitalism shows us the ideological humanization that has taken place in the system itself. The relationship between capitalism and democracy is neither natural nor contemporary in its birth. In this way, the wealth of the inner world of the capitalist is useless if it is in contrast with the responsibilities of public life, in the same way that the wealth of the inner life of the fascist or of war does not exist. History also has no inner richness if what must be faced humanistically is faced as a threat and is solved with a kind of "responsible anti-Semitism." This ideological humanization reveals how the ideology itself works: nobody takes justice and democracy seriously, we just assume that the system works even if we don't believe in it.

 

 

The fact that ideological humanization triumphs has a lot to do with postmodernism, the new spirit of capitalism. Now the ethics of the product is bought, the so-called "cultural capitalism" covers the construction of its super ego with the image of a happy and post-ideological community, approving permits that are disguised as rights, thus blurring the line between power and knowledge, establish their experts, judges over the fate of the lower class, forcing them to live as if they were free. In this condition, the subject acts thinking he is asking what I want, while in reality he acts asking what others want from me. This is literally the fetishistic society, not the repressed society, as it clings to its repression through cynicism and fundamentalism, choosing slavery as its true freedom.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and China: new geopolitical triad in the Middle East?

Iran and Saudi Arabia have large hydrocarbon reserves while China imports 70% of the energy inputs it consumes. Joe Biden's foreign policy failed in the Gulf, while Xi Jinping reconciled two great rivals.

 

In recent weeks, China has stood out as a mediating country in the normalization of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, suspended since 2016.

 

Meanwhile, the Joe Biden administration fails to get the Iran nuclear deal back on track and, after years of sponsoring a network of alliances between Israel and the Gulf monarchies against that country, Xi Jinping's foreign policy has reconciled two great rivals. .

 

The main motivation of the Chinese government to intervene is to guarantee stability between interconnected regions where it has invested in infrastructure such as highways, ports, hydroelectric, nuclear, gas and oil pipelines that allow China to articulate markets and consolidate areas of influence.

 

This New Silk Road crosses the Middle East, where its main energy exporters are located. China imports 70% of the energy inputs it consumes.

 

Before the Russo-Ukrainian war, 47% of this volume came from the Middle East; since 2022, the figure has risen to 54% as it is forced to diversify its suppliers.

 

Since 2021, Chinese diplomacy promotes this agreement. Unlike the United States, its interests go beyond the objective of guaranteeing its own security and that of its allies as the axis of its strategy for the region.

 

 

China between Iran and Saudi Arabia

 

The Chinese tactic to give stability to the Middle East consists of introducing incentives for cooperation based on blasé terms and on the advantages derived from integrating a network of alliances, probably, however, weaker.

 

 

 

China shakes hands with Iran.

The relevance of China is indisputable, but the agreement today constitutes a first step between two actors with an unstable relationship and with their own interests.

 

Saudi Arabia is seeking to diversify the alliances it forges with the great powers, but this does not indicate that it will compromise its relationship with the United States. Furthermore, although the agreement suggests a rosy outlook for regional cooperation, Iran remains plagued by severe US sanctions that limit its trade.

 

The beginning of the month of Ramadan featured a promising conversation between the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia, who agreed on the early reopening of embassies and consulates. Furthermore, the Saudi king himself invited the Iranian president to visit his country.

 

The complicated relationship between the two countries is part of a competition to lead the Middle East, since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

 

This relationship shows multifaceted features: periods of cooperation colored by a latent tension. The conflicts that involve them raise geopolitical and identity issues (it is worth considering the schematic Sunni/Shiite division in its articulation with tribal, ethnolinguistic, partisan affinities, etc.).

 

By supporting warring actors within other states, Iran and Saudi Arabia have indirectly fought each other.

 

 

New geopolitical triad in the Middle East?

 

In geopolitical terms, both States have large hydrocarbon reserves, one of the main factors that allows them to exert influence inside and outside the region and to be seen as strategic partners.

 

While Saudi Arabia heads the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Iran is an ally of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and various actors in Iraq.

 

Protests in Tehran and in  the capital of Saudi Arabia.

The 2011 Arab Spring uprisings presented new opportunities for this competition: soon, both were involved in conflicts such as the civil wars in Syria and in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia supports the internationally recognized Yemeni government and has carried out attacks against militarily-backed Houthi rebels. by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

Other incidents that strained this relationship were the stampede in Mecca in 2015, the execution of the Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr in 2016, and the attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran, events that cemented the eventual rupture of diplomatic ties.

 

 

 

Iran and Saudi Arabia: what can be expected?

It is prudent to relativize its potential impact. We cannot deduce that China is today the main foreign power in the region, replacing the United States.

 

It is true that Iran finds here a respite from prolonged isolation while dealing with a series of internal economic, social and political crises, given the redoubled conservatism defended by the government of Ebrahim Raisi.

 

The protests against gender violence grew and articulated, in an intergenerational and intersectional way, demands of heterogeneous groups among themselves that face the police repression exercised by the government.

 

The agreement will not resolve this situation: it could have a relative positive impact if there is a gradual opening to new markets, alleviating an inflationary climate and growing unemployment, but it would not necessarily neutralize the popular mobilization described against not only the government but also the political regime. same.

 

This agreement augurs other similar ones between Iran with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. Iran's foreign policy was rewarded without compromising its interests, and thus its position could become more intransigent in nuclear negotiations with the United States.

However, Iran is also committed to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its discussion with the entity is independent of such antagonism.

 

Potentially, the Revolutionary Guards would cease to equip the Houthis in Yemen, but it is hard to believe that they would decisively influence their agenda. That is why it is exaggerated to think that, as a result of the agreement, the Saudi crown will stop seeing the Houthis as a threat.

 

Persian Gulf, Arabian Gulf or Chinese Gulf?

 

Let us remember that there are no reconciliation processes in Yemen that call for dialogue and that the United Arab Emirates intervenes with its own agenda in the conflict.

 

Thus, the agreement is far from dismantling the logic of a civil war: it simply neutralizes the reciprocal threat between the Saudis and the Houthis and, by extension, between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The latter country will continue to support Hezbollah, of which the Saudi crown is particularly suspicious, and al-Assad, which is a cause for concern.

 

Yes, the recent tension between Lebanon and the GCC could dissipate and stop the process of economic and political destabilization that has affected the country for years. But it is necessary to be moderate, since the presidential acephaly, the economic crisis and that of his political system are due to multiple causes, not all of them directly affected by regional dynamics.

 

The agreement neutralizes the reciprocal threat between the Saudis and the Houthis and, by extension, between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

Syria is still ruled de facto by al-Assad. The agreement could reverse the isolation of the country, reinsert it in the Arab League and relaunch commercial exchanges that facilitate the institutional reconstruction from the central power. But this does not have to be immediate, nor does it mean Saudi approval of al-Assad's legitimacy.

 

Saudi Arabia seeks a new reputation. For this reason, it diversifies its production and calls for a transition to clean energy. Its policy of modernizing values and expanding rights for women and minorities is not consistent with supporting a pariah regime, ravaged by sanctions and too closely linked to Russia.

 

In itself, the agreement inaugurates or increases potential for cooperation between actors with defined interests and reflects more a gesture of tactical pragmatism than submission to a new power.