Written by: Prof. Dr. Khaled Aliwi Al-Ardawi
March-March 2023
The Russian analyst, Mr. Alexander Nazarov, believes that the Saudi-Iranian agreement to restore relations between the two parties represents a “major political earthquake”, as it constitutes a “strategic reorientation” in the relations of the Arab Gulf states with the United States of America towards China, linking what happened to the repercussions of the international division between the major powers. President in the world, whose steps accelerated after the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Mr. Nazarov goes on to say that Washington will not accept what happened, and the more time passes after the agreement, the more Gulf Arab states will move away from the United States and get closer to the “Chinese camp”, which means a great strategic loss for it, and he concludes by saying: It will try every From Washington and Tel Aviv to exploit the issue of the Iranian nuclear file, to carry out a “military provocation” aimed at influencing the Arab Gulf states and pushing them to participate alongside them in any military action, in order to empty the comprehensive peace agreement between Riyadh and Tehran of its content, and this makes war with Iran an inevitable reality. No way, but today it is “very close”.
However, despite the Chinese success in settling the Iranian-Saudi dispute, what leads to war is not Mr. Nazarov’s belief that Riyadh and the rest of the Arab Gulf countries are approaching the Chinese camp at the expense of the American camp. This exaggerated exaggeration of what happened may be due to the influence of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. And it is an exaggerated reduction – also – of the size of the interests and relations that bind these countries and the United States in particular, and the West in general, especially since Washington was among the countries that welcomed the Beijing agreement, albeit with caution.
Therefore, if the war did not occur as a result of the above reasons alone, why would it happen?
It is absolutely not surprising that Tel Aviv is unhappy with the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, as it is, as some Hebrew media described it, a Saudi spit in the face of Israeli policies in the region, especially policies related to normalization with the Arabs, the Abraham Accords and others, but that alone does not justify war with Tehran. That war that will happen whenever Israel believes that Tehran is about to acquire its nuclear weapons, and this matter considers it an existential threat to it that cannot be accepted or coexisted with, so it is ready – when necessary – to act unilaterally away from Washington, as stated by Israeli officials. More than once.
The Israeli government has been very preoccupied in recent years with creating a regional deterrence alliance against Tehran, in order to weaken it and restrict its expansion in the region. This policy has borne fruit through normalization with some Arab countries, but with the increase of its network of regional alliances, the possibilities of war were weakening more and more, because Tehran has always declared that any form of aggression against it means going to a “total war” involving Washington, Tel Aviv and their allies in the region, which is a realistic threat, and the fear of it is justified due to the Arab countries’ proximity to the Islamic Republic, which makes targeting its vital areas by the armed force. It is very easy for Iran to reach its regions, in addition to the presence of its powerful agents within a number of these countries that can be mobilized to achieve its military goals when needed, and this gave the Islamic Republic of Iran an effective form of deterrence that complicates war and prevents its occurrence.
As for after Beijing’s declaration, linking the return of relations between Riyadh and Tehran to respect for the sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and refraining from everything that threatens their security and stability, the Arab countries, if they fulfill their obligations contained in the agreement, and follow a smart policy based on preoccupation with developing the elements of internal security and stability, And complete neutrality and not getting involved in any hostile act related to the issue of the conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv, then it would have deprived Iran of its justification for declaring a total war on it, and it has no choice but to respond to the source of aggression alone, which is Tel Aviv or Washington in the event of its intervention on the side of the latter, because Any attack on Arab countries would mean Tehran’s breach of its obligations contained in the Beijing Declaration.
The Iranian military deterrence force has become more difficult in light of the new reality than it was before the recent agreement, as it does not have geographical borders with Israel, and it cannot oblige other countries to make its lands a launching pad for striking them, and at the same time Israel will find itself more free to move militarily when necessary. Against Tehran, with the absence of any hesitant Arab pressure and fear of the Iranian response, and this situation, when linked to the image of the thorny and complex international situation, will mean that the acceleration of the clock towards war between the two parties is inevitable and cannot be denied.
Total or limited war?
Unless the Arab neighborhood gets involved in the conflict with or against both Tehran or Tel Aviv, we will not expect an all-out war. What occupies the Israeli government’s attention is Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile program, and it has persistently tried to disrupt them through cyberwarfare and assassinations of Iranian scientists. And internal deliberate sabotage, and it has succeeded so far in that, but that did not prevent both programs from developing until the nuclear program almost reached the threshold of being able to manufacture a nuclear bomb within a few days or weeks if an official decision was issued in that regard, and certainly Tel Aviv will not stand idly by. In front of what is happening, and it will probably consider a military strike similar to what it did on the Iraqi Tammuz reactor in the early eighties of the last century, despite the difficulty of the issue and its complete asymmetry.
With the Iraqi situation, it has already conducted numerous exercises to carry out the promised strike, and has tried in various ways to secure the requirements for its success by communicating with its Western allies.
The military strike, if it takes place, and regardless of the extent of its success or failure, will undoubtedly prompt Tehran to respond, but its response will be a response that does not differ much from the Israeli action. Armies towards Palestine through neutral Arab countries that are unwilling to get involved in a comprehensive and destructive war, and therefore they will have no choice but to respond through bursts of ballistic missiles or through what they may possess of air capabilities, especially their drones, and perhaps they will try cautiously to invest some of their proxies close to Palestine to take action What, except that it would be a limited and controlled move.
So the war will be limited, and Washington and the major powers will try to reduce its risks in one way or another in order to preserve their interests in the region and the world, but its internal repercussions on Iran and Israel will be completely unknown, and may even be greater than its military repercussions themselves, so each of the two parties paints his image before his people as being Invincible and unbreakable, the collapse of this image will undoubtedly leave extremely unpredictable consequences.
The Arab countries have gained if they adhere to the decisions of Beijing’s declaration of peace, neutrality and stability, but Tel Aviv has lost its opportunity to form a regional alliance hostile to Tehran, just as Tehran has lost its military deterrence based on the threat of all-out war, and they have become for the first time face to face in front of each other, and they have to make a decision To determine the paths of future conflict between them, and take responsibility for what you will decide.
