Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 9, 2015
The REAL Reason Saudi Arabia Hates Iran
Everyone knows that the Saudi Arabia – the center of Sunni Islam – hates Iran because it is the center for the rival Shia Muslim sect.
The Saudis – close U.S. allies – also hate Iran because it is allied with Russia.
But there is a third, little-known reason why the Saudi government hates Iran.
As the Gulf Cooperation Council – the official council for the Arab Gulf States, comprised of the monarchies of Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman – writes:
More than any other single factor, the Iranian Revolution helped to coalesce the security concerns of Saudi Arabia and the other monarchies in the Gulf region. As the largest Arab monarchy, Saudi Arabia was in a position to lead the others toward cooperative efforts. The impact of the Iranian Revolution on Saudi Arabia was manifold. The revolution destroyed the most powerful monarchy in the Gulf area. It was the second revolution to send shock waves throughout the Gulf region, the first being the revolution in Iraq that destroyed the monarchy in 1958. The Iraqi revolution had been followed by deteriorating relations between Riyadh and Baghdad, when the Baathist regime tried to subvert the Gulf monarchies. The Iranian example, however, appeared more menacing. The balance of forces seemed to have changed further against the monarchical regimes in the region because Iran, like Iraq, replaced the monarchy with a republic. Whatever course the new Iranian republic took, its very existence would threaten Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies.
In other words, the Saudi government hates Iran because it is a republic, while Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are monarchies.
Indeed, Vijay Prashad – Professor of South Asian History at Trinity College, Connecticut – said today (starting at 33:22) that the Saudis want to crush Iran so that it cannot set an example showing that Muslims can live in a republic without a monarchy.
Prashad points out that the “Saudis made claim that a Muslim country has to be a monarchy”, and Iran’s very existence undermines that claim.
Why does the U.S. support Saudi Arabia and not Iran?
As Lawrence Davidson – author of Islamic Fundamentalism, and professor of history at West Chester University – explains:
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy without representative institutions. Iran, though ideologically authoritarian and possessing the dictatorial office of jurisprudent, is a republic with a parliament and an electoral process. Saudi Arabia strictly forbids female participation in the public realm, whereas Iran leaves some space for women in this regard.
Given these comparisons, it would seem that, in terms of institutions and their potential for “democratic evolution,” the Islamic Republic in Iran has much more to recommend it to the West than does Saudi Arabia. Why then, one might ask, is the United States so much more hostile to Iran than to Saudi Arabia?
***
For decades, the United States supported the shah’s monarchy in Iran and continued to do so even after it was clear that it was unpopular, corrupt, and oppressive. When the shah was overthrown, the fundamentalists who took power identified the United States with the deposed government. The new Iranian government’s predictable hostility made difficult any reconciliation between the two powers and fueled continued American animosity.
Indeed, the U.S. supports virtually all of the dictatorial monarchies in the Arab Gulf.
And, of course, there is oil and pipelines play a big part.
Postscript: By way of background, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister.
If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over. (Moreover, the U.S. has had a large hand in strengthening radical Islam in the Middle East by supporting radicals to fight the Soviets and others).
8 Comments on "The REAL Reason Saudi Arabia Hates Iran"
paulo1 on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 7:39 am
I always thought it was because Iranian women are better looking.
Can’t rewrite history and pick your outcomes. Who knows, it all could have been worse?
Maybe the western powers should have just officially moved in after WW2?
Wouldacouldashoulda drum being pounded in this article,imho.
frankthetank on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 8:52 am
I’d bet a ham sandwich that once Saudi Arabia runs out of oil/exports start dropping towards zero *as they continue to use more of their own product* the US will drop them like a sack of potatoes. When that occurs i have no idea..but it will.
joe on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 9:20 am
Why does America oppose Iran? Because hegemonic republics are terrified of other republics. Ancient Rome built a Republic which Iran has almost copied exactly where temporal power is elected (people’s representation) and spiritual leadership in the hands of a religious junta (a copy of the imperial role), which keeps them in control but able to be aloof from too much criticism, it’s also how they can permit female participation while maintaining a ‘patricy’ (my invention,) in an Islamic society (Rome btw, strictly enforced the wearing of the veil and moderate dress and women were the sole property of men, without any rights whatsoever, this was also the case in Ancient Greece).
Ancient Athens always created monarchies on the borders of its trading empire, as it keeps them safe from other vibrant and motivated cultures. Bush 2 always said ‘if there’s a problem in Europe I wish there was just one guy I could call’ when asked about the creation of an EU presidency. But the US wouldn’t care how that guy would rule as long as he supports US interests and goals.
Basically there is basic anthropological reasons dress up in orwellian words like ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’, but it’s probobly more to do with hypocrisy and fear. Obama to be fair has done more than any US president to create the path for real change, but these policies will be forgotten on the bumpy plateau of peak oil, spiralling down to the end of modern globalist crapitalism.
makati1 on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 9:54 am
Joe, “… Obama to be fair has done more than any US president to create the path for real change,”
Examples and references please. I have not seen one positive change in the last 7 years, or the last 15. Promises, YES. With a liberal pile of DC bullshit on top, but no positive results. All I have seen is less freedom, more taxes(Obamacare), war, financial mismanagement, cronyism, lies, etc.
In the middle on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 8:49 pm
Right on Makati
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Fri, 9th Oct 2015 11:01 pm
Support the Arab Sunni’s for a while as in Iran-Iraq war, then slip the Iranians some weapons and support the Shiite Persians for a bit. Support KSA for a while until they get low on oil and big on Jihad, then flip it around and increase support for the Iranian Republic while dialing down on the Sunni Monarchs. Promote a little sectarian violence among the various sects of Islam. Bleed both sides. Rinse. Repeat. The last thing USA needs is a Eurasian transcontinental empire, from the Baltic to the Pacific and from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean. Best keep them fragmented, a shatter belt and warring among themselves.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Sat, 10th Oct 2015 3:36 am
I’ll bet Humus and a Third Enchilada that Hamas calls for a Third Intifada.
theedrich on Sat, 10th Oct 2015 4:26 am
Joe wrote: “Rome btw, strictly enforced the wearing of the veil and moderate dress and women were the sole property of men, without any rights whatsoever…”
Quid dicis, stultissime? Where on earth do you get your funny ideas about ancient Rome? There were a few sporadic attempts by Octavianus to bring back what he deemed had been the “old Roman virtues,” but they came to absolutely nothing. Yes, women were legally chattels of their fathers and husbands — until the husbands died. But they had far more freedom than the females of, say, ancient Judæa or anything in the Semitic or Aryan East. (The Græco-Roman word, “βάρβαροι/barbari, by the way, originally referred to the Persians.) Like most of the other things you mention, this statement too is pulled out of the wrong orifice.