De-escalation between Tehran and Riyadh; Alarming For Washington.
Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, in an article examined the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to resume relations. The following are parts of this article. Although the de-escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran with China’s mediation is not as impressive as Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972, Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem in 1977, or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, if this agreement remains, it will be almost It will be big. In particular, it will be a wake-up call for the Biden administration and the rest of the US foreign policy establishment, as it seriously jeopardizes Washington’s long-standing policy in the Middle East, which has been self-inflicted. This agreement also validates China’s effort to present an image of this country as a mediator of peace in the world; A responsibility that America has widely abandoned in recent years.
How did China complete the agreement?
Efforts to reduce the tension between Riyadh and Tehran had been going on for some time, but China was able to take the lead and help the parties to reach an agreement. The reason for this mediation is the significant economic prosperity of this country, which has given them a more prominent role in the Middle East. In addition, China was able to act as a mediator between Iran and Saudi Arabia because it has friendly trade relations with most of the countries in the region. China has diplomatic relations and does business with all parties in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Persian Gulf countries, and even Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria.
With this method, a superpower strengthens its leverage more and more; Such a country clearly declares that if others are willing to cooperate, that country is also keen to establish relations, and the relations of that country with others are a reminder that the said country has other options on the table beside you.
On the other hand, America has “special relations” with some countries in the Middle East and has no relation with others, especially with “Iran.” The result is that dependent governments such as Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia consider America’s support as their inalienable right and address Washington’s concerns with a kind of naked contempt; Whether it is the concern of human rights issues in Egypt, the Saudi war in Yemen, or the long and cruel Israeli operations to colonize and occupy the West Bank. At the same time, most of the fruitless efforts to isolate and overthrow the Islamic Republic have basically reduced Washington’s ability to shape the approaches, measures and diplomatic path of this country to zero. This policy, which is the product of the ceaseless efforts of the American-Israeli Public Relations Committee, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as well as the wealthy lobbyists of Arab governments, is probably the most obvious example of “spontaneous goals” in contemporary American diplomacy. In effect, Washington has opened the stage for Beijing to offer its organs by demonstrating its inability to advance peace or justice in the region.
In addition, the Saudi-Iranian agreement highlights another dimension of the emerging Sino-American rivalry: Do others see Washington as the best guide for the future world order, or has China earned such a position?
Due to Washington’s prominent role in the world since 1945, Americans have become accustomed to the assumption that most countries will follow them even when they themselves have doubts about what they are doing. China is likely to change this equation and present itself as a more likely source of peace, and stability is key to Beijing’s efforts in this direction.
Most governments want peace as a rule and do not want foreigners to interfere in their affairs and show them the way. In the last 30 years, the United States has repeatedly announced that other governments should follow a set of liberal principles (elections, rule of law, human rights, a market economy, etc.) and join various institutions under the guidance of the United States. America’s definition of “world order” is briefly this: Washington is gradually leading the whole world towards prosperity and a peaceful and liberal future. Democratic and Republican presidents have used different means to advance this goal and have resorted to military power occasionally to overthrow dictators and accelerate the process.
Of course, the results they have obtained have not been very beautiful and colorful: costly occupations, failed governments, new terrorist movements and groups, the increasing cooperation of the violated governments, and human disasters.
We should also include Russia’s military attack on Ukraine in this list; So far, Moscow’s decision to attack Kyiv has been, at least in part, a reaction to America’s efforts to include Ukraine in NATO. While these goals may sound good on paper, the results have been mostly disastrous.
China, however, has adopted a different approach. They have not been involved in any actual war since 1979 and have repeatedly pledged national sovereignty and non-intervention. Obviously, this position has been in line with the country’s interests to the extent that it has deflected criticism of Beijing’s so-called unpleasant activities in the field of human rights. Even if these claims and criticisms are true, it is easy to imagine that autocrats are more comfortable with China’s approach and prefer it to America’s tendency to always resort to war.
In addition, most countries of the world often consider war to be harmful to their trade and believe that this phenomenon frequently overshadows their interests. They don’t want the rivalry between the superpowers to get out of control because they believe that the battle and conflict between China and the US.
