Tehran, Riyadh Need Minimum Understanding
The government of Saudi Arabia has introduced Abdul-Rahman al-Shahri, the head of the Security Office of the Foreign Ministry, as its ambassador to Iran. This is while he is known as a security individual and was involved in numerous cases including the assassination of Khalaf al-Ali, a Saudi diplomat in Bangladesh, and the committee to find those responsible for the death of 4 Saudis in Niger. What impacts would the selection of a security ambassador have on relations between Tehran and Riyadh and will it transform the diplomatic relations into a security one?
Recently, there have been numerous media reports, official and unofficial, against Saudi Arabia to the extent that they have even related the killing of Mohammad Shatah to this country. I do not intend to say that what happens in Saudi Arabia is approved, for there is also an improper atmosphere in that country. Both sides must feel the need to improve bilateral relations because good relations would be to the benefit of both Iran and Saudi Arabia and cold relations would damage both. With regard to the selection of the new ambassador, I must say that an ambassador who is introduced to a country must be approved by the host country. He must be a strong and influential person in his home country in order to be able to improve the cold relations. He must be able to return the good relations which existed between Iran and Saudi Arabia during the presidencies of Mr. Hashemi and Mr. Khatami. Other issues such as his security background are not major issues.
One of the assumptions that have been made in this regard is that the tension which exists between Tehran and Riyadh has caused Saudi Arabia to seek solutions for the differences including the issues of Syria and Lebanon. Do you believe that Saudi Arabia intends to reduce the tension between the two countries considering the positions which it has taken against Iran especially regarding the issue of Syria?
I feel that incompatibility exists in both countries. Of course, Mr. Zarif talked about asking to meet with the Saudi officials but due to certain conditions this visit was not made possible due to the physical conditions of King Abdullah. Diplomatically it was natural that this visit would not be made. With regard to the ambassador, I must say that the former ambassadors of Saudi Arabia were either university professors or Shiite or from influential departments of the Foreign Ministry under Saud al-Faisal. I do not know what will happen in the future. The relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are not suitable right now. I can only hope that the appointment of the new ambassador would lead to the resolution of the differences. If the issues between Iran and Saudi Arabia are diplomatically resolved, then all of the other issues of the region including Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria will also be resolved. Reaching an understanding in the common interests and being satisfied with the minimum interests will solve many of the issues but I do not know what impacts the appointment of the new ambassador would have on the regional issues in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The ambassador enforces the general policies of the country, whether security or otherwise. General policies of both countries must be changed so that the ambassadors would be able to carry them out.
It has been stated that the suicide attacks in Lebanon were carried out by Saudi Arabia to create religious and ethnic differences. This country intends to exert pressures on Iran and Hezbollah so that they would stop their support of Assad’s government. Will these measures be effective in this regard?
There is no doubt that differences are created between the Shiites and the Sunnis in the region. But it is not clear whether Saudi Arabia and Iran are behind this matter or not. They claim that Iran supports the Shiites and Saudi Arabia supports the Sunnis. But these mattes must be carefully studied. Iran and Saudi Arabia must pursue a diplomatic path in order to reduce the tensions in the region. But their success is not certain because the enemies of the region will do their utmost to intensify these differences.
Following the incidents in Lebanon, Majed al-Majed, the leader of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, was arrested and later suspiciously died. Some accuse Saudi Arabia of supporting these operations and killing al-Majed so that he would not be able to give security information to the Lebanese government. What is the reason behind such accusations and is Saudi Arabia directly involved in these matters?
One must distance himself from the propaganda atmosphere to be able to better judge these matters. The media of the other side claim that Majed al-Majed was present in Iran after Afghanistan and our media states that the Saudi security apparatus was involved in these operations in the region and in supporting Majed al-Majed. This is while Majed al-Majed is named on the wanted list of Saudi Arabia who had fled Lebanon. It is difficult to say whether the Saudi security apparatus was really involved in these matters or not. Time is needed to reach a conclusion. But what we see is that both sides are making statements against each other. The Lebanese officials have said that the death of Majed al- Majed was not suspicious. These officials are the ones who are more under the influence of Hezbollah than the March 14th alliance. Therefore, when it is officially and strongly stated that his death was not suspicious, it is not right to make propaganda about his suspicious death because this would bring the Lebanese government under question.
The Russian President has recently taken harsh positions against Saudi Arabia and has called it a terrorist country. Are these positions due to the suicide attacks which took place in Russia and the region?
This is an old issue. Saudi Arabia has always been blamed for problems in Chechnya. Donations are openly collected in Saudi Friday prayers. The relations between Saudi Arabia and Russia have changed and their differences have now become more intense. On the other hand, some statements are sometimes exaggerated. The statement made by Mr. Putin was not reported by all media and Saudi Arabia’s reaction was not official either, as there was a report of a meeting between Putin and Bandar. The issue of differences between Russia and Saudi Arabia is related to Riyadh’s support of those who carry out armed struggles against Russia but whether these issues will be diplomatically resolved or not is another issue.
During recent days, there have been clashes between the Iraqi army and a group called Daesh. This group, which carries out suicide and terrorist attacks, is claimed to be supported by Saudi Arabia. Why should Saudi Arabia support such terrorist groups? Does it support it to fight against Iran and Syria?
What is claimed has not been proven. Saudi media harshly attacks this group to the extent that they claim that Daesh is secretly strengthened by Iran to fight against Syrian Mujahedeen. These claims cannot be credited. Daesh was present in Iraq before these incidents and then entered Syria. The issue of terrorism was created in Iraq following the US intervention and was sometimes strengthened and sometimes weakened. I also believe that the approach of the government of Mr. Maleki is also questionable. Maleki’s action with regard to the parliament representative and the killing of his brother and his arrest without any legal process and destroying the tents and the arrest of those who had staged a sit-in have also impacted the present conditions. According to Iraq’s constitution, the parliament must first dismiss a representative and then he can be arrested. Mr. Maleki has mixed the issue of terrorism with people’s protests which has led the terrorist groups to take advantage of the people’s dissatisfaction and carry out numerous attacks. If millions of dollars were given to this terrorist group, it would not have equaled the number of arms which they collected from the army bases. Capturing the police stations and army bases will damage Iraq. The government of al-Maleki has taken proper steps against the terrorists but it has not acted properly with regard to people’s dissatisfactions.
Some consider these incidents to be supported by Saudi Arabia and in reaction to the Geneva Agreement. Saudi Arabia feels threatened and pursues any path to show itself as the big brother of the Arab states and also a regional power. Would you agree with such an assessment?
Although Saudi Arabia welcomed this agreement in an official statement, the media reports its dissatisfaction with regard to this issue. Now two paths could be pursued in dealing with these positions; dissatisfaction could be responded to with dissatisfaction or with a request for a visit as Mr. Zarif did. We must not take measures to enflame the situation and further damage the relations. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has damaged its relations with Iran but this should not be regarded as an element to cut relations with this country. Once, when the Iranians were killed in Saudi Arabia, the relations between the countries were completely cut off but after some time both sides understood that it is to their benefits to establish reasonable relations. Having reasonable relations does not mean that we should melt in Saudi Arabia and vice versa. We must safeguard our interests while stating our positions.