Ayatollahs and sheikhs and even rabbis decided to get down to business

Let's leave old disputes for tomorrow

The restoration of diplomatic ties and economic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia (SA), which took place recently, can be considered historical event. And it is by no means accidental that the Western media are diligently pushing him to the last lines of the political agenda.

Recall that the length of the era of fierce rivalry for the predominant influence of the main Islamic denominations in the Muslim world - Sunnis and Shiites - is measured in centuries. In fact, since the founding of Islam. At the same time, both of them traditionally accused each other of ties with Israel that contradicted Muslim postulates.

Year after year, this rivalry was personified by the main outposts of both faiths - Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran. Even in the 1930s-mid-1970s, when Riyadh and Tehran were both military and political allies of the United States and the West in general, the struggle between them for the "leadership" of Islam did not subside.

Plus OPEC

Similarly, the eternal struggle for dominance in the Islamic world did not stop. Slightly reconciled only purely business interests. So, it was Riyadh and Tehran that were the main initiators of the creation of OPEC in 1960.

However, their political and ideological rivalry was and is also manifested in this structure, therefore both of them often had to use the mediation of a number of other member countries in it. To prevent the collapse of the organization.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq (in 1983–1992 and 1995–2001) Tariq Aziz noted, “if Iran and the Saudis with their Arabian allies in the 60s and later could not involve OPEC in their global contradictions, OPEC could well to control the entire world oil market.

And even dictate their terms to the West and other oil suppliers.” But Tehran and Riyadh preferred "sometimes not official, but still confrontation in OPEC, in which Iraq often also participated - at first in favor of the Saudis, and from the mid-1970s to 1979 - in favor of Tehran."

Because of these excesses, according to T. Aziz, all Arab oil countries in 1968 were "insured" by the creation of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is still in force today.

Is Islam moving closer?

Now, however, that rivalry seems to be fading away. Since it is obvious that the Iranian-Saudi reconciliation is aimed precisely at the global, one might say, transnational consolidation of the Islamic world. And in this regard, it is possible that the Saudi authorities may even expel the US Air Force base in Es-Sulaimania from the country - especially since it is near Riyadh ...

In the meantime, a new signal of pan-Islamic consolidation has already been indicated at the suggestion of Riyadh and Tehran. This is the previously seemingly impossible normalization of relations between “pro-Iranian” Syria and Saudi Arabia, as well as with other “pro-Saudi” Arabian monarchies.

And this happens, we note, soon after the Iranian-Saudi reconciliation. The mentioned trends will certainly have a significant impact on the global oil market. For surges in world oil prices were by no means the least due to the long-term Iranian-Saudi confrontation.

It is also characteristic in this regard that almost simultaneously with the Iranian-Saudi normalization, Riyadh and Tel Aviv de facto agreed on the use of the trans-Israeli oil pipeline from the port of Eilat (Red Sea) to the port of Ashkelon (Mediterranean Sea) for the transit of Saudi oil.

Black gold will go through Ashkelon to Europe, North and South America. According to available estimates, this route will allow Saudi Arabia to increase oil exports by at least 20%.

The route is known

This export route to the West for Arabian and Iranian oil is the shortest and, accordingly, the least expensive. Therefore, Tehran's monarchical regime actively used this artery for almost the entire 1970s: up to a third of Iranian oil exports at that time accounted for pumping along the Eilat-Ashkelon route.

Since 2021, the same pipeline, we recall, has been used for oil transit from the UAE; some foreign media reported that since the beginning of the 2020s. oil is periodically pumped for export from Bahrain and Oman. There were no official denials.

The first and geopolitically most important export trans-Arabian oil pipeline for Riyadh was created by Western companies (mainly American) at the turn of the 1940s–1950s. - to the southern Lebanese port of Saida. Due to military-political circumstances, this artery has not been operating since the mid-70s.

Although it was reported in the Israeli media in the 80s and much later that Saudi oil is still sometimes pumped here. Just business, nothing personal. And yet, in connection with the mentioned agreements on Saudi oil transit through Eilat-Ashkelon, it is difficult to assume that the artery to Saida will no longer be used by Ryad.

In this regard, it is impossible not to recall - from her since the beginning of the 50s. there is a branch - from the Jordanian region bordering Israel - to the northern Israeli port of Haifa (near the border with Lebanon). This city has a large oil refinery that refines Arabian oil. In addition, the Saida refinery is still controlled by the Saudi ARAMCO.

Not holy ground

Here it remains to mention only the oil pipeline "bypasses" of Palestine, created by the Saudis in the 1980s. and by the beginning of the 2010s to the ports of Saudi Arabia on the Red Sea (Jeddah, Yanbo) - taking into account further sea delivery to the West - longer than the "pipes" to Ashkelon, Haifa, Said.

There is no doubt that this is also why the Saudi side will certainly use all these arteries in the future. The normalization of Iranian-Saudi relations may not exclude the resumption - that is, the promising transit of Iranian oil through the SA along the route Eilat - Ashkelon. Moreover, that normalization took place, we repeat, almost simultaneously with the agreements between Riyadh and Tel Aviv on oil transit along the same route.

It should be noted that since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the only "oil export" route for Iran has been a kind of bottleneck of the Strait of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Needless to say, it is most vulnerable in the context of Iran's permanent confrontation with the West, especially with the United States.

In connection with these factors, it can be assumed that Riyadh - probably at the suggestion of Tehran - will in some form contribute to easing tensions between Iran and Israel. Especially given the indefinite economic benefits for all - we note, from the transit of oil through Saudi Arabia and Israel from any country in the region.

This scenario is also supported by the fact that Iran and Turkey have not yet agreed on the construction of an oil pipeline from Iran to any Turkish Mediterranean port. At the same time, negotiations "on the topic" have been periodically conducted for many years.

The Turkish side proposes to connect a pipe from Iran in the south-east of Turkey to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan port oil pipeline, controlled by the BP company, British Petroleum, well known to Russians. But the Iranian side is in favor of "independent" Iranian oil transportation through Turkey.

How is it possible today, in the context of the global confrontation "all against all", to evaluate the oil transit agreements between Riyadh and Tel Aviv and the normalization of Iranian-Saudi relations?

Most likely, positively, especially since they were implemented almost simultaneously and go far beyond the framework of the "triangle" Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iran.

Comments

[Lech from Android.]

It’s like death for the Iranians to cling to the British pipe ... the Anglo-Saxons will unambiguously screw them up.

[populist]

Good review. It is interesting to tell about the little-known ways of pumping oil and the relations of the Middle Eastern states connected with them. Only the assumption of easing between Iran and Israel is unlikely to come true.

[bayard]

Iran will soon pump its oil through Syria. And if he scores on the European market, then he does not need these pipes to the Mediterranean Sea for nothing.
But for the Saudis, such a pipeline is important.

[far diu]

One fig Syria is an unstable country.

[combin23]

Here it is important to think carefully about what such an alliance gives Russia, its pluses and minuses?

[HattinGokbori88]

The claim that Saudi Arabia represents "Sunni Islam" is a common Western misconception. “Shiites and Sunnis are the name of two opposite religious and political movements” is also a historically incorrect idea. Ukraine and Russia may be at war now, but this does not mean that these 2 countries were born rivals.

Let's first know a short history - Shiism was a specific political movement, the opposite movement of Shiism was called Kharezi, which was also strong and numerous. These 2 groups are used to fighting. Most Muslims did not participate in these conflicts and viewed these 2 groups as an extremist minority. Therefore, when during the turmoil within the Muslim empire, the number of various kinds of groups/sects (Shia, Khareji, Mu'tazils, Batenis, etc.) began to increase during the turmoil within the Muslim empire, the majority of Muslims began to identify themselves as Sunnis (full name "Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat" means "those who follow the prophetic traditions and follow the opinion of the majority") to differentiate themselves from all these groups.

However, Kharesis soon lost in the conflict with the Shiites and died out. The Shiites survived and even managed to take over Egypt after the Muslim empire became very weak after the 1st Crusade. Even though today's Iranian Shiites are not the same type of Shiites who became the ruler of Egypt, Shiism generally survived while most other sects died out, probably due to the extraordinary efforts of Egypt's Shiite rulers.

But even at that time, Shiites barely made up 1% of the Muslim population. Fast forward to 1500 AD and Iran had a new emperor, Ismail I. He didn't look like the old, typical Iranian ruler. He was a Persian ultra-nationalist and wanted to bring the known world under Persian rule. He (and his followers) largely viewed Islam as an inferiority/disease brought to the great Persian civilization by the "inferior Arabs" who tainted Persian civilization. But he also knew it was too late to remove Islam from Persia. Also, during his struggle against the Osmeins (Turkish-dominated Ottomans, another "inferior race"), he faced a moral challenge among his soldiers and the general population. Although the Osmains held the title of "Caliph" for some time, they never enjoyed the level of power and recognition of the post-Mongolian fragmented Muslim world. But still, many Iranians viewed them as defenders of the faith and felt uncomfortable with the brutal fight against them. In addition, many of Ismail I's troops were Persianized Turks (Turks/Tatars who had begun using Farsi as their Primani language) and he suspected their loyalty in his upcoming campaigns. Therefore, in order to correct these problems and restore a unique Persian identity, he wanted to create a highly Persian version of Islam that would be different from the Islam followed by his rivals (Arabs, Turks). After some deliberation, he chose the Twelfth Shiism. The Twelfth Shiism was in fact perfect for its purpose; he was unique in his beliefs in Shia sects, he was followed by very few people, so he had fewer connections with mainstream Muslims, and Twelfth Shiism had no political influence in Arabia (unlike the Ismaili Shiites, who were then the largest sect and quite influential ) therefore he had no attachment to Arabia. So he brought most of the leading Twelver Shia scholars to Iran, convinced them to make some changes to their ideology, such as lifting the ban on Twelver Shiites from participating in politics and establishing a lot of anti-Sunni hatred and deep Persian nationalism. As soon as he converted the remaining elites and military, he launched his campaigns and gave the entire population of Iran and Azerbaijan two choices - either conversion to this new ideology or death (expulsion was also allowed in some cases). This is how the Shiites have now become 10% of the Muslim population.

One way or another, yes, Iran with its history, government, politics, power and population can be called a representative of Shiism. Even the Shiites themselves admit this. But Saudi Arabia (a country created by the UK) has never been representative of the Sunnis, no famous Muslim scholar/historian claims this. There are 49-50 countries where Muslims are the majority. And apart from Iran, Azerbaijan and Bahrain, they all follow regular (Sunni) Islam. It is impossible even to officially represent such a diverse population by a sparsely populated pro-Western country. But even unofficially, Saudi Arabia has never been like that. The last representative of the Sunnis was the Ottoman Empire and after their fall (in which the Saudi ruling family helped) the Muslims offered the title to the Saudi rulers (although many of them were aware of their history). The Saudi rulers flatly refused to become the leader of the Sunni Muslims because they themselves are not mainstream Sunnis, they are Salafis (and now, after 100 years of effort, most Saudi people are now Salafis too). So Saudi Arabia is the leader of the "Sunni Muslims" only on Western papers, and not in reality, not a single Sunni scholar calls them as such. Saudi Arabia is an oil-rich, pro-Western country that acts as Israel's right-hand man, that's all.

So let's call it what the deal really is. It was a deal between the western colony in Arabia - Israel and the future ruler of the Middle East Iran. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[IgorZ]

"How is it possible today, in the context of the global confrontation "all against all", to evaluate the oil transit agreements between Riyadh and Tel Aviv and the normalization of Iranian-Saudi relations?"
Of course, it is sweet for us to dream of a "global confrontation" of "all against all"", but so far we have a global confrontation between the West and Russia. Moreover, Western sanctions are supported by almost all countries of the world, including China, this is a global confrontation! Meanwhile, Iran is negotiating with Saudi Arabia, and now a little bit with Israel. Long live Russian diplomacy, which recently had a great, great, great talk with the leader of China. Those who came to pat our president on the shoulder, but who forgot to give him a hand when they met.

[HattinGokbori88]

Russia must work with others to ensure that oil and gas prices remain as high as possible. It should then invest more in establishing a proper deep state, maintaining information control, building advanced missile technology and nuclear weapons, increasing foreign intelligence activity (especially in third world countries) and domestic surveillance, increasing funding for education and research, etc.
Russia is doing a good job in North Africa. There is an opportunity to do more in Asia. He must be pragmatic to get what he wants. The US was happy to help the "Holy Mujahideen" in Afghanistan and send money to Pakistani President Ziaul Haq when they were at war with the Soviet Union. But that didn't stop the US from also declaring a "holy crusade" against these Mujahideen and killing Ziaul Haq when they were no longer needed.

[Viktior Vinland]

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are very specific countries in a peculiar region, whose representatives solve their own specific tasks.

This kind of primitive level of analytics, like that of the author of this note, is completely unacceptable, and then the question arises why write such an article, especially on a site dedicated to military issues.

In order to specifically understand what is there and how it is necessary to know these countries and the processes taking place there very well. This requires at least smart and competent experts.

A simpler question, which, however, also requires intelligence, may be what does this mean for Russia in the current situation and in the geopolitical sense?

I can express my opinion on my own that in this case it seems that the ayatollahs, being controlled by the French, are negotiating behind Russia's back with Israel and the United States, the Little Lilliputian will soon whimper about another stab in the back if he lives.
And this despite the fact that Russia has brought soldiers into Syria and is waging war, and cunning mullahs are dragging chestnuts from the fire of the Syrian war for themselves by the hands of Russian soldiers. Another defeat of Russian foreign policy is being prepared.
Another fiasco of the policy of thieving nits, who betrayed our Soviet Motherland and destroyed and stole most of the Soviet property, is looming.

It can also be assumed that Washington, which itself created tension in the region in order to be in demand there and do its own thing, is now untying its hands in the face of the approaching war with Russia, perhaps they are dropping this region in a sense, just as they dropped Afghanistan. For a while. Or delegate management in the region to their proteges.

[Persia]

Iran is the only smart and capable geopolitical power in that region after all they invented chess , when iran created Hezbollah in reaction to israel attacks on Lebanon, everyone was making fun of them and calling them delusional, because they were already in war with Iraq yet the were willing to send their commandos to teach Lebanese how to be partisan force, it is worth knowing the word partisan derived from preferred military strategy of Parthian Empire ( second Persian Empire) so iranian are master of this strategy . on that time no one could imagine a relatively small Lebanese group but well-trained by iranian could achieve so many successes such as forcing both France and USA to leave Lebanon and defeat Israel who was able to defeat United arabs from different countries
Iranian were also able to dominate Iraq despite US trillions spending to prevent that from becoming a reality
in syria too Iran and Russia were able to reach their goals despite the opposition of basically the rest of the world
Iran also by presenting themselves as protector of Muslims and more generally oppressed people by stand against Israel and imperialist such as US and European in the time that all Arab rulers were sellouts, bars were low and Iran managed to get consent from Arabs to be their hegemon despite being Persian and Shia Iran were able to show a neutral face by helping sunni Palestinian and suni kurd against Israel and ISIS ( Banned in Russia ) respectively
basically Iran won every and each one of geopolitical battles against USA,ARABS,European form yeman to Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria and Lebanon iran achieved its goal despite the odds, due to this fact that Former State Department Official said : Iran Playing 3-D Chess While US Plays Checkers

[Fangaro]

Quote: HattinGokbori88

The claim that Saudi Arabia represents "Sunni Islam" is a common Western misconception. “Shiites and Sunnis are the name of two opposite religious and political movements” is also a historically incorrect idea. Ukraine and Russia may be at war now, but this does not mean that these 2 countries were born rivals.

Let's first know a short history - Shiism was a specific political movement, the opposite movement of Shiism was called Kharezi, which was also strong and numerous. These 2 groups are used to fighting. Most Muslims did not participate in these conflicts and viewed these 2 groups as an extremist minority. Therefore, when during the turmoil within the Muslim empire, the number of various kinds of groups/sects (Shia, Khareji, Mu'tazils, Batenis, etc.) began to increase during the turmoil within the Muslim empire, the majority of Muslims began to identify themselves as Sunnis (full name "Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat" means "those who follow the prophetic traditions and follow the opinion of the majority") to differentiate themselves from all these groups.

However, Kharesis soon lost in the conflict with the Shiites and died out. The Shiites survived and even managed to take over Egypt after the Muslim empire became very weak after the 1st Crusade. Even though today's Iranian Shiites are not the same type of Shiites who became the ruler of Egypt, Shiism generally survived while most other sects died out, probably due to the extraordinary efforts of Egypt's Shiite rulers.

But even at that time, Shiites barely made up 1% of the Muslim population. Fast forward to 1500 AD and Iran had a new emperor, Ismail I. He didn't look like the old, typical Iranian ruler. He was a Persian ultra-nationalist and wanted to bring the known world under Persian rule. He (and his followers) largely viewed Islam as an inferiority/disease brought to the great Persian civilization by the "inferior Arabs" who tainted Persian civilization. But he also knew it was too late to remove Islam from Persia. Also, during his struggle against the Osmeins (Turkish-dominated Ottomans, another "inferior race"), he faced a moral challenge among his soldiers and the general population. Although the Osmains held the title of "Caliph" for some time, they never enjoyed the level of power and recognition of the post-Mongolian fragmented Muslim world. But still, many Iranians viewed them as defenders of the faith and felt uncomfortable with the brutal fight against them. In addition, many of Ismail I's troops were Persianized Turks (Turks/Tatars who had begun using Farsi as their Primani language) and he suspected their loyalty in his upcoming campaigns. Therefore, in order to correct these problems and restore a unique Persian identity, he wanted to create a highly Persian version of Islam that would be different from the Islam followed by his rivals (Arabs, Turks). After some deliberation, he chose the Twelfth Shiism. The Twelfth Shiism was in fact perfect for its purpose; he was unique in his beliefs in Shia sects, he was followed by very few people, so he had fewer connections with mainstream Muslims, and Twelfth Shiism had no political influence in Arabia (unlike the Ismaili Shiites, who were then the largest sect and quite influential ) therefore he had no attachment to Arabia. So he brought most of the leading Twelver Shia scholars to Iran, convinced them to make some changes to their ideology, such as lifting the ban on Twelver Shiites from participating in politics and establishing a lot of anti-Sunni hatred and deep Persian nationalism. As soon as he converted the remaining elites and military, he launched his campaigns and gave the entire population of Iran and Azerbaijan two choices - either conversion to this new ideology or death (expulsion was also allowed in some cases). This is how the Shiites have now become 10% of the Muslim population.

One way or another, yes, Iran with its history, government, politics, power and population can be called a representative of Shiism. Even the Shiites themselves admit this. But Saudi Arabia (a country created by the UK) has never been representative of the Sunnis, no famous Muslim scholar/historian claims this. There are 49-50 countries where Muslims are the majority. And apart from Iran, Azerbaijan and Bahrain, they all follow regular (Sunni) Islam. It is impossible even to officially represent such a diverse population by a sparsely populated pro-Western country. But even unofficially, Saudi Arabia has never been like that. The last representative of the Sunnis was the Ottoman Empire and after their fall (in which the Saudi ruling family helped) the Muslims offered the title to the Saudi rulers (although many of them were aware of their history). The Saudi rulers flatly refused to become the leader of the Sunni Muslims because they themselves are not mainstream Sunnis, they are Salafis (and now, after 100 years of effort, most Saudi people are now Salafis too). So Saudi Arabia is the leader of the "Sunni Muslims" only on Western papers, and not in reality, not a single Sunni scholar calls them as such. Saudi Arabia is an oil-rich, pro-Western country that acts as Israel's right-hand man, that's all.

So let's call it what the deal really is. It was a deal between the western colony in Arabia - Israel and the future ruler of the Middle East Iran. Religion has nothing to do with it.

You expressed your opinion in such detail that the thought arose that this was not a person, but ChatGPT naklatsal. But the logic of a person, not an algorithm.

But, damn it, what if AI?