Saudis see no military threat from Gulf News

Saudis see no military threat
While the US is of the opinion that a nuclear arms race is possible, Riyadh believes that the danger posed by Iran is political

* By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
* Published: May 13, 2010
*

* While the Americans see the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as a definite threat to the Arab states in the Gulf, there is a new strand of political analysis in Saudi Arabia that challenges this view as being too militaristic.

Saudi foreign policy has become more confident over the years, with Riyadh articulating the Arab Peace Initiative, brokering deals in Lebanon and trying to mediate in Palestine. However, Riyadh has not previously dared to take on Washington head to head, despite numerous private differences. Given this, it is interesting that a public debate has begun in Saudi Arabia, with newspapers questioning the American logic that sees Iran as a military threat to the kingdom and its Arab neighbours.

While the Americans see the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as a definite threat to the Arab states in the Gulf, there is a new strand of political analysis in Saudi Arabia that challenges this view as being too militaristic. Instead, they see the threat from Iran as far more political, being articulated through its influence on the ground and support for dissident groups. Adherents to this view believe that Iran will not become more of a threat if it acquires nuclear weapons.

There is a simplistic and dangerous assumption in Washington that if Iran develops these weapons, some kind of Middle East nuclear arms race will follow. The debate in America has narrowed down to focus entirely on sanctions versus military action, and has excluded engagement as an option. Despite is initial commitment to engagement, the Obama administration has abandoned this option and is trying to win support for sanctions from substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. It wants to confront Iran, and will not consider engagement as even a remote possibility.

The belief that an arms race is a possibility is based on the experience of the past few decades in Europe, and not on the reality of what has happened in the Middle East. In Europe, a balance of nuclear power managed to preserve the peace between the Communists and Nato, but this model does not apply to the Middle East — where Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades without any Arab rush to weaponise, despite numerous wars and long-term hostilities.

Soft power

There is widespread agreement in Saudi Arabia with the American view that Iran is a threat, but not that it is a military threat. The Al Watan newspaper recently started a debate by arguing that while Saudi Arabia is justified in taking a firmly anti-Iranian line in terms of foreign policy, there is no real military threat. Gregory Gause of the University of Vermont summarised the debate saying that "it is Iranian political influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine that worries the Saudis, not the prospect of the use of Iranian military force. The Saudis see the Iranian threat to the Gulf states as centred in Iran's power to mobilise support among [Shiite] sympathisers in those states, not in the prospect of an Iranian missile attack or amphibious landing on the Arab shore of the Gulf".

He is clear that the Saudi perspective on Iranian regional power is much more accurate than either Obama's or Clinton's. He disagrees that it is military power that gives Iran any regional influence, and argues that this stems instead from political links to powerful actors in states in which the central government is weak. These links are based, to varying degrees, on a mixture of shared ideology, sectarian affiliation, common antipathy to the US and Israel, and short-term self-interests — not Iranian military power.

"I doubt that nuclear weapons will make that much difference, one way or another, in Iran's regional influence, because nuclear weapons will not change the nature of Iran's relations with its sub-state allies in the Arab world," Gause says.

As this unusually open debate continues in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh is officially calling for a peaceful way forward. When the Saudi delegation to the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington gave its view on April 13, Prince Muqrin Bin Abdul Aziz, President of General Intelligence Presidency and head of the Saudi delegation, focused on the need for a nuclear-free Middle East, and listed how Saudi Arabia has worked to support that aim.

He made clear, however, that Riyadh does not support the idea of a confrontation with Iran. "Saudi Arabia welcomes the international endeavours to find a peaceful solution to this crisis through dialogue in such a way as to guarantee the right of Iran and other states in the region to the peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the procedural safeguards, and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We hope that Iran will respond to these endeavours in order to put an end to the crisis as soon as possible."

The Saudi emphasis on finding a peaceful solution clashes with the increasingly tough rhetoric from Washington. It may be that the Saudi and Gulf view in favour of engagement will be ignored by the Americans. Successive administrations have taken this approach to several Gulf issues, following their own wishes — to the great embarrassment of the Gulf states. However, stubbornly forging ahead will not make American policy any more appropriate, or likely to succeed.