A Tale of Oil and Fire: The Saudi-Iran Conflict

This is the complete edition of a 4 Part Series. See below for the separate sections:

1. Genesis
2. Revolutions & Revelations
3. A Furious Crescendo
4. Meditations

What happens when you mix religion, oil, and foreign interventions?

Of course you know – The Middle East.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at odds for decades now, but it isn’t so much their citizens who have felt the wrath of opposing nations; it is nations such as Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc… caught in the crossfire that has turned sand to glass across a holy land.

Both nations have forged alliances and fired off silos of propaganda to sway public opinions and gain the high ground. But beyond the smoke and mirrors, there lies a complex tale. A story filled with the a battle of beliefs, a shifting of friends, a pummeling of foes, and lust for black gold.

A clash of civilizations is manifesting before our eyes. Now let’s get the whole story.

The Prophet

Iran and Arabia have been powerful players in the great game of the Middle East. The Persian Empires of Iran were dominating in their spread across the region. While Arabians were much more decentralized and occupied what many deemed as the wastes of the desert. The peninsula was occupied with warring Bedouins, trade caravans, and Biblical legends along with Pagan fables.

This would all change when Islam sprang forth from the Hejaz (western Arabia).

Islamic armies would sweep across the Middle East and obliterate all opposition. The Persians had just finished an exhausting war with the Byzantine of Europe, so territories folded like paper. Muslim Arab armies would conquer all of Iran up till the western edges of India. The largely Zoroastrian Persians would gradually convert due to economic pressure (jizya tax on non-Muslims), force, or social upheaval. A number of Zoroastrians, later known as the Parsis, would escape to India to flee persecution evidencing the harshness of the Caliphate. However, it must be pointed out that Muslim Iranians would create era defining art, science, and literature during the Islamic Golden Age all while retaining most of their language and culture; something that many other Islamized regions did not retain.

Another integral piece to understand in our tale is the split between Sunni and Shia Islam. After the Prophet Muhammed’s death, a conflict over succession would engulf the Islamic world. Those backing Muhammed’s close friend, Abu Bakr, would be known as the Sunnis. Those backing Muhammed’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, would be known as the Shias. We’ll explore specific flashpoints later, but keep this difference in mind as this simple disagreement over succession would morph into differences in belief, practice, and theology along with plenty of unfortunate blood spilt.

White Robes and Black Gold

Centuries would pass as empires would rise and fall with the ebb of dunes. We now arrive in the 1700s, where a fateful meeting of the minds would change the destiny of the Middle East.

A hardline Islamic scholar, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab, would parley with a tribal leader, Muhammed ibn Saud in 1744. Saud admired Wahhab’s ideology which emphasized a (supposed) return to traditional Islam. Wahhab abhorred what he saw as “innovations” in Islam such as saint reverence, Shia Islam, and even fellow Sunnis who didn’t adhere to his disciplines. Prior to meeting Saud, Wahhab would lead inquisitions including instances of demolishing the tomb of a Prophet’s companion (viewed it as idolatry and polytheism) and stoning a woman for adultery.

Saud had a dream to unite the Arabian peninsula under a singular state and a singular version of Islam. The meeting was concluded with an oath: Saud’s kingdom would be Wahhabi, and Arabia would be Saudi.

Saud and Wahhab’s family would intermarry as their forces combined to decimate the peninsula. They would also confront and push back the Turkish Ottomans. In the process, they would capture the holy Shia city of Karbala. Karbala contained the Shia’s holiest shrine – the site of the martyrdom of Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet who was brutally killed by Sunni forces in early Sunni-Shia religious wars. Saudi forces would fulfill Wahhabism and demolish the shrine of Karbala along with slaughtering 5000 Shia civilians.

As the Saudis would gradually consolidate the majority of the desolate Arabian peninsula, they would happen upon a miracle – oil. As a frenzy developed over this magic substance and its uses, international eyes would shift to the Middle East. In 1901, British speculators would establish an agreement with our other player – Iran.

The British would explore and develop Iran’s oil resources with the creation of a private company, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). AIOC proved an excellent investment as oil spilled across Iranian territory, and the British government would soon purchase a majority of shares in the company. Thereby, the United Kingdom would gain control over Iran’s oil. Not a good deal for the Iranians.

A seething Iranian government would have enough in 1950 and nationalize the AIOC after years of negotiations and half measures. The UK and USA would promptly respond in 1953 with a sponsored coup d’état overthrowing the regime that enacted the nationalization. A deal would be struck where oil would be jointly managed and profited between the foreign AIOC and the local NIOC. The NIOC would be dealt a subpar hand as its territory was much less productive than the AIOC. This economic humiliation would pave the way for our next chapter – revolution; but not before a small prelude involving another important character in this game, Israel.

Shifting Sands

During the month of Ramadan and day of Yom Kipper, Egypt launched a surprise invasion into the Israeli-occupied Sinai peninsula. Israel was in constant conflict with its surrounding states ever since its independence in 1948. Originally the issue was Palestine; but as a US-backed Israel would win successive wars against an Arab coalition, Israel would go on to capture Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian territories in addition to supplanting the Palestinians. Reclamation was the primary Arab goal of the Yom Kipper war.

However once again, Israel would move from strength to strength with minimal gain and loss to territory overall but very important strategic acquisitions in both Syrian Golan Heights and Egyptian Sinai.

The defeated Arab coalition was incensed and would respond with an economic tantrum – an oil embargo of Israel and its allies. One of whom was of course the United States, a nation that had recently taken its currency off the gold standard and was experiencing the shock of a new free-floating fiat currency along with the inflation it was supposed to combat. The dollar was very dominant in the previous gold standard system that many other nations partook in, but now found itself rapidly depreciating with a horizon of recession caused by the Arab oil embargo.

The US had to act fast – and it did, changing the course of the Middle East forever and paving the way for the gilding of the American sword of foreign policy. The petrodollar was born.

America would approach Saudi Arabia, an influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to negotiate a new world order. The Saudis would persuade fellow OPEC members to begin trading oil in US dollars causing the US dollar to return as the world’s dominant currency in a way never before seen. Countries would be forced to hoard American dollars in order to buy oil, the most precious resource on the planet, and America would discover a whole new definition of economic dominance.

Here’s the catch and a very important plot device in our story – in return of this petroleum-backed dollar, the US would:

1. Provide military assistance on behalf of Saudi Arabia in an increasingly volatile Middle East and the prospects of increasing Soviet influences across the Muslim world.
2. Intercede and thaw Israeli-Arab conflicts.
3. Build a US-Saudi alliance based on dependence and development that would influence geopolitics for decades to come.

A Righteous Cause

While the Saudis ironed out a deal with the US, Iran would take a different approach and set the tone for revolution.

Tensions over economic anxieties, a rising Saudi Arabia, and foreign interference would light the Molotov cocktail of Iranian politics. The US installed Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, would prove to become an unpopular leader as time went on. His focus on secularism and closeness with the West created an odd alliance of Islamist and Marxist resistance against him. These latter forces would prevail and overthrow the Shah.

During this movement, a cult of personality would develop around a Shia cleric named Ayatollah Khomeini. In Shia Islam, holy saints would become known as Imams who would become essential to Shia theology (Ayatollah translates to “Sign of God”). As the Iranian revolution unfolded, Khomeini became an almost divine figure of resistance against the gargantuan foe of America. David and Goliath unfolded in the eyes of the faithful. Khomeini became an Imam of a new era and the most influential in centuries.

The Marxists would soon be cannibalized and irrelevant as the more popular Shia sentiments triumphed in victory. And the world would witness an aberrant revolution; one where religious (quasi-) democratic forces would overcome a secular autocratic one. Khomeini’s leadership proved to be a call of resistance across an ever secularizing Middle East. Many Arab nationalist movements coupled their policies with the socialism of the USSR, but now a combination of Khomeini’s victory and a rising Wahhabi Saudi Arabia provided a bulwark against Soviet and secular influence.

Khomeini would go further and claim that monarchy itself would be against Islam. Now the bells really started ringing across the Islamic world, especially with the emirs of the peninsula. Khomeini’s message would cross sectarian lines and inspire Shia and Sunni alike as he claimed his revolution was a testament to all Muslims, not just the Shias that would go on to shape Iran by their own ideology.

Saudi Arabia, guardians of Mecca and Medina, who saw themselves as the leaders of the Muslim world were rattled by this rising Imam who challenged their twin pillars of monarchic and Sunni dominance. A 1979 terrorist attack by their own Wahhabi Sunnis on the holy sites in Mecca terrified the Saudi royals who later learned that these Wahhabis conducted this attack on not just ideological lines, but also as an affront to the monarchy. In parallel, Shia uprisings occurred in the oil rich eastern provinces of Arabia in solidarity with Iran. Across the gulf, Iranians would storm the US embassy (and in the process killing a number of Americans) as a show of continued resistance against America.

Here’s the essential pieces at this stage:

1. Iran had successfully provided a template for resistance to the West, Islamization of politics, and a powerful ideological/religious leader
2. While on the other hand, Saudi Arabia was seen as bending the knee to America, secularizing the country too much (one of the reasons why the Wahhabi fringe attacked Mecca), and an inept monarchy that was increasingly un-Islamic.

The Saudis would cave and bend to the will of the extremists. Women’s rights were curbed, movie theaters and music shops shut down, and a general return to conservatism returned. The shadow of the antique pact between Wahhab and Saud loomed large as Saudi Arabia embraced a stricter Sunni Islam just as Iran had embraced a stricter version of Shia Islam. With this calcification of sectarian lines, the Sunni-Shia conflict would explode.

The Word of the Faithful

Iran and Saudi Arabia would now compete in the export of their ideologies.

The Saudis would have billions poured into promoting Wahhabism across the Sunni world – with a special case occurring in Pakistan.

Madrasas mushroomed in number across Pakistan as a dictator named Zia-ul-Haq (fresh off a humiliating defeat to an “infidel” India and losing a third of their territory to the new nation of Bangladesh) embraced the relationship, as he thought the Islamization of Pakistan would solve all their problems.

Saudi Arabia would find an opportunity in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They urged Pakistan with money and influence to train rebels (mujahideen) to fight the godless communists invading their fellow Muslim nation. The Saudis would go further with the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia declaring this war a holy Jihad and encourage the faithful across the Muslim world to join in. One of these mujahideen was named Osama bin Laden. Maybe you’ve heard of him.

The US supported this resistance and saw this religious revolution as the ultimate shield against the spread of communism; while Pakistan saw these proxy groups as potential vassals to control Afghanistan and later direct them towards India.

The mujahideen would defeat the Soviets. As the satisfied Americans withdrew from this conflict, they put the onus of rebuilding Afghanistan on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These countries would support the most extreme Islamist elements in leadership and birth a new nexus of terror. These hardened jihadists would form the leadership of later Wahhabi terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and provide significant example to ISIS.

While Saudi Arabia meddled in the Subcontinent, Iran would muddy the waters a bit closer to home and in a conflict that touched more of a nerve for Arabs – the Arab-Israeli conflict, this time involving Lebanon.

The Israelis wanted to root out Palestinian supporters who were shelling northern Israel. Israel advanced on Lebanon’s capital while the Arab world watched silently. But Khomeini wanted a word.

Khomeini would send the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to train and fund a Shia resistance group, Hezbollah. Hezbollah would push back the Israelis, and Iran would once again provide an illustration of successful resistance against an antagonistic power, this time against the eternal enemy of Israel. One of the tactics of (offensive) defense that Hezbollah embraced was suicide bombing. Their fanaticism would further fuel the Islamic world’s descent into extremism as Hezbollah swore fealty to Ayatollah Khomeini and Twelver Shia Islam.

This victory would inspire Arab Shias across the Middle East, a minority (only 13% of total Muslim population) who were frequently economically and politically disenfranchised. Shia resistances would announce themselves in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and indeed even Saudi Arabia. Iran’s Shia zealotry would supercede Arab nationalism as its influence spread through victory and struggle.

In both of our cases, we see:

• Successful resistance against perceived anti-Islamic forces (Israelis, Soviets).
• Encouragement of extremism as the vanguard of rebellion and later leadership.
• Placing Islam as the foundation of their national identity.

A Conflict of Shadows

While Saudi Arabia sought to expand the Wahhabi creed amongst its fellow Sunnis, the fruits of their efforts varied. One of these bad apples was Iraq.

Iraq was under the control of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party (remember this name for later), which espoused Arab nationalism rather than a religious ideology. Nonetheless, most of Saddam’s party had strong support from the large Sunni minority of Iraq (around 42%) as Shias and others were marginalized in Saddam’s tyranny. And like other Shias, they heard the call of Khomeini.

Khomeini urged Iraqi Shias to remember the name of Imam Hussein as they would rise up against his pretender Sunni namesake, Saddam Hussein. Diplomacy would break down as the iron-fisted Saddam did not tolerate dissension.

In 1980, Iraq would launch a blitzkrieg campaign into Iran. A confident Iraq would soon find that the Iranians were willing to fight till Judgement Day (Yawm al-Qiyamah in Islam). Iranian boys as young as 12 would be sent to the frontlines draping the hills with blood as their mothers’ faces were draped with tears. The Iranian resistance would push back the Iraqi forces in 1982 with Saddam realizing his folly and subsequently suing for peace. An incensed Khomeini, however, would elect war as the Iranians attempted a vengeful advance. Their aim – to capture the holy Shia city of Karbala in Iraq, the martyrdom site of their revered saint, Imam Hussein.

The shadow of history would be as relevant as ever as Khomeini channeled Hussein’s sacrifice to an advancing Iranian army. Sunni Gulf Arab countries (including Saudi Arabia) would now intervene with aid and equipment to the mostly Sunni Saddam government in order to halt the flipping of Iraq to Shia dominion (as they were the majority). Saudi Arabia would cash in the petrodollar pact with the US and its European allies who in turn also supported Saddam. Even a large number of Shia Iraqis gave their hand to Saddam as Iraqi nationalist sentiments erupted, and Iranian gunfire sizzled past Shia Iraqi homes and heads.

Saddam would soon find his eyes on the periodic table, as his chemical weapon attacks would rattle Iranian troops. The war would drag on in a back and forth until Khomeini reluctantly agreed to a ceasefire request from Saddam in 1988, as both sides suffered from war weariness. Khomeini was savagely bitter at the end especially towards the Saudis who he saw as reviving a flailing Iraqi side just when the tide of war had turned in Iranian favor. Khomeini would never speak publicly after the ceasefire speech and pass away a year later. Iran would be forever changed as although the war ended in a stalemate, the Iranian public gained confidence and audacity as they had faced down Iraq, America, Saudi Arabia, and chemical weapons amongst many other adversaries; all while coming out with their ideals and revolution intact. Iran had now deified defiance.

Across the border, Saddam strengthened his vice grip on the populace, particularly directing malice towards Iraq’s Shia population. With arrogance and directness, Saddam would extend his campaign of power externally in 1991 through a blatant land grab of the oil rich nation of Kuwait. This proved a problem for Saudi Arabia, whose dominance and preeminence in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was hung in the balance as its ally folded. Once again swiping its black card of the petrodollar, the Saudis convinced the US to repel Iraqi forces as oil prices skyrocketed with the US dollar potentially threatened by Saddam’s belligerence. This proved the beginning of the end for Saddam’s brutal regime.

The Making

Before we go onto this ever familiar section, we should examine the mind and ideology that has shaped the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk.

Islamism is an ideology that advocates total Islamic rule over political and social life for the nation (which in turn should be a theocracy). There are a number of scholars who study Islamic applications to the totality of life. Some of these scholars take very extreme interpretations of Islam, like our friend Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab earlier. Both Wahhab and Khomeini have inspired hardline takes on Islam and back them up with a number of scriptural references and interpretations. And it is these interpretations that serve as the fountainheads for almost all terror groups.

On the opposite end, wanton foreign policy decisions along with foreign and local powers vying for dominance have generated thousands of disaffected youth who have seen their lives burnt away to ashes in warfare. Endless conflict generates a group of people intensely loathing of the outside world. They come in contact with extremist mullahs and scholars who speak spirituality suavely to their mind and kindly to their heart yet venomously when concerning adversaries. They give hope and hate – that is the dangerous concoction where terror is born.

With both the Saudis and Iranians exporting their oil-backed extremist views by way of dollar and destruction, adherence to this extremism has exploded across the Islamic world with terror groups blooming whenever conflict inevitably arose. One particular group, we have already discussed: al-Qaeda. And they are the spark that ignites a wildfire.

There and Back Again

Years later, a single day would change the direction of the world forever – 9/11/2001.

A livid and grieving US would put bullet in barrel and begin a war on terrorism. With several of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi and murmurs of knowledge of the attacks amongst some Saudi royals, Saudi Arabia had to bite the bullet and stay mum as America rampaged across the globe. First stop, Afghanistan.

America would face down their communist killing creation – al-Qaeda, the former ally turned enemy responsible for the most horrible terror attacks in US history. They along with their Afghan sponsors, the Taliban, would be shattered with the mastermind, Osama bin Laden, killed years later in Pakistan. However constant covert support from Pakistan would prove America’s downfall as al-Qaeda, Taliban, and other terror groups would be aided by the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies causing a death by a thousand cuts to US efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Today we see a “peace process” that has seen a democratically elected Afghan government suffering from almost biweekly terror attacks from a Pakistan sponsored Taliban; while America’s President desperately tries to negotiate a withdrawal, leaving the Afghans to fend off the same monsters that plagued them in 2001. Oh, also ISIS has joined the party as well.

Next up, Iraq.

Saddam Hussein’s iron fist was backed by a Sunni Arab Baathist Party and engaged in systematic oppression of Shias and Kurds. In the post-9/11 bloodlust, America turned their guns towards a supposed WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) armed Iraq. Iraq’s oil fields and geographic location were also fairly enticing. However, the Saudis opposed this move as they understood the inevitable result – implosion.

The problem here was that 15 out of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. US distrust of the Saudis and the momentum of war pushed a swift invasion of Iraq with Saddam’s regime falling within 3 weeks in 2003. Now Pandora’s Box was truly unleashed.

America would add more gunpowder to the keg by forcing a dissolution of the mostly Sunni Baathist Party of Saddam as well as dismantling the Iraqi Army. The door opened for the majority Shias to exact revenge. Sunni-Shia conflict exploded as Shias campaigned for a Shia state mirroring Iran. Iran’s new supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei was elated with a new potential proxy.

The furious Saudis would come to the aid of Sunnis through covert arming and aid as mass sectarian violence spread through Iraq. Soon enough, Sunni rebel groups would blossom and be joined by the vines of extremism. Al-Qaeda would announce their entry by bombing the dome of the sacred Shia Al Askari Mosque in Samarra. A civil war like situation ensued.

As a finally captured Saddam Hussein was escorted to his hanging, a video would capture the scene. The government brought Saddam’s victims’ relatives to the occasion. Many started chanting “Muqtada,” the name of Shia militant cleric whose father was tortured and killed by Saddam. Saddam would respond saying, “Muqtada? Is this how you show your bravery as men?” The jeering rose through Saddam’s jab as he would refuse a hood and face those he persecuted. His last wish was to read verses of the Quran. The request was granted. The jeering became shrieking. As Saddam would say his last words of the Holy Quran, the lever would be pulled in the middle of verse and Saddam would die with a cacophony of sectarian slogans and insults directed towards Saddam and Sunnis alike. This video would leak, and a brutal dictator would become a Sunni martyr as the Sunni world exploded in anger. More gas added to the fire.

What began now is a new theme of this conflict. The new version of the Saudi-Iran conflict would be defined by Sunni and Shia groups warring in foreign lands causing massive loss of life and obliteration; but no significant loss of Saudi or Iranian lives. The proxy wars had begun.

Kingdoms and Caliphates

Two pacts have defined Saudi Arabia – one with the House of Wahhab and another with the House of Washington. While Wahhab has given Saudi Arabia its ideology, Washington has provided the Saudis with protection and weaponry. A new upstart Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has recently chosen to tilt towards Washington but still retain much of the ruthlessness of Wahhab, albeit in a more nationalistic tone rather than religious.

Salman has realized that Saudi Arabia’s future could not forever be centered around oil. He pushed investment into finance, tourism, clean energy, and technology amongst various other sectors. He has also pushed liberal reforms for women and laxing of strict Wahhabi social laws. However, Salman has flanked an easing of Wahhabism with the embrace of nationalism and autocracy. He would silence those who protest and criticize him, whether it was the slow pace of reforms (in the case of women’s rights activist Lujain al-Houthlal) or attacking his autocratic nature (such as in the unfortunate case of Jamal Khashoggi, who would pay for his dissidence in blood allegedly on Salman’s order).

The Saudis would cultivate a strong relationship with the US in recent years, especially with the increasing intensity of the aforementioned proxy wars.

The most prominent of these recent wars occured in Syria. North of Iraq, Syria has witnessed a despotic rule by Bashar al-Assad, a Shia (Alawite to be precise). The Iran-friendly Assad was faced with mostly secular uprisings to his authoritarian rule, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring. In a mirror of Saddam’s Iraq, Syria contained a large Sunni majority ruled by a Shia minority. As the Saudis caught wind of the rebellion against an Iranian ally, Sunni militant groups came in a gust. Assault rifles manifested in Sunni hands and more extreme groups (such as al-Qaeda with its front, al-Nusra) set up camp. But one particular group would explode from the beginnings of this frenzy – ISIS.

ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) originally had roots from disenfranchised Baathists and former Iraqi Army-men. A popular Wahhabi cleric named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would round up these hardened fighters and administrators to start a movement. A movement to establish a Kingdom of God in a land ravaged by intervention from the infidels. ISIS would use Baathist discipline and aptitude to form an organization that solidified Sunni backlash against a marching Shia tide. Their new age propaganda combined montages of cinematic violence, Sharia law, and interestingly enough – a well functioning society. Baghdadi would end up creating the most devastating terror group in decades that functioned both as a militant group and a state.

This is where ISIS is really interesting and relevant. In the big picture, ISIS has been fairly short lived versus other terror groups and was summarily wiped out by all of its neighbors. With its Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, recently killed, many believe this is the end of ISIS. But they are wrong. Why? People miss both the unique and common aspects of ISIS:

1. ISIS functioned as state that did a better job of governance and keeping order than many of its predecessors. They had a relatively uncorrupt bureaucracy that efficiently collected taxes, took care of social services, and provided more consistent (though infinitely more cruel) forms of justice than previous regimes – especially giving a glimmer of refuge towards Sunnis.
2. ISIS is based on an even more extreme strain of Wahhabism. Wahhabism and its extremist cognates have an arsenal of scholars who provide ample evidence and scriptural vigor to go toe to toe with any Islamic cleric and provide an unfortunately legitimate interpretation of Islam.

The first point is lost to many who rightfully label the group as savages and monsters. But ISIS and terror groups of its ilk (al-Qaeda/Taliban) sometimes may actually provide better governance than other options. This can occur because of foreign intervention (Iraqi Civil War aftermath of US invasion) or a brutal dictator (repression by Assad in Syria).

The second point is the site of discomfort. Wahhabism does not equal the only true version of Islam; but the problem is how Saudi Arabia has exported it so widely. Wahhabi clerics and their proxies have slowly populated the high council of so many Islamic organizations that extremist scholars have trickled down to populate the podiums of prayer halls. And it is these scholars who have subsequently urged a small subset of ordinary Muslims to engage in a disproportionate level of violence. While ISIS has been territorially decimated, its ideology still lives on across the globe and across the web.

Tipping Points

While Iran had checkmated the Saudis in Syria, a whole new game was unfolding on their southern borders in Yemen. An Iranian-backed Shia rebel group by the name of the Houthis would launch a campaign ending in the toppling of the Yemeni government. Salman would see this as a perfect opportunity to showcase Saudi nationalism and crush a neighbor’s rebellion. The Saudis would use American and European weaponry to attack the Houthis as well as citizens caught in the crossfire. However even amongst widespread famine and cholera outbreaks, the Houthis have somehow held out against Saudi forces, fending off Sunni Yemenis along with their Saudi collaborators.

So let’s take a look at this conflict in the big picture; Iran has so far gained the upper hand in:

1. Iraq by the majority Shias ousting Sunni extremist groups including ISIS.
2. Syria by Assad’s victory over similar Sunni militant groups.
3. Yemen by continued Houthi resistance and political prominence amongst a torrential Saudi military barrage.

Things look fairly rosy for Iran at this point, but this belies the internal situations of both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saudi Arabia has faced sporadic attacks from Houthis in the south and recent drone attacks allegedly from Iran in the east; but these attacks have only fueled Saudi nationalism and Muhammed bin Salman’s popularity. Salman’s bet on a new economic path and nationalism over Wahhabism have reaped benefits with Saudi youth. A hunger for American weaponry and technology has led to the strongest US-Saudi relationship in years in an era where the US increasingly looks away from foreign oil. Salman has understood that economic warfare is the way of the future. He has looked east to India investing hundreds of billions into a rising giant and seeks to emulate the UAE’s transformation as a financial and supply chain hub of the world.

Across the gulf, Iran has had wildly opposite fortunes. Constant regime change wars have depleted its economy and angered its people. Secularism has gripped sections of the population (especially youth) who increasingly defy the gaze of the Ayatollah. Protests against Islamic law such as mandatory hijab and theocratic rule are becoming more and more commonplace. In many ways, it seems only a matter of time before a new revolution may sweep Iran. Salman waits in the shadows as American sanctions have taken a toll on Iran, with nations forced to choose between trading resources with Iran or trading tariffs with the US.

But as Iran and Saudi Arabia converge into conflict, the fog of war hides foreign hands and common adversaries. And it is their mechanisms and minds that will bring the Middle East into a new era with familiar violence.

Aggressive Negotiations

Let’s finally discuss the elephant the room – the red, white, and blue hand in our little tale.

The American fingerprint on the Saudi-Iran conflict is undeniable. From installing the Shah of Iran decades back to the regime change wars of recent history, it’s easy to criticize American foreign policy in our saga. American weaponry has singed the earth and flesh of the Middle East. But as in most cases, one must zoom out to capture the panorama.

In the Cold War, the US and USSR locked horns in a quest to dominate the world. Geopolitics mirrors natural selection, and only the strongest or most adaptable survive. In the midst of the icy conflict, the US found warmth in Saudi Arabia. With the deal solidifying the petrodollar, America’s economic domination checkmated the USSR’s stratagems. This “deal with the devil” can arguably be the direct cause for much of America’s stability, prosperity, and global hegemony. It gave America a vital edge in the closely contested clash of superpowers. Perhaps if the USSR took the deal, we would have seen similar consequences except with Russian bombs being dropped instead of American ones.

But of course, this is all could’ve, should’ve, would’ve, maybe’s, and hypotheticals. The bottom line is that in the midst of conflict, America had a choice: achieve a negotiation and possibly win, or watch the oil-rich USSR gain more ground. In the grand (American) scheme of things, it seems the US picked the right choice as victory has been realized.

But if you’ve been paying attention to our little tale, you may have noticed a slight change in the deal’s tone lately. The US has dramatically eased its boots on the ground initiatives in the last decade. No “Desert Storm” style interventions in either Syria or Yemen, yet still a strong relationship with the Saudis who had America on a leash prior. Why?

The US has discovered a gift right under its noses – shale oil.

Shale oil is fine grain sedimentary rock that generates similar compounds to crude oil but usually is more difficult to extract and more environmentally unfriendly. In recent years, the US has utilized new technology and identified old reserves in its territory. The results have been game changing. America is now a net exporter of oil and relies less and less on the Saudis. Concurrently, the Saudis have become the number 1 buyer of American weapons to fulfill their ambitions and defense against an ever more belligerent Iran and the Houthis. The US’s position on the petrodollar pact is becoming more and more advantageous.

Meanwhile, the Saudis have pursued self-sufficiency as well. As mentioned prior, Mohammed bin Salman has sought to expand Saudi industry beyond oil. Cloaked diplomacy with Israel has been on the rise for decades now as Salman recognizes the importance of the US ally in the great game with diminishing concern for and returns from the Palestinians. Salman has also expanded ties with most other GCC members while seeking to isolate adversaries such as Qatar.

Sharp Words and Blunt Fists

Now is the time to touch on Qatar and Turkey as an interesting appendices to our story. Collectively, they can be seen as the mouth (Qatar) and fist (Turkey) of the Muslim Brotherhood. A shadowy organization that seeks to influence Middle Eastern affairs and promote Islamist politics.

Another oil rich country, the tiny nation of Qatar has mastered information warfare and propaganda (just see its coverage of Israel and India) with its think tanks and media company Al-Jazeera. Qatar was very much a frenemy to Saudi Arabia in recent years with its media coverage, geopolitical maneuvers (ties with Iran), and terror funding upsetting the Saudis so much that they recently conducted a fairly ineffective embargo of Qatar. Qatar’s ties to the Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, also bring it close with Turkey. Erdogan’s recent foray into Kurdish Syrian lands has posed another destabilizing factor in the Middle East. Erdogan’s Islamist rhetoric and violent outbursts fit well with what many see as his caliphate-like ambitions. While we previously saw a Saudi Sunni and Iranian Shia conflict, now Turkey’s Erdogan seeks to show himself as the shield of the Sunnis against the corrupt Saudi pretenders. It may be a Qatari-Turkish axis (and any other government that the Muslim Brotherhood can influence) that will become the hegemon of the Middle East.

King of Kings

This is where Russia arrives. A country bathed in nostalgia of the triumphant march of the USSR, Russia seeks to fill the holes where an increasingly isolationist America retreats from.

While Russia consolidates an uneasy relationship with Iran, the triumvirate of Iran-Russia-Syria has struck a deal with the recently invading Turkish forces. Turkey and its extremist proxies have invaded Kurdish areas (Turkey claims its a safe haven for terrorists) in northern Syria decimating the local Kurds and committing horrible atrocities. The Kurds in turn have struck a deal with Assad in the midst, subsequently ending their autonomy for protection. The US simultaneously have pulled out of the region in what many say is a betrayal of the ISIS vanquishing Kurds and a gift to Russia. Indeed, Turkey’s aggression has spawned a wedge between itself and NATO allies as Russia attempts to fill the void of the Middle East, especially strengthening its relationship with Iran.

As mentioned earlier, internal combustion smolders across the Iranian plateau. While full blown rebellion isn’t visible yet, more and more youth are questioning the economic drain of Iran’s foreign policy decisions. Speaking of those decisions, protests have sparked in both Lebanon and Iraq, posing further questions to both Iran’s foreign policy and ideology.

But how would a secular Iran wield the Shia sword of Ali? By forsaking Shia Islam as a state ideology, Iran’s influence across the Middle East may collapse. We may see Iran adopt a resemblance of earlier Turkish foreign policy – a secular internal image cocooned with external Ottoman Sultanate-like ambitions. Iran may retreat from extremism internally post-Ayatollah, but may still repeat Khomeini’s call outside its borders.

Iran has only grown belligerent of late, fresh off victories across the Middle East. It has renewed venomous rhetoric towards Israel with conflict inching closer to the Israelis as well as Saudis. Iran will most likely not enact a direct confrontation, but use its powerful IRGC to ferment proxy conflicts in both states by way of Palestinians and Shia militias respectively.

Oil and Fire

Ancient Iranians worshiped the element of fire. Fire was seen as purity, a source of comfort, and light. Truly, the motif of fire as divinity is present across many religions. Fire is belief, and sometimes that belief takes on another aspect of fire – it burns those in proximity. Saudi Arabia and Iran have incubated dangerous flames in their furnaces of ideology. They have spread their ideas across the world in an Olympic torch-like fashion. Passing on violence to different peoples and codifying a marathon of hatred for future generations.

A hope of light emerges here though. Many of the youth in these great civilizations have had enough of the wildfire of extremism. Both in Saudi Arabia and Iran, young people seek greater freedoms and modernity. In the background, the source of much of this fire and extremism is now ever so slowly going out of fashion – oil.

Though oil is still an integral piece of this tale and will be for decades, the world is weening off of oil into renewables. Saudi Arabia and Iran now begin a countdown.

Iran and the Saudis have grown accustomed to using oil as leverage to fuel the fire of their ideologies. There’s even evidence that the recent civil war in Syria was highly influenced by pipeline geography and the tussle over who will satisfy European gluttony. But as oil’s influence wanes, both countries will be forced to adapt or fall into squalor. How will Iran and Saudi Arabia’s conflict evolve as countries either look for foreign oil (like the shale rich US) or accelerate transitions to renewables? Though developing countries still have a healthy appetite for oil (while India has fantastic implementation of renewables, its need for oil has only grown), market competition is stacking in favor of renewables at a frenetic pace. If oil prices slide prior to an infrastructure evolution, both the Saudis and Iran will be caught in a whirlwind of instability and vulnerability.

The destiny of these Middle Eastern titans will impact not only the region, but also the world. With nations changing in ideology and energy dependence, these countries must introspect and act on their deficiencies as well as their successes. At the end of the day, just as in the beginning, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s future will be determined by how they choose to write their stories and which destiny they choose to fulfill in A Tale of Oil and Fire.

If you want to learn more about this topic as well as watch a fantastic documentary (and source for much of this post), check out Frontline’s amazing epic – Bitter Rivals.