China brokers reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia

By Herbert Rothschild

What may prove the most important step toward international peace this year occurred last week. On April 6, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two leading powers in the Middle East, signed an agreement to resume diplomatic ties. They were severed in 2016, when protesters invaded Saudi diplomatic posts in Tehran in response to Saudi Arabia’s execution of a prominent Shiite cleric and 46 others a few days before.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, after his talks with his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, laid out details of the April 6 agreement in a tweet. He said it marked the beginning of “official diplomatic relations … economic and commercial cooperation, the reopening of embassies and consulates general, and the emphasis on stability, stable security and development of the region.”

The immediate beneficiaries of the agreement will be the Yemenis, who for years have suffered terribly from a U.S.-backed Saudi air war and blockade. Iran backed the Shiite Houthis, who are largely in control of the country, but Iran didn’t engage in combat. It seems likely now that the Saudis will stand down, ending their support of the supposedly legitimate government of Yemen, a group of exiles living in hotels in Riyadh, and allow critical supplies to enter the country and give the de facto government access to its currency to pay its workers and stabilize the economy.

Who gets credit for this breakthrough? The People’s Republic of China. It was under China’s auspices that the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia took place. Those of us who care for peace in a region long torn by war will be heartened. Probably not those who believe that U.S. foreign policy should be shaped by what they perceive as our national interests. People with that mindset — Republicans and Democrats alike — for decades have dictated our actions in the Middle East. Our attempts to overthrow governments not to our liking, our unceasing military support of various countries and factions, our assassinations by drone, and our military interventions have belied any interest in a just peace.

The only official U.S. response to the signing was a statement on April 7 by Vedant Patel, the principal deputy State Department spokesman: “If this dialogue leads to concrete actions by Iran to curb its destabilizing activities in the region, including the proliferation of dangerous weapons, then of course, we would welcome that.” As if the only source of instability in the Middle East is Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Israel, not Turkey, not al Qaeda, and certainly not the U.S.

In contrast to the administration’s response, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Middle East panel, said, “Not everything between the U.S. and China has to be a zero-sum game. I don’t know why we would perceive there to be a downside to de-escalation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.” And the U.S. Institute for Peace, which ran a thoughtful and non-partisan piece, affirmed that “Regardless of the intentions behind the deal, it is good to see dialogue resulting in agreement. Now the focus should be on outcomes and how this milestone could be built upon to continue to reduce tensions in the region and reach an acceptable regional security order.”

The USIP article ran in March, when news of the talks first broke. Back then, the administration made a somewhat less grudging public statement about the breakthrough. John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, said in a briefing to reporters on March 10 that Beijing’s efforts to end the war in Yemen and de-escalate regional tensions were welcome: “If this deal can be sustained — regardless of what the interest was or who sat down at the table — if it can be sustained, and the war in Yemen can end, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t have to continually try to defend itself against attacks from the Houthis who are funded and supported by Iran, in the end we welcome that.”

Aside from his astonishing suggestion that Saudi Arabia is the principal victim of the hostilities in Yemen, Kirby attempted to minimize China’s achievement by claiming that it had just followed the U.S. lead in seeking peace, which he called an “effective combination of deterrence and diplomacy.” And then, just to remind us how partisan and thus disqualified we are to facilitate better ties between the two countries, he added, “It really does remain to be seen whether the Iranians are going to honor their side of the deal.”

Our leaders continually cast our rivalry with China as a struggle to determine whether liberal democracy or authoritarianism will prevail globally. There is truth in that framing. Like you, I would hardly wish to exchange my life here for life in China. But what we experience of our country is not what peoples in Africa, Asia and Latin America have so frequently experienced. Repeatedly, they have experienced the U.S. as an imperial power intent on controlling their economies for the benefit of multinational banks and corporations. And our leaders have repeatedly pursued that intent with brute force. My guess is that most people in the Middle East would be pleased to see Uncle Sam’s back.

And why not leave? We’ve been there for two reasons — oil and Israel. The sooner we end our dependence on overseas oil, the better. And the sooner we end our support for Israel’s quest to occupy all the land that ancient Israel at its apex occupied, the better. China is content to let Middle Eastern countries control their own oil and buy it from them at market prices. And China has no commitment to support Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Authoritarian China may be, but if it supplants the U.S. as the largest outside influence in the region, I suspect we’ll all be better off.

Herbert Rothschild is an unpaid Ashland.news board member. Opinions expressed in columns represent the author’s views and may or may not reflect those of Ashland.news. Email Rothschild at [email protected].