FALL 2015
Arabian states, led by Saudi Arabia, to
support its policies in the region—including peaceful negotiations. Whether
the Arabians truly have faith in the nuclear deal remains to be seen, given the
current political tensions in the region.
Some of the aggressive behavior from
both sides, however, indicates that neither camp is opposed to future military
conflict. Certainly, the recent uptake in
arms purchases by Saudi Arabia and the
continuing conflict in Yemen point to
escalating tensions and hotspots of violence. Nevertheless, from the American
perspective, lawmakers hope the deal
will bring the Islamic Republic to the
table with Saudi Arabia and open avenues of cooperation rather than impasses.
The hope is that Iran will become more
integrated with the international community and display greater openness.
According to the New York Times, the
senior administration official said that
Mr. Obama sees the deal as helping ameliorate the “meta-conflict in the Middle
East” caused by sectarianism and the
rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
However, comparing the United
States’ ambitions to the words and actions
of Saudi Arabia and Iran, such hopes will
take time to come to fruition—if they
ever do. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia
has shied away from using force and military action to achieve desirable outcomes
in recent years. Nor do regions of chaos
like Yemen and Syria seem likely to end
soon, due to some prodding at the hands
of both rivals through proxy warfare. Furthermore, with the deal comes the threat
of a more powerful Iran—not through a
nuclear arsenal, but one of conventional
weapons and ballistic missiles gained
through trade. That is because sanctions
on Iran for conventional arms could be
lifted in five years and ballistic missiles
in eight. Saudi Arabia’s rush to procure
the latest arsenal of THAAD defense
systems illustrates the perceived longterm threat of such Iranian acquisitions.
According to National Public Radio, the
Arab states will carefully watch the lifting of bans on conventional weapons, and
INTERNATIONAL
they are focusing on augmenting their air
force in the next five years, allowing them
to maintain military superiority over Iran.
Given the proxy wars being fought
across the Middle East currently, the uptake of arms in the next decade on both
sides portends greater bloodshed and political turmoil. Such conflict would undoubtedly hurt American interests in Iraq
and Afghanistan, two focal points of current tension, not to mention harm American allies. Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar,
a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, warns of such
skirmishes, “I think the deal alone is not
going to make the situation better, but
actually make the region more combustible because of this tremendous amount
of uncertainty that could inject into the
region. Both Iranian conservatives and
other actors in the region feel that, because of this deal, they’re going to lose.”
Echoing this sentiment, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi added, “the Iranian
conservatives are worried about this deal
and the post-deal environment as much
as the Arab countries. They are expecting a major confrontation in the region.”
Though the international community may
be able to control Iran’s nuclear proliferation through the current nuclear deal, it
cannot control Iran’s meddling nature or
the animosity between Sunni and Shiite states. Nor can it control the spread
of violence and dissidence throughout
tumultuous regions of the Middle East
if Iran and Saudi Arabia elect to reach
their hands into more areas of conflict.
Thus, the concern from the Arab
perspective stems from the threat of
an up-to-date Iranian military backed
by a state that has not changed its ideology. Should Iran continue to destabilize certain areas, Saudi Arabia will
undoubtedly respond with force, as this
article showed it attempted to do in Yemen. Interestingly, both sides seem prepared for war and actors supporting the
sides use similar language to spell out
a fut