Management of oil flows, religious dispute between Shiites and Sunnis, political clash for domination in the areas of the Gulf and the Middle East. But not only. The rekindling of tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran can also, if not above all, be explained by "events related to the internal politics of the two countries". Stefano Silvestri, scientific adviser and former president of the Institute for International Affairs (IAI), is convinced of this.
Doctor Silvestri, so you don't think that the escalation of the last few days is the result of the July agreement between the West and Iran?
“The Saudis certainly did not like the Vienna agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue, because with the gradual lifting of sanctions they fear a political return by Iran, also in relation to countries allied to Arabia, in particular the United States. But this is a long-term concern. The shortest problem (and which in my opinion is at the basis of the current controversies between the two countries) actually concerns internal politics, both in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. From this point of view, the two countries are completely similar”.
In what respects?
“In Saudi Arabia the question concerns the possible change in the regime's social policies linked to the decrease in oil revenues and in general to the economic situation. The same thing also applies to Iran, but in this case we can add the fact that the greater openness to the West that will follow the Vienna agreements makes the regime fear a very strong loss of consensus, or even a form of revolt" .
Isn't hegemony in the region also at stake?
“There is also this aspect, particularly with regard to dominance over Mesopotamia, i.e. Iraq and Syria. This is the only point of real competition between the two countries. The problem is that the clash is being framed, once again, as a direct war between Sunni and Shiite factions, an ideological competition relating to whoever defends the purest interpretation of the various religious beliefs. Which is extremely dangerous, because it shifts attention from the fight against terrorism to the secular conflict within the Muslim world, which risks leaving more space and even giving a role to both Shiite and Sunni terrorists”.
What about the sanctions against Iran at this point? Will the gradual withdrawal continue or will the pressure from Riyadh have an effect?
“I believe that the process will continue more or less as planned, also because I do not believe at all that Iran will choose to proceed with military or rearmament operations at this stage. The only two facts that can block the process are, in the short term, a possible negative report from the IEA, and, in the longer term, a change in US policy due to the election of a new president. But both of these cases seem improbable to me at the moment".
What will be the consequences of this new scenario on oil prices?
“From a convenience perspective, it is obvious that both Saudi Arabia and Iran would prefer higher prices. However, both are aware of the fact that, if they cut production at this stage, they might not get a price increase – because the cut would need to be very substantial, over 50%, to have an effect – and at the same time lose customers and market".
For what reason?
“United States, Europe, China, Japan: everyone needs certainties in their oil supply. An exporting country that makes such a drastic cut in production loses reliability and induces its customers to obtain supplies of oil elsewhere. At that point, there could really be a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran: if one of the two cuts production, the other would have every interest in increasing it to take that slice of the market”.
Furthermore, with the possible rise in oil prices, American shale would become competitive again.
“Undoubtedly, as well as all the alternative energies today put out of the market by the very low prices of crude oil. Thus the reduction in prices, if on the one hand it brought down the incomes of the exporting countries, on the other it confirmed their long-term market position. It's about choosing. In my opinion, the move to cut production to raise the price is very dangerous, because it may not work and has many contraindications. I think neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran will expose themselves to similar risks”.
Returning to the crisis between Riyadh and Tehran, what role should the West play?
“First of all, he can try not to increase the pressure with absurd statements on both sides. Then, in this phase, it can above all perform a function of political mediation, trying to bring the fight against terrorism back to the center of the debate rather than the opposition between Shiites and Sunnis".
In your opinion, the Western alliance with the Saudi regime, devoted to political and religious expansionism, isn't a problem?
“We have problems with everyone. It is certainly dangerous to rely solely on good offices and on the choices of regimes so different from us and with different sensibilities for one's security. Perhaps it would be appropriate to be more detached in our policy towards these countries".
And in Syria? To normalize the situation, do we need military initiatives or a diplomatic strategy that also involves Russia and Iran?
“Both. Military operations are necessary because Isis cannot now be eliminated through political means. On the other hand, the diplomatic agreement is essential and it is also important to involve Russia and Iran, like all the active parties in the conflict”.
Do you think Saudi Arabia would sit at the negotiating table together with the Russians and the Iranians?
“I think so, there's no problem with that. The main question is to understand what is the best political solution for Syria in the long term”.
Europe and the US aim to bring down Assad, but to replace him with whom? At the moment the alternatives are Isis and Al-Nusra, which appears among the acronyms of what is defined as the "moderate opposition" but is affiliated with Al Qaeda.
“Yes, exactly, for the moment there aren't many alternatives. Some are proposing a kind of new mandatory government entrusted to the United Nations, but it seems to me almost madness (it would take much more than a simple diplomatic agreement to guarantee the security of such a solution). But maintaining the Assad regime is not a sustainable project either. It would be like saying that to avoid what happened in Iraq it would have been better if Saddam Houssein had remained: certainly the war in Iraq was a mistake, but Saddam was not the solution”.
Meanwhile, the stalemate of the war in Syria is opening the front in Libya. Can the agreement for the national unity government be a turning point or not? And how should Italy move?
“The agreement is quite important, but on condition that it bears fruit soon, otherwise it will remain another irrelevant episode in the Libyan civil war. Italy must exercise all forms of pressure and dialogue at its disposal to try to form a more solid Libyan executive, or consolidate the current one, to move from the phase of all against all to a phase of effective cooperation. The agreement contains the premises for all of this, but there is still a lack of strength, the true adhesions of the various military groups".
