Washington and Tehran score diplomatic points, indirectly make Moscow and Ankara look ridiculous

Just as soon as it had begun, it was over.

Ten sailors from the United States Navy, nine men and one woman, who were taken into Iranian custody while running exercises in the Persian Gulf, have returned to American hands unharmed.

Apparently, the sailors were conducting an exercise in the Gulf when they drifted into Iranian waters. They spent less than 24 hours in Iranian custody.

The mood in Washington and Tehran seems to be one of relief and perhaps even excitement. Iranian state media spoke in neutral terms about the sailors. "The detained U.S. sailors, after it was realized that their entry into Iran’s territorial waters was unintentional, and after the sailors apologized, were released into international waters in the Persian Gulf.”

Eight years ago, British Marines did the same and were detained by the Revolutionary Guard. They, however, were held in detention for thirteen days before being released. The standoff between Iran and the UK (and their close allies in the United States) further exacerbated tensions and rhetoric on both sides. 

It's been thirty-seven years since Iran's Islamic Revolution and the Hostage Crisis. In those years, this kind of diplomacy was unheard of. While Iranian (and some American) hardliners still furiously rabble about the evils of their opponents, perhaps this is the turning corner in American-Iranian relations. 

Next month, Iranians will head to the polls to vote in a very important election. They will elect both the Iranian Consultative Assembly, also known as the Parliament or Majlis, and the Assembly of Experts, an upper house of sorts that will choose the next Supreme Leader when Ayatollah Khamenei either resigns or dies. Among those running for the Assembly of Experts are current President Hassan Rouhani, who was swept into office in a landslide win in Iran's 2013 Presidential Election, former President Ali Akbar Rasfanjani, and the late Ayatollah Khomenei's grandson Hassan Khomenei. 

Those elections are still some days off and the climate will take some time to materialize as candidacies are approved or disapproved by Khamenei. But however they turn out, Washington and Tehran have shown some serious diplomatic chops-especially in the face of other rivals such as Russia and Turkey. 

On November 24th, 2015, the Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian SU-24 plane. One of the pilots was killed by a militia in Syria that captured him after he ejected from the plane, while the other was returned to Russia. 

Both Moscow and Ankara immediately started pointing fingers and squabbling over who was to blame for the spat. Tensions have unfortunately remained high with Russia bulldozing Turkish fruit, a nationalist crowd pelting the Turkish Embassy in Moscow with rocks and eggs, economic sanctions, and accusations ranging from the Islamic fundamentalist  to the bizarrely sexual. More can be read here in my post Yet Another Nationalist Spat. 

Moscow's anger at Ankara was understandable and warranted. Russia is a country where patriotism flourishes and the Russian Armed Forces command great respect among the Russian people. The responses by Moscow and Ankara to this unfortunate and short-sighted mess, however, have been nothing but counter-productive. Nationalism, which flourishes in both countries, has prevented the two sides from coming to the negotiation table and working out methods to prevent this kind of thing from happening a second time. 

None of that will have to happen between Washington and Tehran. The United States has its sailors back. Washington has thanked Tehran for the swift resolution of a precarious situation that could have mushroomed into something much, much worse such as the recent Iran-Saudi Arabia mess. Tehran responded to accidental breach of the waters it controls in the Persian Gulf with force, but with restraint as well. 

Take notes, Moscow and Ankara. This is how you resolve a precarious conflict. 

What Russia Can Do Right in Syria

A recent NPR report suggested that Russia is not exclusively supporting forces loyal to Assad. During Putin’s annual conference with the press. In a speech to top military commanders, it was revealed that Russia was assisting “some factions” of the Free Syrian Army. 

The report did not specify which branches of the Army were being supported, but the recent spat with Turkey implies that it could be the Arab/Kurdish alliance in the north that goes by the name of “Syrian Democratic Forces” or SDF. 

The SDF is a recent player in the civil war. A large portion of their fighters are Kurds who are members of the smaller People’s Protection Units, known by their Kurdish initials YPG. The YPG is opposed in theory to the Assad regime, but has compromised with Assad’s forces in the northeastern cities of Hasakah and Qamishli, where some still patrol. The YPG has also placed priority on defeating Da’esh rather than fighting Assad’s forces, which, barring a couple very small exceptions that have opted to cease fire with the YPG, are not trying to claim the same land. 

The YPG’s ultimate goal in Syria is to establish an autonomous “democratic confederalist” region along the Syrian border with Turkey called Rojava, or Western Kurdistan. 

The YPG made a name for themselves when they drove the Islamists out of Kobane after an excruciating siege which destroyed most of the city, and are advancing west in hopes to take control of the entire border with Syria. 

If these are the “moderate rebels” the Kremlin wishes to support (despite the consistent complaining about the United States doing similar), it may be a preferable path to follow. The Kurds have suffered immensely at the hands of the governments of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent Iran. Supporting them, provided that support lasts, could establish a rare consensus between Europe, the United States, and Moscow. 

While it may further aggravate the relationship with Ankara and President Erdogan, the Turkish government has often been maligned for its nationalistic attitude towards its Kurdish minority-until recently Kurds in Turkey were known as "Mountain Turks". International pressure could even swing towards Ankara to fully and comprehensively address the festering wound that has been aggravated by both the terrorists of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Turkish government.  If the Kremlin can find a way to swing international interest towards the Turkey-PKK conflict and contribute to working out some sort of consensus, it would considerably help the region’s stability. 

The Kurds in Iraq and Syria find themselves at an interesting crossroads. Kurdish forces in Iraq managed to keep Islamic State away from most of their territory and have even gained control over territory they didn't have before, including Kirkuk, a large city considered a centre of Kurdish culture. Arab Iraqi forces from Baghdad recently recaptured the large city of Ramadi.

This is a huge victory that will likely mean a march on Mosul in the north will be coming in the next months. The Iraqi Kurdish government has expressed interest in a referendum on full independence and Russian recognition of the region should it go forward with a possible referendum would establish a considerable precedent in the region. An autonomous Syrian Kurdistan could also establish relations with Russia and give Moscow a secular, democratic ally in the region. 

The Kremlin’s explicit support of Bashar Al-Assad is still condemnable considering the regime’s use of chemical weapons, brutal suppression of protests against his rule, and the horrific treatment of prisoners of war captured by Assad’s forces. And there’s no question Syria would probably be better off for the future without Assad in power. But a considerably weakened Assad in power of a decentralized and more closely monitored Syria is not the worst scenario considering the alternatives. The Free Syrian Army would likely find it more difficult to rebuild the country as it is not as centralized and united as the forces loyal to Assad-if they were to strike some agreement with the SDF, however, their voice may stand a greater chance of being heard as well. 

The King and Ay(atollah): Examining the rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran

Mark Twain, the famous American author, once said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

It seems to have rhymed with itself again in the Middle East.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Islamic Republic of Iran have formally severed diplomatic ties.

The diplomatic decision comes amid steel and fire. On January the 2nd, Saudi Arabia executed forty-six people. Most of them were terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda.

One of them, however, was a Shi'a cleric named Nimr Al-Nimr.

Al-Nimr was a Saudi Shi'a critical of the Saudi government who even at one point suggested Saudi Arabia's populous Eastern Province (pictured below) should secede from the Kingdom if the country would not give its Shi'a minority, which is around 10-15% of the population and mostly concentrated in the Eastern Province, its deserved rights. Al-Nimr also called for free elections in Saudi Arabia. As Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, it does not include a national legislature as part of the structure of its government. Elections do occur, but only at the very local level and they cede little power away from the royal family.

Provincial map of Saudi Arabia. The Eastern Province is shown in red. 

Map from Wikipedia. 

Across the Persian Gulf, Iranians reacted with terrible rage and fury. In Tehran, Iran's capital and largest city, thugs stormed the Saudi embassy, ransacked the compound and set entire rooms ablaze. The Saudi consulate in Mashhad, a large city in Iran's northeast not far from the border with Turkmenistan, saw similar damage. The rioters allegedly chanted "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Greatest!) and "Marg Bar Al-Saud!" ("Down with/Death to the Al-Saud family!") as they torched the buildings. 

If the rioters were indeed chanting "Allahu Akbar!", it sheds light on one of the main reasons Saudi Arabia and Iran are not very friendly with each other. Both are predominately Islamic countries, but Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni Muslim, where as Iran is mostly Shi'a Muslim. The two sects of Islam branched off from each other centuries ago over a dispute regarding who should succeed Mohammed, Islam's holiest of prophets, and have been at odds ever since. 

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran claim to speak for their respective sect of Islam. The Saudi flag contains in beautiful, sweeping Arabic calligraphy the shahadah, or testament of faith that is central to Islam: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet." 

Iran's flag, since the 1979 revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei to power, has contained a stylized version of the various Farsi (Persian) words that make up the first part of the same testament, "There is no God but Allah". The green and red stripes of the flag are also bordered with the phrase "God is Greatest" multiple times. 

For two countries that claim to speak for God, it's hard to find any moral high ground in this explosion of tension. In fact, the entire thing is rife with double standards and hypocrisy. Iran 's outrage is understandable when you think about the average person, but it's hard to argue on behalf of the government sitting in Tehran. Both countries carry out public capital punishment, but Iran does it a whole lot more than the Saudis and in an equally gruesome fashion. While Saudi Arabia beheads their criminals with a swing of the sword, Iran hangs their corpses off of construction cranes like some sort of sadistic pinata. Executions have actually gone up in Iran since Hassan Rouhani was elected president. 

Furthermore, it's ironic Iran would complain about the execution of political dissidents. In the 2009 Green Uprising, when Iranians flooded the streets of major cities all across their countries, the security apparatus responded with deadly force. The government claims around three dozen were killed in the unrest, but opposition figures claim between seventy and 150 were killed. Dissidents are tortured and imprisoned regularly in Iran. 

As for the religious dynamic, Sunnis live in Iran just as Shiites live in Saudi Arabia. Like the Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Sunnis do sometimes face discrimination, but Iran's diverse ethnic background does result in more recognition of the minority religion. Iran's Kurdish, Lari, Balochi, and Turkmen populations are predominately Sunni Muslim, and President Rouhani has pledged to reach out to the Sunni minority. Iran also enjoys very friendly relations with Tajikistan, a Sunni Muslim country, because of the strong cultural ties the countries share: Tajiks speak Tajik, a language very similar to Iran's official language, Farsi, and President Ahmadinejad claimed once that "Iran and Tajikistan are one spirit in two bodies."

Furthermore, smaller religious minorities in Iran such as Christians and Jews are also allowed to practice their respective faiths in the country and possess a small handful of reserved seats in the Iranian Parliament. By contrast, if one wishes to become a Saudi citizen, they must convert to Islam. 

The prime suspects in the arson attack on the Saudi embassy and consulate in Iran seem to be the Basij. The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer group which has often been maligned as more of a branch of the Revolutionary Guard designed to cause trouble. Indeed, when Iranian students loyal to Ayatollah Khomenei's new government stormed and took hostages in the American Embassy, Khomenei offered his support to their actions. 

There is an anti-Saudi sentiment among ordinary Iranians as well. The two countries' respective strength and development make them natural rivals vying for influence in the Middle East, and Arabs and Persians have had a rocky relationship with each other for centuries.

The chances of a permanent solution between the two countries were elusive before and looks near impossible now, and the Sunni-Shi'a divide only further complicates matters. If religion was to take a smaller or much-revised role in both countries with a real decentralization of power in Saudi Arabia, things may be able to change. But with the stubbornness on both sides, that's unlikely.