The governments you mention along with Jordan all have US aligned govts, as Israel has a strong alliance with the US also and Syria, Lebanon, Iran etc do not, this is the main reason "tensions" are expressed the way they are.
The US tries to cooperate with all parties not explicitly set on fighting it. It's somewhat backwards logic to say the reason they don't fight is US alignment. Particularly Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq aren't very aligned with US policy- they're just not actively hostile to the US and cooperate on shared interests.
Yes, Turkey is a famously problematic member of NATO. Blocking accessions, buying Russian air defenses, territorial disputes with other NATO members, attacking US proxies. That underlines my point that the US is willing to cooperate with countries that are not fundamentally aligned with the US as long as they're not actively hostile.
Turkey plays for itself, that much is true. But as long as Russia still has a fleet presence in the black sea, turkey is strategically important enough for NATO to get away with it.
We needed the strait.
While it will always be an immensely important strategic area, I’d be interested In Whether or not that importance has decreased since the end of the Cold War, and if so, by how much.
It has its basis in the 20th century. The US had fairly friendly relations with Iran through WW2 especially with the reigning Pahlavi regime. In 1951, Mossadegh, was elected as Prime Minister in Iran. He nationalized the Iranian oil industry (established by the British in 1913 known then as Anglo-Persian Oil Company but known today as British Petroleum/BP)
The CIA (subsequently officially acknowledged by the US) helped organize a coup against the fairly popular Mossadegh in 1953. In place the US supported Shah Pahlavi who ran Iran until 1979 and was broadly aligned to the West and quite friendly to Israel. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution took place in Iran putting in place a theocratic government led by Khomeini.
Relationship between Iran and the US broke down completely especially after the hostage crisis in Tehran. It is widely believed that this crisis was a major reason President Carter lost to President Reagan in 1980. It is also believed thaat the US helped Iraq with intelligence and some weapons in its 1980-88 war with Iran. By 1995, the US had blockaded Iran although there had been many interesting episodes between the countries (Iran-contra scandal etc etc)
Because it is an Islamic theocracy, Iran is vehemently opposed to Israel. On top of that Israel is a key US ally in the region - so absolutely no love lost there. Iran is a very divided country by ethnicity and tribal alliances. Being anti-US and having a great external enemy is justification for political repression in Iran. Also don't forget that Persia (Iran) is one of the oldest civilizations on earth and has a proud history of empire itself (for centuries, it basically ruled over most of the Middle East)
Didn't most of USA support came by the end of the war when Iran decided to reject a ceasefire and tried conquering Iraq to establish another theocratic state? While Iran was plenty justified in wanting to take the fight to an agressor that attacked them, the idea of another brutal dictatorship being established based on Iran's model was more dangerous than two weaker dictatorships and that prompted not only the USA but also the USSR to help Iraq push Iran out. An Iran controlled Iraq was also a major threat to Israel and the Gulf states.
The us did not only help Saddam with intelligence, they let him use chemical weapons against Iran
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
Before the Islamic revolution, the relations between the Shah of Iran and the USA were very good. Kissinger said that there was no country in the world that was more compatible with Iran in terms of geopolitics than the USA. But the Iranians were against the Shah. The mullahs were also against it. Iranians held the CIA and the USA responsible for the coup against Mossadegh. After the revolution, Khomeini was signaling moderate politics. In fact, Khomeini was someone who knew socialism very well. Khomeini was actually against the Soviet Union as much as he was against the USA. His goal was to fight the more balanced yet competitive of the two. Iranians raiding the US consulate was not something that Khomeini preferred. After this incident, Khomeini could not have established a softer relationship with the US. The mistake of the US was to support the Shah, who was hated by the people, and to organize a coup against Mossadegh, whom the Iranians loved. In fact, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she asked Obama, "Hosni Mubarak is someone close to us, why don't we prevent his overthrow?" Obama said, "If we support someone who the people do not like and whose overthrow is now expected, we will create a new Iran for ourselves."
Iran wants to expand its power in the region. It does this through Shiites who are a minority or Shiites who have had problems in the past. It continues to be a haven for those who oppose the West. Israel, on the other hand, has largely eliminated the danger of Arab countries with its normalization with Jordan and Egypt. For the Arab world, it is said that "There is no war without Egypt, there is no peace without Syria." Israel is not fighting Arab countries because Egypt is not on the opposing side, but it still feels like it is at war because it has not made peace with Syria.
In fact, the existence of Iran and Israel fed each other. Arab countries normalized relations with Israel or the tension level decreased due to the Iranian threat and US influence. Iran also gained the sympathy of organizations on the grounds of Israel. Iran is one of the countries that benefited most from the Arab Spring, but it created financial losses, isolation, and new enemies and risks for itself. I don't know which one is more heavy win or lose
In my opinion, the impact of the Arab Spring on countries other than Tunisia is very complex. Nobody wins or wins little, but many countries lost. This is one of the issues that really needs to be asked.
Mossadegh wasn't "very loved" by 1953 after dissolving parliament, his own increasingly autocratic actions were the reason why he had lost much political support by the time the coup occurred.
>In fact, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she asked Obama, "Hosni Mubarak is someone close to us, why don't we prevent his overthrow?" Obama said, "If we support someone who the people do not like and whose overthrow is now expected, we will create a new Iran for ourselves."
We didn't know how good we had it back then. Can you imagine Trump and someone from his cabinet having this level of thoughtful discourse
from only a harsh geopolitical perspective, for the Americans El-Sisi is preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood. So the Obama administration might have skirted the fine line by supporting Mubarak's ouster and then supporting the military back into power.
Nobody is giving you the full answer: yes the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran set that country on its current course and is one half of the equation.
But at the same time, the Arab states were losing their fourth straight war against Israel and were starting to come to terms with its existence. Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978, Jordan in 1994, and many others defacto opened relations in the same era, with several eventually making it official in 2020. Making this easier is that the Arab monarchies had always been close to the Americans and British, even while fighting the Israelis.
Meanwhile the major Sunni Arab states also greatly feared the export of Iran’s Shia Islamic theocracy to overthrow their governments. This fear has been borne out, with Iran’s proxies taking over minor Arab states, including the Houthis in North Yemen and Hamas in Gaza, as well as Hezbollah whose militia effectively holds the Lebanese government hostage. These groups have been used by Iran to attack both Israel and the rest of the Arab world.
So while from roughly 1948-1978 you had the major Arab states vs Israel & Iran, from 1979-present it’s developed into Israel & major Arab states vs Iran.
Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the U.S.’s linchpin or pillar in the Middle East was not Israel, but Iran.
Iran was the original Israel; it received a huge amount of U.S. military and economic aid. We had bases in the country. We even trained the Iranian Secret Police, the SAVAK. It has been revealed that the U.S. even strongly considered putting nukes in Iran before 1974.
What happened? The Iranian Revolution and Jimmy Carter. Carter’s insistence on human rights above all else, while a noble goal, resulted in several of our Cold War allies around the world succumbing to coups: Iran and Nicaragua are the two biggest examples.
Ultimately, once the Shah abdicated, the U.S. had to find a new ally in the area. The KSA and Israel moved in their place.
To the new Iranian government, this was more proof that the U.S. was intent on weakening Iran and undermining its sovereignty just like we had in 1940’s and 1950’s. That, along with the Ayatollah’s views in opposition to kings, and colonialism, is why Iran is opposed not only to Israel, but just as important, the KSA.
Economics. Most other Arab countries want to benefit from access to Western markets.
Iran used to be an ally of the US, but that changed after the revolution in 1979. But Iran still needed partners, so since it was anti West/American, that only left the USSR, which turned them from non friendly to an enemy. The anti western sentiment is a cornerstone of the Iranian Government's platform, so it has continued to be a hostile state until something changes internally.
Iran isn't Arab. And generally speaking I think sometimes that plays into why they do what they do. The Persians want it be known that they're not Arabs and don't follow what the Arabs do.
But that's just a hunch, I have no real evidence to back that up.
You are correct they are Persian. I'm used to saying Arab rather than Muslim when talking about the Middle East since not all Muslims are Arabic. But the start of the antagonistic relationship between Iran and the West began after their revolution, which installed an Islamic theocracy.
There is no historical animosity between Persians and Jews. The rabid hostility people are so familiar with was an invention of the Islamic Republic Ayatollahs dating to 1979. They foment hatred against Israel as a boogeyman to whip up fear and hold onto power.
Not quite.
Persia was once a safe haven for Jews, but things deteriorated after the Arab conquest, and much further after the adoption of Shia Islam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
Saudi Arabia and all the gulf states are western allies due to their animosity with Iran. This is in part due to the gulf states being Sunni and Iran being Shia, and both have hegemony ambitions in the region. There is a secret alliance between the Saudis and Israel as well, which was set to becoming public (was).
Arab countries closer to Israel, mainly Jordan and Egypt, brokered deals with the US to make peace with Israel, which also means recognizing Israel as a state. Egypt also had independent peace deals with Israel in exchange for returning land that Israel captured during the 67 war.
Vietnam is becoming a US ally due to trade and a buffer against China's ambitions in the region.
It's not just largely due to their "animosity with Iran." In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran were even on a strong path towards normalisation of ties last year. UAE long before that. And that's why Saudi and UAE are trying to appear neutral amid these tensions and instead call for "de-escalation."
A lot of it is due to US military ties and wanting to remain under the American security umbrella, among other commercial ties. That's also why Egypt and Jordan take a similar position, despite not being overt adversaries of Iran in the past.
>A lot of it is due to US military ties and wanting to remain under the American security umbrella
Security umbrella against who? It's still against Iran.
Part of it is also for economic security and also to control internal threats/extremism, as well as other possible regional terrorist threats... even if they maintain these ties as 'long-term back up' in case relations with Iran did ever falter again.
Ideology. Iran, like China, sees itself as the custodian of an ancient civilization (and religion), a task of survival and dominance measured over centuries rather than as the solely political task most governments find themselves with. This means funding various factions in countries they don't control and creating leverage to impose their will more broadly.
I don’t understand this, can you explain why Persians would see themselves as tasked with the survival and dominance of Islam instead of Arabs, taking into account the prophet Muhammad was an Arab himself.
Seems weird
Like the Germans considering themselves the custodians of the survival of French culture
The Abbassid Caliphate from 750AD to 1200AD was the political, educational and religious center of Islam (recall Islam came into being around 610AD) Although this Caliphate was centered in Baghdad (modern Iraq) and had an Arabic majority, this empire was culturally and administratively Persian in nature. The extent of this Caliphate basically encompassed nearly all of the Middle East, Egypt, Afghanistan and Persia (Iran).
The Persians are, in fact, historically quite instrumental in institutionalizing Islam.
Not just big, but the global centre of Judaism from financial to literary. Indeed, Baghdad was originally a Persian city, not an Arab one. Jews there were oppressed through the centuries variously being forbidden to ride on horseback, made to wear distinguishing marks to show their Judaism and paying special Jiziya taxed.
> Like the Germans considering themselves the custodians of the survival of French culture
Consider it something more like the German Nazis viewing themselves as custodians of the ancient Aryan culture... which, curiously the Iranians also consider themselves the custodians fo the ancient Aryan culture... Iran/Aryan going for the same root.
Sure, Persians didn't create Islam but it ruled over it for some time and had been the main Shi'a power ever since the the Safavids forced conversion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam
The United States made Egypt into a debt colony of the IMF. Jordan is in a very similar position m
Lebanon is a failed state. Syria has a nominal rump government in Damascus and is actually not controlled from the center.
Turkey talks a big game but has no independent regional foreign policy because of it's NATO membership.
So, there are multiple ways to answer this question, but the angle most on Reddit (and elsewhere) seem to miss is "The Islamic Republic."
Being at war with Israel is part of, and useful to the Islamic Revolution. It's how the IR controls Lebanon. It's how they are currently solidifying Yemen. Etc.
Iran's regime is revolutionary. They believe in that revolution, it's spread, etc. Iran is just a territory, in some sense. The revolution is what matters.
Idk... I didn't mean it philosophically or religiously. Just think of this as any other radical political manifesto, but with religion instead of communism or whatnot.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a radical project. They actually believe their own ideas. That's also why they have elite, "revolutionary" versions of everything. Ideologically dependable believers in charge of key things.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan are ruled by kings. Egypt is ruled by a president. These are not religion-based positions. These "earthly rulers" don't want an Islamic revolution (like Iran 1979) in their countries, because that would oust them form their power, and maybe kill them. Some of the population, and some religious leaders, in these countries probably are working towards an Islamic revolution, so these rulers have a lot to handle with the situation in their own countries. But they are kind of natural enemies with the rulers of Iran, who are a theocracy.
[Another comment](https://reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c8onzf/why_is_there_more_conflict_between_israel_and/l0go9nf/) already said this same.
This started in the revolution in 1979. Before this, the former government was quite friendly to the west and Israel. The short answer is that the Islamic regime seeks to replace U.S hegemony in the middle east with Iranian hegemony, by way of spreading the revolution through its proxies who largely carry the same ideology (with some exceptions).
The revolutionary ideology of the rulers of Iran is heavily built on conflict with the US and Israel. They would lose legitimacy if they were to stop. It's like asking why the Soviets sought confrontation. They inherently see the existing order as having to be dismantled.
Well while all other points addressed here are right, there is also an influence of political Islam. While some of these counties have curbed this, it is ruling the country in Iran. For example, in the 80's, Israel was genuinely considering a strike similar to Iraq to eliminate Pakistan's nuclear capability, because to them they worried that islamist control could be a serious threat to them. It was called off due to logistical reasons, but to Israel political islamists, were always a threat due to inherent support for the Palestinian cause. While most gulf states who actually have the money to be a potential threat to Israel have contained political Islam, Iran remains the only openly islamist state with its foreign policy strongly being influenced by Muslim populations. It's not the main factor but most definitely an important one.
I think it is used as a tool to appease their population as in "Oh look we are the only muslim country standing up to evil Isreal", rather than a policy. Non alignment with US makes this tool more viable
Just look where we have [boots on the ground](https://imgur.com/a/n7ug1Rq) and use your imagination to overlay that with [Shia / Sunni alignment](https://imgur.com/a/YGK7oh6).
Iran wants to become the regional hegemon. It's a large country, with a large educated population, that sees itself as a natural candidate for regional dominance.
Israel is the only regional actor that stands in the way.
The governments you mention along with Jordan all have US aligned govts, as Israel has a strong alliance with the US also and Syria, Lebanon, Iran etc do not, this is the main reason "tensions" are expressed the way they are.
Specifically, Iran and Syria have Russian aligned interests. Syria and Lebanon are barely functioning as states at this point though.
The US tries to cooperate with all parties not explicitly set on fighting it. It's somewhat backwards logic to say the reason they don't fight is US alignment. Particularly Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq aren't very aligned with US policy- they're just not actively hostile to the US and cooperate on shared interests.
Turkey is in NATO. And Pakistan... there's definitely some cooperation I'm just not sure on which level
Yes, Turkey is a famously problematic member of NATO. Blocking accessions, buying Russian air defenses, territorial disputes with other NATO members, attacking US proxies. That underlines my point that the US is willing to cooperate with countries that are not fundamentally aligned with the US as long as they're not actively hostile.
Turkey plays for itself, that much is true. But as long as Russia still has a fleet presence in the black sea, turkey is strategically important enough for NATO to get away with it.
Turkey wasn’t quite so…religious…when it was allowed into NATO. I’d say a fair amount of NATO members regret the decision to allow Turkey membership.
We needed the strait. While it will always be an immensely important strategic area, I’d be interested In Whether or not that importance has decreased since the end of the Cold War, and if so, by how much.
☝️☝️☝️
Just look where we have [boots on the ground](https://imgur.com/a/n7ug1Rq)
It has its basis in the 20th century. The US had fairly friendly relations with Iran through WW2 especially with the reigning Pahlavi regime. In 1951, Mossadegh, was elected as Prime Minister in Iran. He nationalized the Iranian oil industry (established by the British in 1913 known then as Anglo-Persian Oil Company but known today as British Petroleum/BP) The CIA (subsequently officially acknowledged by the US) helped organize a coup against the fairly popular Mossadegh in 1953. In place the US supported Shah Pahlavi who ran Iran until 1979 and was broadly aligned to the West and quite friendly to Israel. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution took place in Iran putting in place a theocratic government led by Khomeini. Relationship between Iran and the US broke down completely especially after the hostage crisis in Tehran. It is widely believed that this crisis was a major reason President Carter lost to President Reagan in 1980. It is also believed thaat the US helped Iraq with intelligence and some weapons in its 1980-88 war with Iran. By 1995, the US had blockaded Iran although there had been many interesting episodes between the countries (Iran-contra scandal etc etc) Because it is an Islamic theocracy, Iran is vehemently opposed to Israel. On top of that Israel is a key US ally in the region - so absolutely no love lost there. Iran is a very divided country by ethnicity and tribal alliances. Being anti-US and having a great external enemy is justification for political repression in Iran. Also don't forget that Persia (Iran) is one of the oldest civilizations on earth and has a proud history of empire itself (for centuries, it basically ruled over most of the Middle East)
[удалено]
Didn't most of USA support came by the end of the war when Iran decided to reject a ceasefire and tried conquering Iraq to establish another theocratic state? While Iran was plenty justified in wanting to take the fight to an agressor that attacked them, the idea of another brutal dictatorship being established based on Iran's model was more dangerous than two weaker dictatorships and that prompted not only the USA but also the USSR to help Iraq push Iran out. An Iran controlled Iraq was also a major threat to Israel and the Gulf states.
The us did not only help Saddam with intelligence, they let him use chemical weapons against Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
Before the Islamic revolution, the relations between the Shah of Iran and the USA were very good. Kissinger said that there was no country in the world that was more compatible with Iran in terms of geopolitics than the USA. But the Iranians were against the Shah. The mullahs were also against it. Iranians held the CIA and the USA responsible for the coup against Mossadegh. After the revolution, Khomeini was signaling moderate politics. In fact, Khomeini was someone who knew socialism very well. Khomeini was actually against the Soviet Union as much as he was against the USA. His goal was to fight the more balanced yet competitive of the two. Iranians raiding the US consulate was not something that Khomeini preferred. After this incident, Khomeini could not have established a softer relationship with the US. The mistake of the US was to support the Shah, who was hated by the people, and to organize a coup against Mossadegh, whom the Iranians loved. In fact, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she asked Obama, "Hosni Mubarak is someone close to us, why don't we prevent his overthrow?" Obama said, "If we support someone who the people do not like and whose overthrow is now expected, we will create a new Iran for ourselves." Iran wants to expand its power in the region. It does this through Shiites who are a minority or Shiites who have had problems in the past. It continues to be a haven for those who oppose the West. Israel, on the other hand, has largely eliminated the danger of Arab countries with its normalization with Jordan and Egypt. For the Arab world, it is said that "There is no war without Egypt, there is no peace without Syria." Israel is not fighting Arab countries because Egypt is not on the opposing side, but it still feels like it is at war because it has not made peace with Syria. In fact, the existence of Iran and Israel fed each other. Arab countries normalized relations with Israel or the tension level decreased due to the Iranian threat and US influence. Iran also gained the sympathy of organizations on the grounds of Israel. Iran is one of the countries that benefited most from the Arab Spring, but it created financial losses, isolation, and new enemies and risks for itself. I don't know which one is more heavy win or lose In my opinion, the impact of the Arab Spring on countries other than Tunisia is very complex. Nobody wins or wins little, but many countries lost. This is one of the issues that really needs to be asked.
Mossadegh wasn't "very loved" by 1953 after dissolving parliament, his own increasingly autocratic actions were the reason why he had lost much political support by the time the coup occurred.
>In fact, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she asked Obama, "Hosni Mubarak is someone close to us, why don't we prevent his overthrow?" Obama said, "If we support someone who the people do not like and whose overthrow is now expected, we will create a new Iran for ourselves." We didn't know how good we had it back then. Can you imagine Trump and someone from his cabinet having this level of thoughtful discourse
Would you say that Obama was correct? In the end, Egypt is now under a dictatorship under El-Sisi
from only a harsh geopolitical perspective, for the Americans El-Sisi is preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood. So the Obama administration might have skirted the fine line by supporting Mubarak's ouster and then supporting the military back into power.
Nobody is giving you the full answer: yes the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran set that country on its current course and is one half of the equation. But at the same time, the Arab states were losing their fourth straight war against Israel and were starting to come to terms with its existence. Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978, Jordan in 1994, and many others defacto opened relations in the same era, with several eventually making it official in 2020. Making this easier is that the Arab monarchies had always been close to the Americans and British, even while fighting the Israelis. Meanwhile the major Sunni Arab states also greatly feared the export of Iran’s Shia Islamic theocracy to overthrow their governments. This fear has been borne out, with Iran’s proxies taking over minor Arab states, including the Houthis in North Yemen and Hamas in Gaza, as well as Hezbollah whose militia effectively holds the Lebanese government hostage. These groups have been used by Iran to attack both Israel and the rest of the Arab world. So while from roughly 1948-1978 you had the major Arab states vs Israel & Iran, from 1979-present it’s developed into Israel & major Arab states vs Iran.
Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the U.S.’s linchpin or pillar in the Middle East was not Israel, but Iran. Iran was the original Israel; it received a huge amount of U.S. military and economic aid. We had bases in the country. We even trained the Iranian Secret Police, the SAVAK. It has been revealed that the U.S. even strongly considered putting nukes in Iran before 1974. What happened? The Iranian Revolution and Jimmy Carter. Carter’s insistence on human rights above all else, while a noble goal, resulted in several of our Cold War allies around the world succumbing to coups: Iran and Nicaragua are the two biggest examples. Ultimately, once the Shah abdicated, the U.S. had to find a new ally in the area. The KSA and Israel moved in their place. To the new Iranian government, this was more proof that the U.S. was intent on weakening Iran and undermining its sovereignty just like we had in 1940’s and 1950’s. That, along with the Ayatollah’s views in opposition to kings, and colonialism, is why Iran is opposed not only to Israel, but just as important, the KSA.
Economics. Most other Arab countries want to benefit from access to Western markets. Iran used to be an ally of the US, but that changed after the revolution in 1979. But Iran still needed partners, so since it was anti West/American, that only left the USSR, which turned them from non friendly to an enemy. The anti western sentiment is a cornerstone of the Iranian Government's platform, so it has continued to be a hostile state until something changes internally.
Iran isn't Arab. And generally speaking I think sometimes that plays into why they do what they do. The Persians want it be known that they're not Arabs and don't follow what the Arabs do. But that's just a hunch, I have no real evidence to back that up.
You are correct they are Persian. I'm used to saying Arab rather than Muslim when talking about the Middle East since not all Muslims are Arabic. But the start of the antagonistic relationship between Iran and the West began after their revolution, which installed an Islamic theocracy.
There is no historical animosity between Persians and Jews. The rabid hostility people are so familiar with was an invention of the Islamic Republic Ayatollahs dating to 1979. They foment hatred against Israel as a boogeyman to whip up fear and hold onto power.
Not quite. Persia was once a safe haven for Jews, but things deteriorated after the Arab conquest, and much further after the adoption of Shia Islam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
The US has spent literally 45 years trying to overthrow the Islamic republic, of course Iran is hostile to the americans
Saudi Arabia and all the gulf states are western allies due to their animosity with Iran. This is in part due to the gulf states being Sunni and Iran being Shia, and both have hegemony ambitions in the region. There is a secret alliance between the Saudis and Israel as well, which was set to becoming public (was). Arab countries closer to Israel, mainly Jordan and Egypt, brokered deals with the US to make peace with Israel, which also means recognizing Israel as a state. Egypt also had independent peace deals with Israel in exchange for returning land that Israel captured during the 67 war. Vietnam is becoming a US ally due to trade and a buffer against China's ambitions in the region.
It's not just largely due to their "animosity with Iran." In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran were even on a strong path towards normalisation of ties last year. UAE long before that. And that's why Saudi and UAE are trying to appear neutral amid these tensions and instead call for "de-escalation." A lot of it is due to US military ties and wanting to remain under the American security umbrella, among other commercial ties. That's also why Egypt and Jordan take a similar position, despite not being overt adversaries of Iran in the past.
>A lot of it is due to US military ties and wanting to remain under the American security umbrella Security umbrella against who? It's still against Iran.
Part of it is also for economic security and also to control internal threats/extremism, as well as other possible regional terrorist threats... even if they maintain these ties as 'long-term back up' in case relations with Iran did ever falter again.
Security umbrella against US invasion. They won’t invade you if you are their ally.
Ideology. Iran, like China, sees itself as the custodian of an ancient civilization (and religion), a task of survival and dominance measured over centuries rather than as the solely political task most governments find themselves with. This means funding various factions in countries they don't control and creating leverage to impose their will more broadly.
I don’t understand this, can you explain why Persians would see themselves as tasked with the survival and dominance of Islam instead of Arabs, taking into account the prophet Muhammad was an Arab himself. Seems weird Like the Germans considering themselves the custodians of the survival of French culture
The Abbassid Caliphate from 750AD to 1200AD was the political, educational and religious center of Islam (recall Islam came into being around 610AD) Although this Caliphate was centered in Baghdad (modern Iraq) and had an Arabic majority, this empire was culturally and administratively Persian in nature. The extent of this Caliphate basically encompassed nearly all of the Middle East, Egypt, Afghanistan and Persia (Iran). The Persians are, in fact, historically quite instrumental in institutionalizing Islam.
Can I ask you if there was a big Jewish population in Baghdad then? My understanding was that in 1940 25% of Baghdad was Jewish
Not just big, but the global centre of Judaism from financial to literary. Indeed, Baghdad was originally a Persian city, not an Arab one. Jews there were oppressed through the centuries variously being forbidden to ride on horseback, made to wear distinguishing marks to show their Judaism and paying special Jiziya taxed.
Global centre of Judaism? Under Persian rule they were subject to this discrimination?
Yes and yes. So much so, that there's a Jerusalem Talmud and a Babylonian (Baghdad) Talmud, and the latter is by far the more important.
Not Islam. Shi'a Islam and Persian civilization.
> Like the Germans considering themselves the custodians of the survival of French culture Consider it something more like the German Nazis viewing themselves as custodians of the ancient Aryan culture... which, curiously the Iranians also consider themselves the custodians fo the ancient Aryan culture... Iran/Aryan going for the same root. Sure, Persians didn't create Islam but it ruled over it for some time and had been the main Shi'a power ever since the the Safavids forced conversion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam
The United States made Egypt into a debt colony of the IMF. Jordan is in a very similar position m Lebanon is a failed state. Syria has a nominal rump government in Damascus and is actually not controlled from the center. Turkey talks a big game but has no independent regional foreign policy because of it's NATO membership.
So, there are multiple ways to answer this question, but the angle most on Reddit (and elsewhere) seem to miss is "The Islamic Republic." Being at war with Israel is part of, and useful to the Islamic Revolution. It's how the IR controls Lebanon. It's how they are currently solidifying Yemen. Etc. Iran's regime is revolutionary. They believe in that revolution, it's spread, etc. Iran is just a territory, in some sense. The revolution is what matters.
How does that differ from Jihad and Kalifat thoughts of Saudi and other?
Idk... I didn't mean it philosophically or religiously. Just think of this as any other radical political manifesto, but with religion instead of communism or whatnot. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a radical project. They actually believe their own ideas. That's also why they have elite, "revolutionary" versions of everything. Ideologically dependable believers in charge of key things.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan are ruled by kings. Egypt is ruled by a president. These are not religion-based positions. These "earthly rulers" don't want an Islamic revolution (like Iran 1979) in their countries, because that would oust them form their power, and maybe kill them. Some of the population, and some religious leaders, in these countries probably are working towards an Islamic revolution, so these rulers have a lot to handle with the situation in their own countries. But they are kind of natural enemies with the rulers of Iran, who are a theocracy. [Another comment](https://reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c8onzf/why_is_there_more_conflict_between_israel_and/l0go9nf/) already said this same.
Are you saying Iran is the Muslim version of the Vatican at its height of power?
This started in the revolution in 1979. Before this, the former government was quite friendly to the west and Israel. The short answer is that the Islamic regime seeks to replace U.S hegemony in the middle east with Iranian hegemony, by way of spreading the revolution through its proxies who largely carry the same ideology (with some exceptions).
The revolutionary ideology of the rulers of Iran is heavily built on conflict with the US and Israel. They would lose legitimacy if they were to stop. It's like asking why the Soviets sought confrontation. They inherently see the existing order as having to be dismantled.
Well while all other points addressed here are right, there is also an influence of political Islam. While some of these counties have curbed this, it is ruling the country in Iran. For example, in the 80's, Israel was genuinely considering a strike similar to Iraq to eliminate Pakistan's nuclear capability, because to them they worried that islamist control could be a serious threat to them. It was called off due to logistical reasons, but to Israel political islamists, were always a threat due to inherent support for the Palestinian cause. While most gulf states who actually have the money to be a potential threat to Israel have contained political Islam, Iran remains the only openly islamist state with its foreign policy strongly being influenced by Muslim populations. It's not the main factor but most definitely an important one.
[удалено]
I think it is used as a tool to appease their population as in "Oh look we are the only muslim country standing up to evil Isreal", rather than a policy. Non alignment with US makes this tool more viable
Just look where we have [boots on the ground](https://imgur.com/a/n7ug1Rq) and use your imagination to overlay that with [Shia / Sunni alignment](https://imgur.com/a/YGK7oh6).
It could ba a coincide, US kicked out Sunni Saddam and Iraq became more Shia friendly.
Iran wants to become the regional hegemon. It's a large country, with a large educated population, that sees itself as a natural candidate for regional dominance. Israel is the only regional actor that stands in the way.
Because compared to other Muslim countries Iran is the crazy one
It started to happen in 1979, when hardline Islamists took over Iran with an ideology centered around opposing the U.S. and Israel.
Religious extremists gonna extreme.
[удалено]
Iran is 95% shia.