A reading of the Saudi-Iranian agreement

A large number of comments followed the announcement of the Saudi-Iranian agreement, which was signed with the active participation of China. It is natural that this agreement brings so many comments, some of which you feel are an attempt to explain, while others you feel are an attempt to mislead.
Those with knowledge received the agreement with a reserved acceptance, and pointed out that what is expected is positive steps by the Iranian regime. It is agreed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no ambitions in Iran or other than Iran, and everything that is said about its interventions openly or innuendo is fabrication and falsification of the facts. The astute follower is immune to believing her.
On the other hand, it is not a secret, nor is it even a secret, the interference of neighboring Iran in many Arab countries, the apparent ones being Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, and the inward number of other countries, including the Gulf states. Rather, at times, some Iranian politicians were proud of their being on the handle of a number. From Arab capitals!
But the question (which is the question of a million), so to speak, will Iran change its directions and change the direction of its sails, after finding it difficult to change the direction of the wind?
Some see difficulty in this, for reasons that have become known, that Iran has an appetite for the (Arab) western side, but that perception or conclusion may be hasty. The profit in a step, no matter how great it is, is greater than the loss, so it is not difficult for him.
The world held its breath in 2002, and the rate of conflict escalated between Saddam Hussein’s regime and its blind reading of global developments, and the international coalition led by the United States. with the existing regime in Tehran.” Rather, Saddam Hussein’s initiatives at that time towards Iran were towards an alliance against the “common enemy”! So, a Gulf diplomatic figure took the initiative to go to Tehran and explain the mission of the international forces, and to ask Iran to take a “positive neutral” position regarding the expected developments in the region, while confirming through a number of “evidences” that the Tehran regime will not be affected (the story is long and there is no time to write Details), however, when the Tehran regime was confirmed, and conclusive physical evidence was presented to it, it turned to what was suggested to it that it take “positive neutrality” in the conflict, and even turned a blind eye when the battle began from flights through its airspace.
Later, Iran benefited from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime even more than most Iraqis.
The assumption that follows that story and its results in 2002 is that “if the Iranian regime found any benefit in taking a political step,” it took it. Therefore, reconciliation with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and cooling the Arab arenas, albeit gradually, as the regime sees it, may be in its favor, as the loss in the other project has become evident. There was no more room for maneuvering papers.
For example, the race towards nuclear weapons. The regime has found that (in obtaining a nuclear weapon) it will not benefit its project. On the contrary, it opens a door for most of the countries of the world to its hostility, sympathizing with the realistic impossibility of using that weapon, so it will not be able to use it against Israel, for example. Because this will establish the “resurrection” in the region, and the presence of that weapon does not mean the survival of the regime or its change.
The Soviet Union was armed to the brim with nuclear weapons, and two years after the defeat of Afghanistan, the regime changed.
A nuclear Pakistan did not prevent regime change, and finally the Russian Federation and its war in Ukraine could not, despite the difficulties, use any of these weapons.
In addition, the file of the economic situation at home has reached the dangerous curve, and a large segment of the Iranian peoples have fallen below the poverty line, and the living standards of the rest have faltered to the point of discontent, in addition to the participation in the Ukraine war with weapons that brought European anger, as this interfered with the security of the continent. .
In Iraq, it is clear that there is a trend expanding to resist Iranian influence, and only a few biased Iraqis remain, and a broad desire to build an independent and also non-hostile Iraq, but dependent on its Arab depth.
As for Syria and Lebanon, it has become clear to wide segments of the Syrians and Lebanese how big the lie is on the issue of “resistance”!
These are some of the thorny issues that the rational groups in Tehran undoubtedly look at, and they ask after forty years and more: What has been achieved for the Iranian peoples? As they look at the neighborhood, they find a lot of what has been achieved and is being achieved in the various development and land architecture.
It is natural after forty years for a review to take place, and in fact some, like Rafsanjani and Khatami, tried, but the hardliners thwarted them, on the grounds that they had a “better plan.” She developed a tendency to be dismissive and called the whole project into question.
Accord, peace, respect for the independence of states, and non-interference in their affairs will return to Iran much more than it reaped from the idea of ​​“exporting the revolution.” Its citizens can enter the stage of stability. the wind.
Finally:
A Soviet dissident wrote a few years before the fall of the Soviet Union, admiring that his country manufactures missiles and stockpiles nuclear warheads, but its peasants still reap their crops with sickles! What is similar to what is happening in Iran!