Mediaboss Marketing

After her career as a news journalist, Liimatainen became a non-fiction author. Her first book, "Iran: Huntu ja haaste" (Iran: Veil and Challenge), was published in 2009 and examines Iranian society and women's issues. Another book, "Saudi-Arabian toiset kasvot" (The Other Face of Saudi Arabia), was published in 2013. Her latest book: Riikinkukko ja Kameli (The Peacock and the Camel) about the history of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia was published in 2022.

For her last book traveled extensively across the region and spoken to both ordinary people and government officials. Her unique perspective on the region offers deep insights into the complex relationships and political landscapes that shape the Middle East. In this Q&A article, we explore Liimatainen's thoughts on recent developments in the region, including the potential for peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the challenges faced by Lebanon, and the future of the Abraham Accords.

Q: You have researched Iran and Saudi Arabia for a long time. You have written several books on this topic, and the latest book, The Peacock and the Camel, just came out. Was it a surprise for you that Iran and Saudi Arabia made peace?

A: No. It was already happening. I mean, the former Iraqi Prime Minister has been a mediator in this deal, and there had been five meetings before this in Baghdad.

Also, behind this story, there is an Iranian attack in 2019. They attacked with drones on production plants. It was a terrible message for the Saudis because with this attack, the Iranians showed that they knew everything about them. They could destroy the source of their wealth if they wanted to, but they didn't want to do that. They wanted them to change their politics, and this message was accepted by the Saudis. It was a terrible message for them, and they accepted it and started to negotiate with Iraqi mediation.

I interviewed a very important female journalist in Tehran when I was there last time, in March 2020. She told me that the Iranians wanted this kind of deal, and there was a will within the population to resolve this issue with the Saudis. Somehow, it was accepted by the population. So, it was already in the works, and I could see it coming.

Q: So, you think that drone attack was a turning point?

A: I think it was clearly a turning point. It was a tremendously well-orchestrated attack. Israeli experts said that it was the most precise attack ever made: two oil production plants were attacked by 25 drones, and every drone hit exactly where it was supposed to attack. And also, the fact that it was not some kind of massive destruction, it was a very intelligent strike which was meant as a message, and the Saudis understood the message. So they realized that the Iranians could hit any target inside Saudi Arabia if they wanted to.

Q: What do you think the reaction of the United States will be to this peace agreement between Iran, Saudi Arabia?

A: We must remember that the United States made a deal with Iran for the nuclear agreement, and the Biden administration has tried to restart negotiations. So, there is a will to resolve this because they want to control Iran's nuclear policy. I can't imagine that they see it as a very negative event. Of course, I think they mainly see a big and dangerous competitor in China who mediated the peace. A competitor for the future that is following a different line using the economy to influence instead of the military.

The American power has always also used economic means, but I think this Chinese version is new. At least officially, they don't use armies; they use the economy, technology, and loans. I can't understand what the Americans could say to this. Of course, it can harm their way of dealing, but let's hope it also makes them understand that there are other methods.

Q: Do you think that the peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran decreases US influence? Because if Saudi Arabia doesn't have an enemy like Iran, they won't buy more weapons, they don't need US bases in the country, and they wouldn't help the USA in containing Iran.

A: I think the US has decided on its own initiative to change its situation in the Middle East. Already during the Trump administration, they decided this. For example, the drone attack was during the Trump period, and it was terrible for Mohammed bin Salman that the Americans reacted so mildly. The Americans have realized by themselves that they can't afford the old kind of imperialist intervention anymore.

The US has to somehow adapt to the new reality of the world. They are not the only global power; there are other actors, and China is emerging very strongly. And of course, the fact that China is making some kind of alliance with Russia is a danger for Americans. But I think the American leadership must realize that the world is changing.

The main question was if this peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia would decrease the influence of the US in the region. I think US is very strongly oriented towards Asia

Yes, the other part of Asia is also significant for Americans, as future competition lies there. As a result, there has been a decrease in American presence in the Middle East, which is part of Eastern Asia. This is because they have felt that they have lost too many American soldiers and invested tons of money without achieving their goals.

It is unclear whether the new American offensive in the far east will be productive, but it seems that the United States is realizing that the world is changing, and so is the concept of East and West. For example, when Saudi Arabia declined Biden's request to increase oil production after the Ukraine war, it signaled that the country is no longer willing to accept the rules and demands of the United States.

One of the primary objectives for Saudi Arabia is the reorganization of its society and economy, as they understand that depending solely on oil is not sustainable in the long run. They need to invest on other revenues that are not generated from oil in the future. By refusing the American request, the Saudis sent a message that the world is changing, and they are no longer an obedient ally, always ready to serve the interests of the United States.

In summary, the message from Saudi Arabia highlights the shifting dynamics in the global landscape and the evolving relationships between countries like the United States and its traditional allies.

Q: Does de-dollarization in trade contribute to the fading influence of the United States?

A: Yes, I believe it does. As the concentration of global politics shifts more towards the East, the financial sector must adapt to these changes in order to follow the political landscape.

Q: What are the regional effects of peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, considering countries like Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria? How would peace between these nations affect these countries and beyond?

A: Well, for example, Saudi Arabia is negotiating with Syria and its leader, Assad. Previously, Assad was considered a terrible enemy by Saudi Arabia due to his alliance with Iran. The Saudis financed jihadists, while Iran had its proxies in Syria. However, in the current situation, the Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia, are trying to salvage their relations with Syria because they sense that the Arabs are in a precarious position in the Middle East.Now, they need not just Syria, but also Assad on their side. They are negotiating with him in order to restore the power position of the Arab nations. With all the changes occurring globally, the Arab nations feel that they are losing the next game, and so they are investing in these relationships.As for Iran's role in Syria, it seems that they are less focused on the country now that the major conflict is over. However, it is important to remember that Iranian proxies were one of the main opponents of ISIS. While ISIS was attacked heavily by American airstrikes and heavy weapons, it was mainly Iranian militias that liberated towns like Mosul, which had been occupied by ISIS.Currently, ISIS still operates in the region between Syria and Iraq. Iran remains a strong force there, with its militias present in the border zone. They continue to make decisions and engage in questionable deals, which has led to criticism from Syria and Iraq. But they are also a strong force able to oppose ISIS on the ground in that zone.

The fact that Saudis are negotiating with Assad likely indicates they need some kind of central power in Syria. Perhaps this is one reason, but I'm just trying to guess. What we see in the Middle East is a long-lasting war with different components, and now there is a general resurgence of efforts to stabilize peace and move forward with the economy.

This seems to be a general feeling, and I think that if Iranians and Saudis made this deal, even if they are still strong enemies, it is in line with this sentiment. They have to restore some semblance of normal life in that region. For example, in Yemen, which has been severely affected by the conflict, Saudis need a deal. In Syria and Iraq, there have been changes in government, with Iraq now having a government consisting mainly of pro-Iranian parties.

However, even these pro-Iranian parties seem to be working differently now. Iran has tremendous power in Iraq and strategically feels the need to maintain control. But perhaps even there, some reasoning is taking place, as constant fighting and destruction do not improve people's lives.

As for Lebanon, I fear it is almost lost. Sectarian politics have ruined the country, a legacy of French colonialism aimed at protecting Christians. The country is now in economic ruin, and there is no sign of willingness to change the rules in Lebanon. Saudis have grown tired of the Lebanese, but they are now trying to reestablish relations.

However, Hezbollah is too strong in Lebanon, making it difficult to deal with them. The economy in Lebanon has completely collapsed, and it is a tremendous challenge to help the country recover. In Yemen, it remains uncertain whether there will be peace now that Saudi and Iran have made a deal. The Yemeni population has suffered terribly from the war, and they need peace. Saudis also need peace because they can be continually attacked.

Q: What do you think will happen to the Abraham Accord?

A: Regarding the Abraham Accords, it was an attempt by Israel and the United Arab Emirates to reach a deal, but Saudis have not been too enthusiastic. The current Israeli government is more extremist than ever before, which may worry those participating in the Abraham Accords. Those countries that made a deal and others who probably want to make a deal now have to think about where they are going and if this deal with Israel will continue.

Q: How do you see Iran and Saudi Arabia as a Finn who has traveled to both several times? Are there more differences or similarities between two countries and cultures?

A: Iran and Saudi Arabia are very different countries, with Iran having a long and complex history and civilization, while Saudi Arabia's society has been more nomadic. Iran has had a parliamentary system and civil society for decades, while this is a completely new concept in Saudi Arabia. These two countries have been on opposite sides, but now they are trying to understand each other and move forward, despite their differences.

Q: Who do you think will be fighting the next war in the Middle east?

A: It is difficult to predict if there will be a new war in the Middle East, given the recent attempts at peace. The main actors are trying to make peace, so it is not clear who would be involved in a potential conflict. Israel and Iran could be contenders, because Israel's current leadership may not be able to live in peace within the region. Iran, while making peace with Saudi Arabia, might still try to exert control over the Middle East through its proxies and other means.

HT

Continue reading here:
Q&A with Liisa Liimatainen on Iran and Saudi Arabia - Helsinki Times