Almost quarter of a century is way long enough for two countries, especially two neighbors with so many common interests, to be diplomatically apart. That has been the situation between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The Kingdom withdrew its ambassador and staff from Baghdad after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Saddam’s diplomats were thrown out of Riyadh.
Ever since then, links between the two countries have been informal and indirect. It might have been hoped this would change when power passed from the US-led occupation forces to Iraqi politicians. But Iraq was deeply unfortunate in Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who refused to adopt pluralist policies that would embrace all Iraqi communities. Instead he listened far too closely to the siren voices from Iran. The bad advice he received brought about the virtual disintegration of his country. It saw the upsurge of the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State. It also led to Iraq’s connivance in Tehran’s support for the Assad dictatorship in Syria. This led to further misery for millions of Syrians, as refugees either outside or within their shattered homeland.
In such circumstances, for the Kingdom to have resumed full diplomatic relations, would have seemed an endorsement of the Maliki government’s short-sighted follies. It was only when his once-close allies realized that his intransigence was leading Iraq into increasingly dangerous and divisive waters that he was forced from power.
Now under Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, Iraq is trying to confront its demons. He and his government have an immense task putting together what Maliki’s lack of wisdom had torn apart. It is not simply that the central government needs to win back the trust of alienated Sunnis, it also has to cope with the terror threat of the rabid IS. Then there are the demoralized and badly-led armed forces to be rebuilt. In addition, fences have to be mended with the northern Kurds.
In all of these daunting tasks, the Kingdom wishes to do its best to help. The very act of reopening its embassy in Baghdad is a powerful signal of Saudi endorsement of the new Iraqi leadership. The establishment of a consulate in the Kurdish heartland of Erbil is a further signal that the Kingdom wants to fully understand the complex challenges facing its neighbor.
Of course the re-establishment of diplomatic ties does not mean that the two countries will always agree with each other. There will always be issues on which governments differ. But the key significance of the re-establishment of ties is that Riyadh and Baghdad can be in regular contact. Each can explain its thinking to the other. Perhaps just as importantly, they have the means, through their diplomatic missions, to keep on talking.
However the last thing any country would want to do is rush into an exchange of envoys, only to decide that an ambassador must be withdrawn to protest something the host government has done. Last September, Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal signaled the renewal of Saudi-Iraqi links. This was followed up when Iraq’s President Fouad Al-Masoum visited the Kingdom last November and met Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah and government officials. The warmth of that visit was obvious. The diplomatic rapprochement that Iraq had sought was achieved.
The Kingdom has much to offer its neighbor. It is the largest economy in the Arab world. It has a fund of financial, commercial and administrative expertise that can help Iraq rebuild. It is also a key player in the Gulf Cooperation Council whose member states are obvious trading counter-parties for Baghdad. In a region which has seen disfiguring interference from outside states, Arab countries should be partnering each other in construction, hydrocarbon and infrastructure technology.
The multilateral links of the Arab League are important and new arrangements can strengthen the close bilateral ties that come with fully diplomatic representation. This is the driver for the exchange of top-level envoys. The upsurge of terrorist violence in Iraq is incidental.
Once the terrorist threat has been defeated and the territorial integrity of Iraq restored, the warm bilateral relations that are now being re-established, will endure.
Teams from Riyadh are currently seeking out the best secure locations in both Baghdad and Erbil for the new Saudi missions. As has been said elsewhere, this is a truly historic development.
Saudi-Iraq reconciliation, a historic development
Saudi-Iraq reconciliation, a historic development
Editorial: Iran must not go unpunished
- Arab News argues that while war is always a last resort, an international response is a must to curb Iranian meddling
- US strikes worked well when Assad used chemical weapons against his people
The attacks on Tuesday by armed drones on Saudi oil-pumping stations, and two days beforehand on oil tankers off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE, represent a serious escalation on the part of Iran and its proxies, should the initial conclusions of an international investigation prove to be accurate.
Riyadh has constantly warned world leaders of the dangers that Iran poses, not only to Saudi Arabia and the region, but also to the entire world. This is something former President Obama did not realize until the Iran-backed Houthis attacked the US Navy three times in late 2016. The recent attacks on oil tankers and oil pipelines were aimed at subverting the world economy by hitting directly at the lifeline of today’s world of commerce. Tehran should not get away with any more intimidation, or be allowed to threaten global stability.
It was in 2008 that the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz called upon the US to “cut off the head of the snake,” in reference to the malign activities of Iran. Nearly a decade later, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman referred to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the “new Hitler of the Middle East.” We are in 2019 and Iran continues to wreak havoc in the region, both directly and through its well armed proxies. Crown Prince Mohammed was therefore clearly correct when he argued that appeasement does not work with the Iranian regime, just as it did not work with Hitler. The next logical step — in this newspaper’s view — should be surgical strikes. The US has set a precedent, and it had a telling effect: The Trump strikes on Syria when the Assad regime used Sarin gas against its people.
We argue this because it is clear that sanctions are not sending the right message. If the Iranian regime were not too used to getting away with their crimes, they would have taken up the offer from President Trump to get on the phone and call him in order to reach a deal that would be in the best interests of the Iranian people themselves. As the two recent attacks indicate, the Iranians insist on disrupting the flow of energy around the world, putting the lives of babies in incubators at risk, threatening hospitals and airports, attacking civilian ships and putting innocent lives in danger. As the case always is with the Iranian leadership, they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they have done nothing. Nevertheless, investigations indicate that they were behind the attack on our brothers in the UAE while their Houthi militias targeted the Saudi pipelines.
Our point of view is that they must be hit hard. They need to be shown that the circumstances are now different. We call for a decisive, punitive reaction to what happened so that Iran knows that every single move they make will have consequences. The time has come for Iran not only to curb its nuclear weapon ambitions — again in the world’s interest — but also for the world to ensure that they do not have the means to support their terror networks across the region.
We respect the wise and calm approach of politicians and diplomats calling for investigations to be completed and all other options to be exhausted before heading to war. In the considered view of this newspaper, there has to be deterrent and punitive action in order for Iran to know that no sinister act will go unpunished; that action, in our opinion, should be a calculated surgical strike.
