Masjid Jamei: The survival of the current regimes in the Persian Gulf is more beneficial to Iran than their possible successors / the people of the southern Persian Gulf just want to "live", nothing more.
Mohammad Masjid Jamei said in his speech: Attention should also be paid to the intellectual and intellectual sources referred to by these elites. In fact, two issues should be distinguished from each other: First, it is the image that they have of Arabs, in the general sense of the word, and especially the Arabs of the Middle East.
According to Ambassador Arjan's report, Mohammad Masjid Jamei, the former ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Vatican, emphasized that the understanding of many of our policymakers about Arabs is influenced by their perception of Arab progressives in countries such as Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. In addition, their intellectual resources in the field of understanding Arabs are the literature of writers and intellectuals who were deeply influenced by leftist and anti-colonial ideas. This understanding and imagination is completely different from the reality of the people and society of Saudi Arabia and the sheikhdoms.
The next point refers to the internal continuity of these countries and that no change will happen in any of these countries alone; And also that the continuation of the existing regimes that generally represent their people is more for the benefit of Iran than their possible successors. Of course, in the case of the ruling regime of Bahrain and its relationship with its people, the story is completely different.
The present text is a summary of Muhammad Masjidjamei's speech lesson at the Institute of Strategic Studies of Contemporary Islam (Maram).
The perceptual error of Iranian elites in understanding the Arab world
The perception of a part of the Iranian political-religious elite, both spiritual and non-spiritual, about the Arab world is largely influenced by the image of relatively progressive Arab societies. Countries that were the center of influential political and intellectual currents in the Arab Middle East in an important part of the 20th century. Therefore, the image of "Arabs" that exists in the minds of many of these elites, rather than reflecting the real diversity of the Arab world, is influenced by the experience of these societies and at this historical moment.
This is despite the fact that even in the so-called progressive societies such as Egypt, Syria and Palestine, very deep changes have occurred and they have significant differences with their situation a few decades ago. It is no longer possible to explain their current situation by using the thought frameworks of the past.
In addition to all this, attention should also be paid to the intellectual and intellectual sources referred to by these elites. In fact, two issues should be distinguished from each other: first, it is the image they have of Arabs, in the general sense of the word, and especially Middle Eastern Arabs; And secondly, it is the intellectual and intellectual resources that have shaped their understanding of the Arab world. A significant part of these sources were the works and views of progressive Arab intellectuals and writers. Their view was very negative, especially towards Saudi Arabia and the sheikhdoms. Especially since the relationship of their public hero, Nasser and his supporters, with these countries was generally tense and tense.
The end of the era of relying on the intellectual resources of the left and Nasserism
This itself creates a kind of limitation in the knowledge of the Arab world; Because these sources also mainly reflect the intellectual and political atmosphere of a certain period in the contemporary history of the Arab world. For example, among the immigrant Arab communities - for example in Latin America - that generation of writers and intellectuals who wrote in Arabic and were influential in the intellectual atmosphere of the Arab world, no longer exist. In other words, both the reality of Arab societies has changed and relying on the sources through which Arabs were known, they can no longer be recognized.
The term "progressive Arabs" mainly refers to currents that had leftist, ethnic, nationalist and possibly modern Islamic trends and emphasized the Arab heritage and believed in what they called "Arab unity". As we said, an important part of the intellectual resources that some Iranian elites referred to in order to understand the Arab world belonged to this spectrum. Therefore, their perception of Arabs, especially societies such as Arabia and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, is completely different from their reality.
The collection referred to as the "Arab world", not only today, but even in the past and from the fifties onwards, was a deeply pluralistic collection. For example, the countries of North Africa, which are known as part of the Arab world and generally gained independence in the 1950s and 1960s, have and have fundamental differences from the Arab countries of the Middle East that were mentioned earlier, and basically the logic of their historical and social developments is twofold.
A society that only wants to "live"; The exception of Bahrain
One of the different parts from the rest of the Arabs, both in the past and now, are our six southern countries. Their social and tribal structure, the history and quality of their formation, their experience with new history, the wealth derived from their petrodollars, the way they look at themselves and their surroundings and their neighbors and the world today, are completely different from other Arabs, especially Arab progressives and Islamists. They want to "live" and "no more", and this is the common denominator of all of them and the generality of their citizens. The big exception is Bahrain, where more than half of the native population is Shiite. Those who are the main owners of their country. Like the ruling family and some others who migrated from Najd to it. They have been living there for centuries. In addition, the science, art, literature, culture, and even the economy and trade of this land were mainly owed to these Shiites.
The vast majority of citizens of these countries are in agreement with their governments and despite some criticism, they stand behind the rulers in times of crisis. Probably some will not accept this statement; But this is the reality. This harmony and agreement is the natural and logical result of all the conditions that have been and are, which would take a long time to fully explain.
In addition, the ruling regimes of this complex have a deep connection with each other. In appearance, these six countries are independent, but in practice they can be considered as a connected group. Therefore, the change in the governance of each of these countries cannot be considered merely an internal issue; In the sense that each country alone cannot decide on the change in the governance structure. Such a change is related to the set of these countries, in fact, there is a kind of deep interconnection among them.
The inseparable co-destiny of the six southern countries
This connection has existed since the past and now it has increased many times. Even things like the embargo on Qatar in the past years, despite its importance and consequences, could not affect the fact that these countries have a kind of unwritten co-destiny. At the same time, there have been border disputes among them; From the disputes between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to Bahrain and Qatar, as well as the UAE and Qatar. Despite these issues, there is still a kind of fateful connection among them.
The second point is that from the point of view of others, both developed and western countries and other countries, there is a more or less unified view of this collection. Perhaps the distorted title "Gulf" or the term "Gulf" used for these countries is a reflection of this view. Therefore, the issue is not only that these countries themselves have a kind of shared destiny with each other, others also see them more or less as a single entity; Western countries, Japan, China, Korea, Black African countries or Latin America. Currently, there is such a perception and it does not seem to change in the future.
This collection can be considered a collection of more or less shared destiny. We will not discuss why such a situation has developed and what are its historical and social reasons; But this co-destiny exists and works as a reality, despite the diversity that exists between them or that has emerged over time.
The necessity of conversation without stuttering and passing diplomatic compliments
Such is the reality of these countries and their people and their social and historical structures. Here, the goal is to understand them impartially and empathetically, and not to defend a more positive and conservative relationship that has generally and always been accompanied by confrontation. It is necessary to adopt the right policy, to understand the position of the other party, which of course is better to observe the developments that will lead them to the future. The ups and downs of our relationship with them is mainly due to this lack of recognition, which sometimes falls short and sometimes has expectations beyond their capacity. Considering this capacity and characteristics, you should talk to them firmly and without stuttering, if this happens, they will be forced to accept it and most likely after some time, they will welcome it.
For example, one of the countries that has tried to take its own way and policy in recent years is the UAE. Their Egyptian policy had many ups and downs in recent years. For example, despite the fact that the "Movement Dam" in Ethiopia was not only in conflict with Egypt's interests, but also in conflict with the existence of Egypt and its people, the UAE contributed a lot to this project, which has a detailed story.
Although the Emiratis tried to follow their own policy in different ways, after the recent crisis, i.e. the 12-day war and especially the Ramadan war, they became very close to this group of six and their main supporter, which is Egypt. A part of the Egyptian Air Force was invited to the UAE and during an official ceremony, Sisi met with the ruler of Abu Dhabi. Egypt has been the most important Arab and regional supporter of these countries in recent decades.
Why is the survival of the current regimes in favor of Iran?
The point that should be emphasized is that the presence and continuity of these countries and the systems that govern them, for the reasons that will be mentioned in part, is more for the benefit of Iran. Any kind of change in the governance of these countries will lead to a change in the way they look at their foreign policy and their domestic policy, and the final result will most likely be to our detriment. The possible successors will be in more conflict with Iran due to the state of humiliation they will find. In addition, it is in our interest that they find out that Iran prefers them to their successors.
Even in the case of Bahrain, the problem is not between the Shiites and the local government, but between them and the total of six members. It is all true that this regime has been generally against the Shiites since the beginning, and after the Arab Spring, this confrontation has intensified and their real rights have been violated in various ways, and a large number of them have been killed or imprisoned, and a significant number have been stripped of their citizenship. And the fact that the Shiites are the main owners of Bahrain and that the existing government came to this region from the depths of Najd about two centuries ago and took power and was then stabilized with the help of the British is not a matter of debate.
But the problem is, in fact, choosing between bad and worse. There is no doubt that the existing government is bad; But the problem of the Bahraini Shiites is not only with the Bahraini government, but with the broader set of governments that exist in this region. This group does not accept any change in Bahrain. Therefore, a fundamental change in Bahrain is practically impossible until a change occurs in the entire complex; And such a change will not happen, at least in the current situation.
The deep connection between the context of society and the structure of power
According to all points of reality, our problem with these countries is more than just related to their governments, it goes back to their societies and people. In the sense that these governments - with the exception of Bahrain, which has its own reasons - are deeply connected with the internal realities of these societies, good or bad. In the sense that the text of the society likes this rule and considers it to be beneficial. Both economically, financially and commercially, and politically and security-wise.
Of course, this does not mean that there are no disaffected people in these societies; There are dissidents, but the text of the society ultimately does not prefer another option to the existing government. Those who are currently opposed or may be in an opposing position in the future, are not very important in terms of social weight and do not have a serious obstacle; Not a social obstacle, not even a historical obstacle.
A regime like Saudi Arabia has the ability to maneuver as well as the institutions and tools that can marginalize even Jihadi and Takfiri Salafism and by pretending to be Salafism and respecting issues that are sensitive for its religious people, and by taking advantage of institutions and scholars who are Salafi-minded from the eyes of the people and are on the side of the government, ultimately keep the power in its domain. This statement is true about all of them.
We come back to the point that our issue is more than just with the government, it is with the people. Of course, "people" here does not mean the individual members of the society, it is that we are facing their history, their past and their social, intellectual and religious structures. It is a collection of which this society is the result.
double perception of colonialism; The fundamental difference between the historical experience of Iran and its neighbors
The important point is that none of these units were in the past, in today's sense, a country; Later they became a country, or maybe it is more accurate to say "they made their country"; A process that mainly dates back to the period of British influence. According to these points, it should be said that each of them is in two different situations with a country like Iran, with a long historical history and its own culture, land size, large population and intellectual obstacles caused by different social and political experiences, especially in recent history.
In these countries, the concept of colonialism and domination, that is, an aggressor power that came and trampled the honors of a nation, reduced its land and interfered in its internal affairs in various ways, is fundamentally different from what is in the mind and historical experience of Iranians. A clear example is England. Iranians' perception of French and British colonialism, as one of the manifestations of this colonialism, is influenced by the actions they have taken and the very bitter memories they have left. While this perception is fundamentally different from what exists among these societies. They generally like the British and currently the Americans; And they consider themselves indebted to them. They are the ones who have provided a peaceful and prosperous life for them. They feel that they are in an area where everyone covets and envies their wealth; And what provides their security are these powerful aliens.