The Saudi-Iranian agreement, as a pivotal event, imposes the traditional rule that what comes after it is different than what comes before it, whether on the international level, the regional level, or in Lebanon. He shuffles the cards on all these levels, which are complex and intertwined at the same time.
It is so articulated that it could establish understandings in some fields and squares, and at the same time it is likely to launch a new phase of conflicts.
It may be forgotten by those who want to limit the effects of the agreement among the Lebanese to what they wish, that the first result of it is that Chinese President Xi Jinping inaugurated with it the first achievement of his third presidential term, in the context of the Chinese-American conflict that occupies the world and almost divides it, as the war in Ukraine did, at a time Countries are waiting if this conflict and that war will produce a multipolar world, or will they devote unipolarity to American supremacy? The leaders of the floundering world concerned with exploring the horizon are waiting to determine the direction of the compass for the coming years.
There are more questions than answers at the international and regional levels. Will choosing a pivotal country like Saudi Arabia, under the auspices of Beijing, launch an agreement like the one announced, a phase of US-Saudi divergence, or will it anticipate the international shift towards a multipolar world? The first question that jumped to the fore among observers, wherever they are, is whether Washington will be satisfied with this agreement, amid fears or expectations that it will seek to undermine its effects in light of the deepening dispute between it and Tehran over the nuclear issue and many of the region’s files, and amid preparations for an escalation of its conflict with China. And Moscow?
What calls for this question is the comment of US President Joe Biden, when asked about the agreement, by saying that he believes that “the more normal the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the better for everyone.” What the residents of the White House cared about was the extent to which Israel benefited from it, although the spokesman for the National Security Council in the White House saw that “if the agreement is preserved and the Yemen war ends and Saudi Arabia is no longer forced to continue defending itself as a result of the attacks coming from there, then we are We welcome this, and we will see if the Iranians will keep their commitments within the agreement. This is another talk.
At a time when the second important question was whether this achievement would lead to an end to the war in Yemen, the Iranian side gave the guide’s words a function to the agreement, as “the beginning of the post-US phase in the Middle East and is considered an earthquake that ends US power in the region,” while it is assumed The text of the agreement is to stop interference in the countries of the region, and an Iranian withdrawal from Yemen and Syria… But the symbols of reluctance completely oppose this, which means that each team presents its own reading of the effects of the agreement, such as the statement of the Secretary-General of “Hezbollah”, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, that “the siege and dangers On Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Palestine and the whole region, this will not continue and will be broken.”… The indications do not indicate that the Arab and Western openness to Syria will take place without a political price.
In addition, the agreement strengthens the Saudi leadership role at the regional level, and at the economic level, internationally, because it allows the continued escalation of the Kingdom’s economic and political power according to its bold initiatives in the coming years.
What the heads of the Saudi and Iranian delegations to Beijing, Musaed Al-Aiban and Ali Shamkhani, said that they spent several days of talks before announcing the agreement (between four and six) is evidence that the two sides dealt with the outstanding issues between them, beyond the exchange of ambassadors. There must be agreements at the regional level. Logic presumes working to crystallize their implementation within the two-month deadline set by the joint statement for the return of the ambassadors.
While waiting for a clear picture of these agreements, whose effects will appear, it seems that the first results on the Lebanese level is that Nasrallah was forced in the form of jest, in his speech last Friday, to make a concession, with a wide smile that conceals the retreat that he will be forced to, that he will not attack Saudi Arabia. A problem because they will reconcile. Thus, he reverts from the approach he followed over more than 8 years of the attack on Riyadh, to the point where he went far and more than what Tehran demands of him, and this is what caused during those years a Gulf rupture with Lebanon, which, among other reasons, contributed to the deepening of its crisis.
There are those who say that the Secretary-General of the “party” was aware of the preliminary talks for the Beijing agreement, but apparently he did not expect it to take place so quickly.
according to “home call“
