Iranian-Saudi Arabian relations are notoriously poor, with both sides accusing each other of disturbing the peace in the Middle East and supporting terrorism. Regular updates in the news of fresh accusations that Iran/Saudi Arabia is inciting violence in the region may make it seem that there is little hope of rapprochement any time soon. This assumption is exacerbated by the media’s erroneous theory that the root of the problem is sectarianism; in other words, Iran dislikes Saudi because it is the Sunni regional power and Saudi dislikes Iran because it is the Shia regional power. In my view, this is a simplistic take on the issue, and both Hoda Al-Helaissi and HRH Prince Turki affirmed so. Interestingly, during a visit to KAUST university, I asked young Saudi students what they thought of Iran. Without prompt, they immediately brought up the Sunni-Shia argument, and confirmed that in general, Saudis view Iran as a belligerent nation. At least misinterpretation in the media is consistent in both Saudi and the UK. Hoda Al-Helaissi sees Iran as the sole aggressor in the situation; she argues that by offering Lebanon military aid, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, Iran has revealed its expansionist intentions. However, Al-Helaissi stated that the Kingdom does not have an issue with the Iranian people, who are mainly Shia, but rather with its aggressive government. Prince Turki agrees with Al-Helaissi that the issue is not sectarian, but that Iran is behaving aggressively and has already begun undertaking its expansionist policies. Both Al-Helaissi and Prince Turki would also describe the Revolutionary Guards as ‘terrorists’, as Trump has recently done, due to their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hijaz. However, while Al-Helaissi goes so far as to say that Iran is the biggest threat to the region and that Saudi foreign policy should focus its efforts on neutralising this threat, Prince Turki maintains that the Palestine-Israeli conflict is more pressing.

Having lived in Iran for a year, I have been bombarded with an alternate narrative; that Iran is the ‘victim’, that it feels surrounded, and that in comparison with Saudi Arabia, it has less allies in the region and abroad. Iran argues that it has no choice but to adopt forward policies, which they claim are solely defensive. One argument that I think is particularly pertinent as to why Saudi Arabia and Iran are clashing in the region is over their contrasting foreign policies; Saudi actively wants to trade with the West and facilitate dialogue, whereas, Iran wants as little foreign intervention as possible. These alternate foreign policies have pulled these nations apart and led to physical clashes in Yemen.

The media’s presumption that this issue is sectarian leaves little room for hope of reconciliation; how can we solve a dispute if one thousand years of history has not done so already? But let’s not forget that even after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Saudi and Iran enjoyed cordial relations under President Khatami. This is further proof that Saudi-Iranian tensions are not caused by sectarian divides if both nations have enjoyed good relations after the imposition of vilayat-e faqih. Both Al-Helaissi and Prince Turki agree that reconciliation with Iran is possible – all that is needed is an Iranian President that fights to open dialogue with Saudi Arabia, which is hard given that the Supreme Leader is the one who truly holds power in Iran. As we can see then, the media has misrepresented this dispute; it is far more complex than just a sectarian divide. In all, the situation is not as dire as the media makes out given that Saudi Arabia is open to engaging in talks with Iran – all they need is an Iranian leader capable of convincing the religious elite to participate.