There is a “soft”, “rough” and “silent” policy, as well as a fourth and fifth type, i.e. a defensive policy and an offensive policy. If those knowledgeable about Saudi diplomacy were to be asked about it, they would describe it as being “patient” and “defensive.” Saudi policy is calm, cautious and tends to be slow and enduring when adopting a decision at the level of foreign policy. Saudi policy is not engaged in a race with anyone, whether it is a small state the size of a bug or a major one the size of an elephant, to the point where observers would think Riyadh is proceeding over a minefield and requires caution rather than warnings. On the other hand, there is a provocative Iranian policy which exhibits power, supports militias and armed elements and acts in the region not to build equal relations with the regional states and neighbors, but to carry out outbidding. This was seen for example in the statement delivered by Ahmadinejad after he reached the presidency, when he said that his country was going to wipe Israel off the map. Until today, he is still addressing his people and neighbors with these threats and delusional slogans, none of which ever materialized. Iran did not move a muscle when Israel attacked Lebanon in the summer of 2006, although it was said that some Iranians participated in the fighting alongside the Hezbollah elements. Moreover, it did not send a single aid ship when Israel burned down the Gaza Strip, knowing that the Israeli aircrafts had previously targeted military facilities in Syria – i.e. Tehran's strategic ally - while the latter which had threatened to wipe out Tel Aviv remained silent, did not fire one bullet and did not encourage Damascus to respond. Still, it did encourage Bashar al-Assad to kill his people and ordered elements in Hezbollah to participate in the process. The alliances are changing and the entire scene is falling apart. Calm prevailed over Riyadh last Wednesday and the weekend started normally. Suddenly, breaking news appeared on the silver screen to reveal an Iranian attempt to assassinate Riyadh's ambassador to Washington. Some believed, others doubted and others wondered. Some called for patience and others are still silent. But the problem of some of those questioned who the American tale seems to reside in that the news was issued from Washington, which would not have been the case had it been issued from Venezuela or Cuba. Still, those same ones should not disregard the fact that the one who announced the thwarting of the assassination attempt was the American secretary of justice, not the White House spokesman, and there is a difference between the two! Why did some question the credibility of the American tale, especially since Washington has voice recordings, ID cards, money transfers from an Iranian official, the confessions of the (American-Iranian) citizen himself and other pieces of evidence that will be presented to the permanent and non-permanent Security Council members? Not everyone is required to believe the tale. But those questioning Iranian opportunism are mistaken, just because the other side of the equation is Washington, that it enjoys hostile relations with Tehran and that it wishes to set it up to address a military strike targeting its nuclear reactors. No one can deny the American policy's double standards and the US insistence on maintaining its control over the region and its oil interests in the Gulf. This is linked by some to its wish to pressure Iran and carry out global mobilization against it through the fabrication of this attempted assassination, in order to get it to succumb to it, recognize Washington's interests in Iraq in the future and disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. But on the other hand, one cannot deny the Iranian wish to undermine Saudi Arabia's status in the region, infiltrate its social fabric and destroy its strategic strength by disrupting its relations with the United States. The reports related to the attempted assassination of Ambassador Al-Jubair are still at their beginning. This is why speculations and interpretations have surfaced, and why the guests have been divided between believers, doubters or callers for patience until all the details are uncovered. In reality, I was reluctant at first and used pretexts whenever a television channel contacted me. However, a simple reading into the tense Saudi-Iranian relations, the pressures of the street on its Syrian ally and Riyadh's thwarting of its intervention in Bahrain and in Yemen before that, made me reach the conclusion that Tehran tried to set up the attempted assassination targeting Ambassador Al-Jubair to tense up the relations between Riyadh and Washington. There is no doubt that Iran acted wrongfully toward the region at times, and toward Saudi Arabia many times. Iran was always aggressive and reactionary vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, while Riyadh maintained its defensive position in front of its net, without ever trying to infiltrate the other camp and score goals which would be registered against it. Furthermore, the information confirms that the Kingdom tried to build a relationship based on respect and good neighborly ties with Iran, but was always obstructed by Iranian “petulance,” stalling and a fervent Persian attempt to expand at the expense of its neighbors among the Arab Gulf states, by playing on the strings of sectarianism and exploiting the internal gaps. Let us ask the following question: Why did the United States not try to “weave” this story against Iran during the past years, at least during the presidential terms of the Republicans who are eager to engage in wars and not during those of the Democrats? Why now, following the Awamiya incidents and prior to the pilgrimage season?! It is certain that the majority of the information published in the last three years confirms the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's establishment of an assassination squad whose elements operate with diplomatic passports and fake names, in order to carry out assassinations targeting politicians and journalists in Arab and European countries. It seems that Iran fell in the trap this time around after it became involved with drug dealers, which led to the exposure of a crime it is still denying although it knows it tried to set it up. I believe that the recent American escalation, the official Western positions supporting it and the threats to ensure the issuance of a Security Council resolution against Iran, will not be limited to verbal debates, political pressures or the shuffling of cards. It will feature a “whiff” of war in which tanks and aircrafts might not be used, but which will keep the Gulf region subjected to inflammations and tensions that will exert pressures on the political, economic and security nerves for years to come. This war's bill will be onerous to all concerned and unconcerned sides, due to Iran's lameness and the behavior of Ahmadinejad's government.
