Cold War and the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Reasons for the absence of interstate war

Table of Contents

1. Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Research Objectives

1.2 Significance of Research

1.3 Research Questions

1.4 Chapterization

1.5 Research Methodology

1.6 Research Design

2. Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

3. Chapter 3: Foreign Policy of Iran and Saudia Arabia

3.1 Iran’s Aim and Perspective

3.2 Saudia Arabia’s Aims and Perspectives

4. Chapter 4: The War Period

4.1 Iraq-Iran War

4.2 The Gulf War

5. Chapter 5: The Escalation of Crisis

5.1 1987 crisis

6. Chapter 6: Conclusion

Research Objectives and Themes

This research aims to identify the underlying reasons for the absence of direct interstate warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia from 1979 to the present, despite their intense geopolitical and sectarian rivalry. By examining historical case studies and the internal political dynamics of both nations, the study explores how various constraints prevent the escalation of their "Cold War" into full-scale military conflict.

• Analysis of internal factors including religion, ideology, and economic interests.
• Evaluation of domestic institutions and their role in foreign policy decision-making.
• Assessment of military capabilities and the strategic implications of perceived limitations.
• Case studies of the Iran-Iraq War, the First Gulf War, and subsequent crises in 1987 and 2015.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

Chapter 1: Introduction: Provides the foundation of the study by outlining the research problem, objectives, and the significance of the Iran-Saudi rivalry.

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Reviews key international relations theories like Realism and Constructivism and applies them to the context of the Middle East.

Chapter 3: Foreign Policy of Iran and Saudia Arabia: Details the government structures, aims, and perspectives of both nations in the international realm.

Chapter 4: The War Period: Examines the Iran-Iraq War and the First Gulf War as case studies to understand the factors leading to or preventing interstate conflict.

Chapter 5: The Escalation of Crisis: Analyzes the 1987 Hajj crisis and the 2015-present diplomatic tensions as examples of regional escalation without direct war.

Chapter 6: Conclusion: Synthesizes the research findings to confirm that internal instability and negative military assessments act as deterrents to direct warfare.

Keywords

Cold War, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Middle East, Interstate War, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Sectarianism, Proxy Wars, Realism, Constructivism, Domestic Institutions, Military Assessment, Hajj Crisis, Gulf War

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central focus of this research?

The research focuses on explaining why Iran and Saudi Arabia, despite their intense rivalry since 1979, have consistently avoided engaging in direct interstate warfare.

What are the primary themes discussed in the work?

The core themes include regional hegemony, the impact of internal factors like ideology and economics, the influence of domestic institutions, and the assessment of military power as a deterrent.

What is the main research question or goal?

The primary goal is to determine the factors—such as internal state dynamics and military limitations—that keep the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia at the level of proxy conflicts rather than direct war.

Which scientific methods are utilized in this study?

The research employs a descriptive and analytical approach, utilizing qualitative analysis of secondary sources, reports, and existing theories of international relations.

What topics are covered in the main body of the text?

The main body covers a theoretical framework, detailed analysis of the foreign policies of both countries, and specific case studies including the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and diplomatic crises in 1987 and 2015.

Which keywords define this research?

The key concepts include regional hegemony, geopolitical rivalry, sectarianism, realist and constructivist theories, and the dynamics of domestic decision-making institutions.

How do domestic institutions influence the possibility of war?

The research suggests that regimes with complex, civilian-based domestic institutions are generally less likely to engage in direct interstate war compared to purely personalist regimes.

What role does the "negative assessment of military power" play?

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia often prefer a negative or cautious assessment of their own military capacities, which serves to deter them from taking actions that could lead to open, destructive conflict.