Roles and International Behaviour: Saudi–Iranian Rivalry in Bahrain’s and Yemen’s Arab Spring

Cerioli, Luíza Gimenez

doi:10.1590/S0102-8529.2018400200010

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Contexto int. 40 (02) • Aug 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.2018400200010 copy

Roles and International Behaviour: Saudi–Iranian Rivalry in Bahrain’s and Yemen’s Arab Spring

Papéis e Comportamento Internacional: a Rivalidade Saudita-Iraniana na Primavera Árabe do Bahrein e do Iêmen

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Middle Eastern geopolitics are dynamic and complex. Ideological and religious matters interplay with domestic and international structures, generating several types of relations. This article aims to analyse the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two powerhouses that compete for leadership in the Gulf. The objective is to understand this competition through the lens of Role Theory, focusing on the national role conceptions that both countries project outwards. This theoretical framework presupposes that Iran and Saudi Arabia project self-made images that represent cognitive constructions of what policymakers believe their respective nations stand for. As an example, Iran projects a role of bastion of revolutions, which is firmly set against Saudi Arabia’s anti-instability role. Regional instability periods, such as civil unrests, provide useful study cases for investigating the phenomenon of rivalry. Therefore, this article focuses on the Iranian and Saudi reactions to the events related to the so-called Arab Spring in Bahrain and Yemen, detecting when the rivalry is (somehow) present in their international behaviours. In conclusion, the article adds to a better understanding of Tehran’s and Riyadh’s ideological projection, and of how much of the region’s politics are constrained by the rivalry status.

Keywords
Iran; Saudi Arabia; Role Theory; Bahrain; Yemen

Role	Bahrain’s case	Yemen’s case
Regional leader	Attempted to present itself as a revolutionary model for revisionist forces against the status quo.	Supported the Houthis and praised the revolution, as they questioned the status quo.
Protector of the faith	Tried to dissociate the demonstrations from sectarian discourse. Accused Saudis of inciting sectarianism amid the conflict.	Tried to dissociate the demonstrations from sectarian discourse. Accused Saudis of inciting sectarianism amid the conflict.
Bastion of the revolutions	Associated the Arab Spring with its 1979 revolution, but did not engage directly.	Associated the Arab Spring with its 1979 revolution, but did not engage directly.
Anti-imperialist agent	Accused the GCC in its intervention of imperialism on the part of Saudis and its leading western ally, the USA.	Opposed to the GCC’s deal and the military intervention, denouncing it as imperialistic and associated with the USA.

Role	Bahrain’s case	Yemen’s case
Protector of the faith	Benefited from sectarian discourse. Framed the Shias as the primary instability force in the Middle East. Therefore, it would perhaps be more accurate to call it ‘protector of the Sunni faith.’	Benefited from sectarian discourse. Framed the Houthis as Shias and as the primary instability force in the Middle East. Again, closer to a ‘protector of the Sunni faith.’
Regional leader	Reacted militarily to check a possible Iranian engagement. Co-ordinated the military operation and consolidated its image as GCC’s leader of the operation (through PSF).	Organised the ousting of Saleh, assisted Hadi, and commanded the military operation against the Houthis.
Stabilityguarantor	Framed the Shias (with Iran) as a source of instability. Gave economic and military assistance to Bahrain, and commanded the PSF operation.	Framed the Houthis (with Iran) as a source of instability. Organised the GCC’s deal, assisted Hadi, and headed the military operation.
Faithfull ally	Co-ordinated the military action without Washington’s approval: more pragmatism.	Co-ordinated the military action without Washington’s approval: more pragmatism.

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Relações Internacionais Rua Marques de São Vicente, 225 - Casa 20 , 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil, Tel.: (55 21) 3527-2284, Fax: (55 21) 3527-1560 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cintjournal@puc-rio.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Luíza Gimenez Cerioli is a PhD Student at the Centre for Near and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Marburg, Germany. She has an MA in International Relations from the University of Brasília, and a BA in IR at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, both in Brazil. Her Doctoral thesis under development constructs a strategic triangular framework for evaluating the relations between the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia and how they affect the regional system of the Gulf. Her fields of interest are Gulf politics, mainly Iran and Saudi Arabia, the USA’s role in the Middle East and how International Relations theories are useful to the understanding of the region.