One has to love this new wave of liberal-left attacks onto Saudi Arabia simultaneously whilst praising economic relations with Iran and advocating stronger political and economic ties with it.
And if Saudi gets abandoned and Iran replaces it reverse and do again (*The Circle Of Shallow Counter-establishmentism)
The most disturbing thing about all this is the SNPs advocating of this in the name of the economic benefits
Iran will bring (Saudi Arabia meanwhile is hypocritically condemned on “human rights” grounds). Its interesting to note also that for all the “establishment criticisms” of how the West has dealt with Iran (criticisms we incidentally voiced long before our Western “comrades” belatedly joined the “stop attacking Iran, attack Saudi instead” brigade – ironically this was our position initially advocated as well but in those few years’ delay sympathy for Iran ran out as it killed the Arab activists and revolutionaries that once defended it, on a scale Saudi never did) associated with the SNPs current rush to it, it ultimately recognises that it is not alone in this rush and that there is a far-wider
Western economic rapproachement with the country, as noted directly by Salmond in his article above. It seems therefore that they simply want to be ahead of the curve and get to the contracts quicker, not seeing the utter hypocrisy of them calling for economic and trade relations with Iran whilst calling for the sanctioning of exactly those things with Saudi (of course a general position of unfortunately others in the liberal-left, Caroline Lucas being a prominent figure that comes to mind).
Ultimately it seems, as with the chided “establishment bubbles” those hundreds of millions in the region who shifted from admiration to Iran and hope for its support for the Arab Spring to despising its guts (with Iranian popularity levels now akin to those of Israel’s) following its regional wars of sectarian counter-revolution (in the name of “counter-terror” of course) clearly matter nothing to them. That Western establishments are establishing economic bosomness with Iran now is not surprising and generally fits their century old colonial policy in the region of supporting any actor that can divide, prevent regional unity and inspire animosity (Israel being the known example); that those carrying out the Arab Spring were rewarded by the long “democracy-calling” West by securing billions of dollars of trade deals – not for the countries of the springs yet alone their revolutionary movements but with the Spring’s prime adversary
(verifiably more so than Saudi or even the UAE; not only in Syria but in Iraq, where it supported a brutal sectarian government that cracked down on the Iraqi Spring
leading to the rise of ISIS, and continuing to support brutal sectarian militias today – and in Yemen, where Iran is backing the forces led by the deposed former (Western-allied) dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh) as a reward for how it turned these popular revolts into “wars of terror” is the expected “adding insult to injury” which was to come from the anti-democratic bluffers of Western imperialism; that the “anti-establishments” are more vigorous in doing so is what is disappointing.
(Ultimately just think about it like this: If Iran supported the Arab Spring, would it have gotten this Western support?)