Would agree with the broad argument here: more diplomacy, less bombast. But an idea I've been playing with lately is that, while the idea of a "Saudi-Iranian cold war" has been used as an analytical frame for the region, it may no longer be a useful one. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2020-05-22/americas-opportunity-middle-east
The Saudis lost. Assad is still in power. Their traditional clients in Lebanon look mortally wounded. Diplomatic efforts in Iraq have been totally overshadowed. Aside from the Yemen catastrophe, there isn't really a meaningful Saudi-Iranian competition playing out anywhere.
Even the kinetic stuff that happened in the Gulf last year—the holed tankers and the Abqaiq attack—wasn't quite about Gulf-Iranian tensions. It was about American-Iranian tensions, using the GCC as an arena, a convenient target.
At the same time, Iran has built nothing durable. The regime is dilapidated. Its regional "successes" are either failed states or insolvent, atrociously-governed husks. It faces challenges to its influence—but they come largely from within those states, not from Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, still thinking about this. But given the backdrop, I would question how much utility there is in a Biden administration trying to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together to organize some kind of regional security architecture.
You can follow @glcarlstrom.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: