The 1979 Revolution and the Sectarianization of Geopolitics
The catalyst for the contemporary “New Middle East Cold War” was the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the secular, Western-aligned monarchy and birthed the Islamic Republic, a theocracy built on the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist).
Crucially, Khomeini didn’t just want to govern Iran; he wanted to export his pan-Islamic revolution, urging oppressed populations across the region to rise against their rulers. For Saudi Arabia—the global bastion of orthodox Sunni Wahhabism and the guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina—revolutionary Iran was an existential threat. The Saudi monarchy’s legitimacy relies on religious credentials and stability. Iran offered a radical alternative that threatened to incite Saudi Arabia’s own marginalized Shia minority in its oil-rich Eastern Province, as well as destabilize neighboring Gulf monarchies.
The region quickly polarized into two heavily armed camps: the conservative, status quo Sunni bloc (Saudi Arabia) and the revisionist, revolutionary Shia bloc (Iran). The conflict intensified dramatically following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. By dismantling Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime, the U.S. inadvertently handed control to Iraq’s Shia majority. This removed the primary strategic buffer containing Iranian influence, allowing Tehran to project power into the Arab heartland and accelerating Saudi efforts to counter this new “Shia Crescent.”
The Game Theory of Perpetual Conflict
The strategic decisions of Saudi Arabia and Iran aren’t just driven by religious fervor; they perfectly match the economic and mathematical principles of Game Theory, specifically the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
In this strategic interaction, both nations have two choices: Cooperate (de-escalate, respect borders, and stop funding militias) or Defect (fund militant groups, build asymmetric weapons, and subvert the other’s stability).
If we assign a “utility score” from 0 (absolute worst outcome) to 4 (the ultimate victory), the mechanics of this rivalry become terrifyingly clear. If both nations cooperate, they achieve a moderate, shared benefit of regional stability and economic growth (a score of 3 for each). However, if one nation cooperates while the other defects, the aggressive defector achieves regional hegemony (a score of 4), while the peaceful cooperator is left severely vulnerable—suffering what theorists call the “sucker’s payoff” (a score of 0).
Because the Middle East lacks an overarching authority to enforce agreements, there is profound ideological mistrust. Neither side can credibly commit to peace (a concept known as Robert Powell’s “commitment problem”). Therefore, the rational choice for both states is to constantly Defect.
If both states defect, the result is a perpetual proxy war (a score of 1 for each). In game theory, this is known as a “Nash Equilibrium”—a degraded, highly costly stalemate. Both states pour billions into proxy wars, locked in a cycle of hostility that neither can abandon without risking total strategic ruin. Furthermore, this rivalry is defined by Thomas Schelling’s concept of brinkmanship. Both states push conflicts to the absolute edge of disaster to extract concessions, using proxy militias to inflict damage while staying just below the threshold of direct state-on-state warfare, which would invite mutually assured destruction. Solving this requires what theorists call “Mechanism Design”—deliberately expanding the options available to create verifiable incentives that make cooperation the rational choice.
Another good read on Substack (Rydro Abbas) about historic Shia and Sunni beliefs of Palestinians:
The long history of Palestinian Shias, what the Wahhabis, Salafis and British Shias won’t tell you
A Muslim nation of millions and not having a single Shia is an absurd, illogical and unrealistic claim, especially when you consider the history and the shared borders with southern Lebanon
Today, when we speak about Shiaism, some people quickly link it to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its “expanding influence”, completely disregarding the actual history of Shiaism in the West Asian region, as in reality, it originates from the Arab nations, not as they like to claim and pretend.
When the mention of Shiaism is brought up about an Arab nation, especially when it is a Sunni majority nation, the matter completely differs as the Salafis and Wahhabis’ sensitivity increases and they become defensive, pretending like Shiaism belongs to Islamic Republic of Iran and it is all due to their influence and them promoting such belief.
The matter reaches its most extreme case with most ignorant denial and rejection of Shiaism in Palestine, where they claim that Palestine has no Shias, and in rare occasions when they acknowledge the Shia presence, they make it like it is due to them being influenced by Iran, rather than Shiaism being found organically, to paint the image that Shias and or Shiaism are not indigenous, as they are completely foreign.
This frustration and delusion stem from their collective failure as a nation for letting the Palestinians down in their struggle, so they fear the tiniest thing for the nation to have in common with the Shia world far more than the disappointment their entire leadership are responsible of.
A Muslim nation of millions and not having a single Shia is an absurd, illogical and unrealistic claim, especially when you consider the history and the shared open borders with southern Lebanon in the past—and even today’s factors.
Before the israeli occupation, the borders were open between northern Palestine and southern Lebanon, making that the mixing of people much easier, as they travel back and forth, social links were common as some Palestinians would marry from the Lebanese and vise versa, especially the Palestinians of Galilee, eventually this leads to adaption of some beliefs, including religious ones, Sunni or Shia. And this was even before the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before the occupation.
Retired, living in the Scottish Borders after living most of my life in cities in England. I can now indulge my interest in all aspects of living close to nature in a wild landscape. I live on what was once the Iapetus Ocean which took millions of years to travel from the Southern Hemisphere to here in the Northern Hemisphere. That set me thinking and questioning and seeking answers.
In 1998 I co-wrote Millennium Countdown (US)/ A Business Guide to the Year 2000 (UK) see https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780749427917
borderslynn 