According to Crown Prince Mohammed, Sayyid has attracted the hatred of Iran, and it is religious reconciliation that has led to his death.

Although they believe in the same Allah, for thousands of years, Shiites and Sunnis have been at odds with each other, and the hatred between the two factions is even higher than that of other religions.

When it comes to concreteness, it is actually a struggle for the legitimacy of the regime.

Obviously, when it comes to the right to rule, it is life and death, and there is not the slightest room to talk about.

It is precisely for this reason that both Saudi Arabia and Iran regard each other as mortal enemies.

Iraq is the main battlefield of the confrontation between the two factions.

Although the Shiites are the majority of the Arabs in Iraq, the two factions are evenly matched when it comes to the Kurds, who are predominantly Sunni.

Saudi Arabia has been propping up the Sunnis in Iraq all along.

In fact, it was with the support of Saudi Arabia that Saddam Hussein, who came from the Sunni faction, was able to rule Iraq for decades before the Gulf War.

The Iran-Iraq war of the last century was actually a head-to-head confrontation between two factions.

At that time, it was with the support of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries that Iraq dared to wage war against Iran, which has a population three times its size.

During the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, it was the assistance from Saudi Arabia and other countries that allowed Iraq to hold out to the end.

After that, Iraq sent troops to annex Kuwait, triggering the Gulf War, and Saudi Arabia did not officially declare war on Iraq, but only sent troops to participate in the combat operation to liberate Kuwait.

After the Gulf War, Saddam's regime was able to survive under the sanctions of the international community for more than a decade, which is also related to the covert support of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries.

From these things, it can be seen that in order to crack down on the Shiites led by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries have done everything they can.

After the overthrow of Saddam's regime, Iraq introduced a federal system that granted great autonomy to local governments, also related to religious struggles.

The point is that the Shiite majority, which is in power, will certainly come to power through a general election.

If Iraq is controlled by a Shiite government, it will inevitably fall to Iran.

Without dividing Iraq, federalism is the only option.

Let's not forget that Iraq's Sunni concentration in the south and the autonomy of the Sunni-dominated regions would provide Saudi Arabia with a line of defense against Shiites.

Further on, the growth of extremist groups in Iraq can also be attributed to sectarian struggles.

To put it bluntly, if it were not for the Shia and Sunni struggles, the war in Iraq would not have lasted for more than a decade, and it would not have provided soil for extremist groups.

It can be seen that the Saudi royal family does not care about the life or death of the Iraqi people at all.

All they care about is the dominance of Saudi Arabia.

You know, the Shiites deal with hereditary royal families like the House of Saud, who rule by blood, and civilians who believe in Allah govern the country.

Of course, in practice, the elders born from the commoners will replace the royal family.

Without Saeed, the war in Iraq would have continued.

Despite his Shia background, Saeed has always put Iraq's national interests first, not religious factionalism.

This kind of political philosophy, which transcends religion and puts the interests of the country first, seems very unusual.

It is not only Iran that sees Said as a threat, but also Saudi Arabia.

However, relatively speaking, Saudi Arabia has been less affected, and the benefits of maintaining peace and stability in Iraq outweigh the disadvantages for Saudi Arabia.

The point is that Saudi Arabia has always been on the defensive in the confrontation with Iran.

Fundamentally, all of Saudi Arabia's foreign policy is aimed at ensuring the dominance of the royal family, that is, ensuring that the Saud family remains in charge of the country.

As for external expansion, it is clearly not a dish of the Saudi authorities.

A neighbor that is peaceful and stable and committed to domestic construction is certainly better than a neighbor that is constantly in war and is controlled and used by extremist groups.

In addition, Iraq's federal system has given Saudi Arabia a key buffer zone.

As long as southern Iraq remains in Sunni hands and Sunni has sufficient autonomy, there is no need for Saudi Arabia to worry about anything.

For Iran, that's another story.

It can be said that the elimination of extremist groups entrenched in the north and the granting of full autonomy to the Kurds were the trigger for Said's assassination.

There is a crucial element in this, and that is the Syrian civil war.

You know, apart from Iran, Syria is the only Islamic country that is now ruled by Shiites.

If the Syrian government is finished, Iran will be completely isolated.

Iran has been sparing no effort to support Syria, even sending the Quds Force to fight in Syria despite international sanctions, in order to keep this only remaining ally.

Of course, it is not only Iran that supports Syria, but also Russia.

In a sense, Russia is more important, because Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and has a powerful power that no country dares to provoke.

The Syrian government has been able to hold out until now precisely because of Russia's direct support.

It's just that Russia's support for Syria is only to keep its strategic foothold in the Mediterranean, create trouble for the US-led NATO bloc, and reduce the pressure on the front.

From a military point of view, Syria is only a secondary front for Russia.

Based on safeguarding national interests, Russia's main battlefield is in Ukraine, so Russia will definitely not invest heavy troops in Syria.

From the point of view of Russia, all that is needed is a pro-Russian regime, and it does not matter at all which sect it is.

In addition, Russia's investment in Syria is directly related to its national strategy.

Russia will continue to support the Syrian government as long as it is profitable.

If it is unprofitable, Russia will not hesitate to abandon the Assad regime.

Of course, there is also the strength of Russia, especially the economic power.

Because oil prices have been hovering at low levels, Russia's economic situation has continued to deteriorate, and it has become worse after the invasion of Syria.

For several years, Russia has burned tens of billions of dollars in war money in Syria.

Can this state of affairs be sustained?

The answer is clearly no.

Over the past three years, Russia has significantly reduced its spending in Syria, as even the toughest leader cannot create the money to buy arms out of thin air.

Without money, what to fight with?

What's more, compared with Syria, there is a more important Ukraine.

As Russia gradually reduces its military spending in Syria, the burden of providing reinforcements to Bashar al-Assad falls on Iran's shoulders.

At this time, Iraq is of paramount importance.

Russia could send a fleet to the port of Tartus, use transport planes to airlift supplies to Syria, and if necessary, use long-range cruise missiles to support Syrian government forces.

None of this is something that Iran can do.

Iran's aid to Syria must pass through Iraq, and Said's solidarity policy is tantamount to blocking the ground passage for Iran's aid to Syria.

Just this reason is enough.