The Prospect of the Relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Saudi Arabia: Plausible Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islamic republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia are identified as two effective countries in sub-region of the Persian Gulf, that the radius of their influence covers whole great region of the Middle East. The relationship between the two countries have been full of tension during last decade, and during this period changes of political authorities of these countries were not able to improve this relationship. The cause is the resources of foreign policy behavior of the two countries, historical backgrounds of each country, as well as conflict of interest of each in the region of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The most competition atmosphere between the two countries is inside the three climacteric countries of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Accordingly, the prospect of bilateral relations is a consequence of their behaviors in the region and also their dealings with these three countries. Three scenarios presented regarding the two countries' foreign policy in the region can be discussed: efforts to establish governments, attempts to maintain political structures of collapsing countries, and finally, continuation of current trends that may lead to disintegration of these climacteric countries. By studying these scenarios and drivers, blockers and their wild cards, this paper considers the second scenario best for both countries, which is consistent with their national interests, and with the region’s history and general situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".