Saudi Arabia Cut Ties Iran After Embassy Assault

Saudi Iran Connection Strained

The fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran also has its genesis in the battle for control and influence in the Middle East. The current imbroglio began with Imam Sheikh Nimr, a spiritual leader of the Shiite minority in the Saudi kingdom, who had called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family.

Not surprisingly, the Saudi government executed Nimr and 46 others who were said to be members of Al Qaida. In response, Iranian mobs attacked and ransacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Iran prevented further violence and took steps to quell the anti Saudi violence.

Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, condemned the execution, but said that the attacks on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and on the Saudi Consulate in Mashhad had damaged Iran’s reputation. “We do not allow rogue groups to commit illegal actions and damage the holy reputation of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said in a statement. Outside the Middle East, some criticized the Saudi justice system and the mass execution, the largest in the kingdom in decades.

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said Saturday that he was “deeply dismayed” by the execution of Sheikh Nimr and the other men after “trials that raised serious concerns over the nature of the charges and the fairness of the process.” The European Union cited similar questions about “freedom of expression and the respect of basic civil and political rights.”

The Obama administration had appeared caught by surprise by the mass execution and scrambled at first to understand exactly who had been put to death. Privately several senior administration officials expressed anger at the Saudis, both for what one called “an apparent absence of due process” in the executions, and another for “negligent disregard” for how it could inflame the region. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomatic engagement with both countries.

The Saudi Foreign Ministry responded to Iran’s criticism on Sunday by accusing it of “blind sectarianism” and of spreading terrorism. Hours later, Mr. Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, announced the ending of diplomatic ties at a news conference in Riyadh, saying the kingdom would not allow Iran to undermine its security. “The history of Iran is full of negative and hostile interference in Arab countries, always accompanied by ruin, destruction and the killing of innocent souls,” he said. Analysts said the split could further destabilize the region.

“These countries don’t trust one another, and they see every event as an opportunity to raise tensions,” said Abbas Kadhim, a senior foreign policy fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

It is difficult to tell if this clash will escalate, and if it will be by direct confrontation or through proxies. It is reassuring to know that the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons at the present time, but points up the huge lack of judgement on the part of John Kerry and the Obama administration in giving Iran the green light to develop such weapons in the next ten years.

It is not clear if the Saudis have nuclear weapons at this time, but they have been a major military patron of the U.S. for many years. The bigger question is if this or some other battle between Middle Eastern countries will lead to a broader and more damaging war, and what our role should be in fighting with these tribal, warring nations.

And always on the horizon is the question of what role Israel will play in these conflicts. It could be that Israel will be the ultimate decision maker in how these conflicts play out since these challenges can directly impact her ability to survive.

Source: New York Times