The End of al-Saud Might Not be Too Far Off

The newspaper this morning is dominated by Saudi Arabia's provocative execution of Shiite Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and its aftermath. The Gray Lady features not one but two frontpagers; two additional stories (both superior to the frontpagers) after the jump; and two opinion pieces, one by the editorial board, "Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions," and the other a topnotch editorial, "Saudi Arabia’s Dangerous Sectarian Game," by Rutgers academic Toby Craig Jones (who appeared on Democracy Now! yesterday).

To begin with Jones, he emphasizes something that is repeated in almost every story I laid eyes on this morning: The Saudi execution of Sheikh Nimr was meant not only to derail Iranian integration into the global economy following the P5+1 nuclear deal, but also to obscure serious domestic budgetary problems that the House of Saud is struggling to handle following an oil price drop that it helped to bring about:

The Saudi authorities have good reason to be concerned about new calls for reform. About a week before Sheikh Nimr’s execution, the kingdom announced that it was facing an almost $100 billion deficit for its 2016 national budget. Declining oil revenues may soon force the kingdom to slash spending on social welfare programs, subsidized water, gasoline and jobs — the very social contract that informally binds ruler and ruled in Saudi Arabia. The killing of a prominent member of a loathed religious minority deflects attention from impending economic pressure.

But what is refreshing about Professor Jones' editorial is the coherent big picture of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that it draws. That picture looks something like this: The Saudis have fomented sectarianism for a long time to maintain their absolutist hold on power. But the Saudi fueling of conflict between Sunni and Shia took a quantum leap after the Arab Spring uprising, with the Iranians always being cast as the foil. The problem now, as Professor Jones articulately notes, is that all al-Saud is capable of is sectarian-fueled warfare; it can do nothing else. Hence, the sole public rationale of the West for sticking by these despotic Gulf sheikhdoms, that they provide essential stability in an otherwise turbulent region, is no longer true:

The danger in Saudi Arabia’s ongoing sectarian and anti-Iranian incitement — of which Sheikh Nimr’s execution is just one part — is that it is uncontrollable. As is clear in Syria, Iraq and even further afield, sectarian hostility has taken on a life beyond what the kingdom’s architects are able to manage. This has already proved to be the case in Saudi Arabia, where terrorists aligned with the Islamic State have carried out several suicide bombings on Shiite mosques in the past year. 

The real problem is not just that Saudis are willing to live with violent sectarianism. They are now beholden to it, too. That the kingdom’s leaders have embraced sectarianism so recklessly suggests that they have little other choice. This should be frightening, considering more is likely to be in store. But it should also be clarifying for those who believe that Saudi Arabia is a force for stability in the Middle East. It is not.

And that is the message that beams out of today's newspaper, a kind of waking consciousness that the Saudis are not going to accept Iranian integration and that more warfare is inevitable -- a particularly unsettling proposition for Europe since the nations of the EU are the ones that have recently become the chosen destination for the U.S. and al-Saud war refugees. Sewell Chan takes notes of this in "European Sympathies Lean Toward Iran in Conflict With Saudi Arabia," summed up by a quote from establishment academic Vali Nasr:

In an interview, Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an authority on the Sunni-Shiite regional conflict, said that Western opinion in this case was weighted in Iran’s favor — in part because of the European Union’s desire for rapprochement with Iran. 

“Europeans think the dispute is serious but they think — and so does the White House — that Saudis don’t want reconciliation with Iran, want to exclude Iran from all regional discussions and want to provoke Iran into an action that would then derail engagement with West,” Dr. Nasr said. “This crisis was started by Saudi, and Riyadh was quick to use it to break ties, which means an end to any broad regional engagement like the Vienna talks.”

War can't continue forever without some form of breakdown or correction of course. And that is what we are approaching now. Europe is haltingly shaking itself free of U.S. hegemony. That process is going to have to pick up steam for there to be a breakthrough. As for us here in the homeland of "Great Satan," any of the potential presidential candidates, regardless who wins the general election in November, is going to preside over a continuing fracturing of the nation.

For instance, a company that is doing PR for the Saudis in the wake of the fallout over the Sheikh Nimr execution is none other than the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, chairman of Hillary's presidential campaign. This is from Ben Hubbard's must-read "Shiite Cleric Gained in Status as a Rivalry Deepened":

Saudi Arabia arrested Sheikh Nimr in 2012 and later sentenced him to death for charges that included breaking allegiance with the ruler, inciting sectarian strife and supporting rioting and destruction of property during protests, according to Human Rights Watch.He was killed in a mass execution with 46 other prisoners, most of them linked to Al Qaeda.

Many Saudis defended that pairing of crimes. 

“We are speaking of a terrorist person,” said Salman al-Ansari, a Saudi commentator provided by the Podesta Group, a public relations firm working for the Saudi government.

So don't look for any "Hope & Change" from Hillary.

Interestingly, though Nimr al-Nimr was a conservative cleric, he was not what you would call a Iranian stooge. He spoke out against Bashar al-Assad and supported Kurdish self-determination. He seemed to be something a leveler:

In one sermon, he spoke out against “oppressors,” Sunni or Shiite, and called for the oppressed to unite against them. 

“In any place he rules — Bahrain, here, in Yemen, in Egypt or in any place — the unjust ruler is hated,” he said. “Whoever defends the oppressor is his partner with him in oppression, and whoever is with the oppressed shares with him his reward from God.” 

He broke rank with other Shiite clerics by criticizing President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who is backed by Iran, and supported rule by the Kurdish majority in northern Iraq. 

In another sermon, he spoke against the use of arms and said protesters should be willing to die for their cause: “Our strength is not in weapons; our strength is in martyrdom."

Saudis Scared of Peace

The execution Saturday of Saudi Shiite firebrand cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was certainly meant to provoke Iran into some sort of reaction which could then be used as an excuse by al-Saud to do what it did yesterday -- cut diplomatic ties and give Iranian ambassadors 48 hours to get out of Saudi Arabia. Ben Hubbard provides a useful summary of the Iran vs. House of Saud conflict in today's "Saudi Arabia Cuts Ties With Iran Amid Fallout From Cleric’s Execution":

. . . Saudi Arabia and Iran follow separate strands of Islam and have long been rivals for influence across the Middle East and beyond. That has accelerated in recent years as the Iraq war and the Arab Spring uprisings upturned the regional order and gave both nations new ways to extend their reach.

That put them on opposite sides of various conflicts, often divided by sect. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia sent tanks to support the Sunni monarchy against protesters led by the island nation’s Shiite majority. In Syria, Iran has bankrolled the government of President Bashar al-Assad while Saudi Arabia has supported Sunni rebels seeking his ouster. And in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has led an air campaign against Shiite Houthi rebels.

Further straining tensions are Saudi concerns that the Iranian nuclear agreement could increase Tehran’s ability to spread its influence. And Iran remains angry over Saudi Arabia’s handling of a stampede during the hajj in September that left more than 2,400 pilgrims dead, including more than 450 Iranians, according to a count by The Associated Press.

But setting off the war of words that finally broke relations was Saudi Arabia’s execution on Saturday of Sheikh Nimr, who had called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family and served as a spiritual leader for protesters from the kingdom’s Shiite minority. The Saudi government accused him of inciting violence and executed him with 46 others, most of them said to be members of Al Qaeda. 

The reaction in the region generally broke cleanly along sectarian lines, with Shiite leaders criticizing the Saudis for killing a man they called a peaceful dissident, while Saudi Arabia’s Sunni allies applauded what they called the country’s efforts to fight terrorism. 

Then late Saturday, protesters in Tehran ransacked the Saudi Embassy, and Iranian leaders turned up the rhetoric. “God’s hand of retaliation will grip the neck of Saudi politicians,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in comments reported on his official website. 

The Iranians did, however, appear to take steps to prevent the dispute from escalating further, arresting 40 Iranians in the anti-Saudi mayhem.

Hubbard quotes a couple think-tankers saying that the execution of Sheikh Nimr is bad news for the peace process on Syria and that it likely signals an increase in proxy warfare in the region.

Moon of Alabama posts that "This was exactly what the Saudis rulers wanted and need," the idea being that things are going badly for al-Saud in Yemen (the war there is unwinnable and all the Kingdom is accomplishing is the destruction of the country) and in Syria (where momentum is increasing for some sort of negotiated settlement), and this diplomatic breach provides cover to "double down" and in time honored neocon power-mad fashion "make the problem bigger."

The problem for the Saudis and the other sheikhdoms of the Gulf is that the Iranians are not jejune poltroons who can be stampeded into an overreaction. The Iranians have already won this exchange in the eyes of the Obama administration. According to Hubbard:

That risks derailing a new round of international peace talks aimed at ending the civil war in Syria, a process that Mr. Kerry has worked hard to get going. 

The talks, meant to begin this month, were to be the first to bring together the Syrian government, the opposition and a range of countries that include Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

“We’re obviously concerned this could blow up the process,” one senior Obama administration official said. “But it’s too early to say what the impact could be.” 

Saudi officials have long said they think that Mr. Kerry’s effort is doomed to failure, and that was before Sunday’s diplomatic breach with Iran.

Still, Obama administration officials noted Iran’s efforts over the weekend to keep the situation on the streets from spinning out of control. “The Iranians, in this case, acted responsibly,” Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the C.I.A., said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The police showed up very quickly. They made a number of arrests.”

Despite that, officials believe that the Sunni-Shiite proxy war that was already underway in Syria and Yemen may only grow more intense, at least for a while. And in coming weeks the United States and its negotiating partners in the Iran deal are preparing to carry out that accord, including an end to sanctions that have tied up more than $100 billion in Iranian assets frozen in overseas bank accounts. Critics are already arguing that will give Iran more money to fund the conflict in Syria and beyond.

Shortly after announcing the execution of Sheikh Nimr on Saturday, Saudi Arabia said it was ending a two-and-a-half-week-old cease-fire in Yemen that had never really taken hold.

The Sheikh Nimr execution is the latest attempt to scuttle the rapprochement between Iran and the United States that came with signing the P5+1 accord on Iran's nuclear program. Last month Congress passed a new law targeting Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, which Kerry promptly walked back. Then there was the announcement of new sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missiles, which the Obama administration then said would take more time to implement.

The advantage that the Saudis have is that while the players on Team Obama might not be jejune they are poltroons in that they will not directly confront the Saudi-neocon-Israeli axis that has so much say in how the U.S. warfare state conducts itself.

The correct thing for the Obama administration to do after the Saudi provocation of Sheikh Nimr's execution would be to announce -- publicly would be best but privately would do too -- that it was bowing out of the air war on Yemen. The Saudis can refuel and traffic their own war planes.

This of course won't happen because al-Saud has correctly seized up Obama as someone who knows his limits, a leader who has shown time after time that he is not willing to restructure the self-destructive institutions of American hegemony, whether it is the Pentagon or Wall Street.

The Saudis are making the problem bigger because they are scared that the region might be moving towards peace. They are terrified of peace.