It has only been a handful of days in the new year and the Middle East, or Mideast, has taken an immense kick for the worse. The area’s biggest competition or war—amongst Saudi Arabia and Iran—has grown to be considerably dangerous, and it may possibly have consequences throughout the Middle East.
On the 2nd of January 2016, demonstrators in the capital of Iran assaulted the Saudi diplomatic building, plundering and destroying it as Iran overlooked or rejected Saudi demands to safeguard the property. Saudi Arabia officially chipped off diplomatic dealings with Iran on the 4th of this month, stating it was going to remove economic associations and bar Saudi from travelling to Iran. In addition, Bahrain and Republic of the Sudan, both friends of the Saudi government, also cut off ties.
In a number of ways, this kind of diplomatic dispute ended up being unavoidable: Saudi Arabia and Iran read each other as foes and, therefore, are “caged” in a rising struggle for control and prominence in the Middle East. This power struggle stretches far beyond statements, with both the nations supporting militant organizations and tailoring proxy wars across the region, specifically in Syria. Their challenge is a serious operator of dispute in the Mideast.
However, according to a recent observation, there have been indicators that both nations have been drained by their struggle and are prepared to demilitarize this year, even perhaps choosing peace opportunities for the hostilities in both their neighboring countries – Yemen and Syria.
Then again, past incidents have put an end to those expectations, and have indicated that issues may possibly worsen. This is not only damaging for Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also detrimental to the whole Mideast, as both territorial disputes will probably multiply. Although we are still in the first month of the year, 2016 is a year that will undoubtedly witness the troublesome development of issue(s) in the Mideast.
On the 2nd of January, Saudi Arabia announced that they had issued a large number of death penalties in a single day. The county gave the execution order of forty-seven people, in various regions across the land. Many were sentenced to death by beheading, and the rest were sentenced to death by firing squad. However, despite the size of the mass execution, the thing that makes it a pivotal moment is the name of a single man. Out of those forty-seven men, several of whom were Sunni (the majority sect in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) jihadists and many others, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr is the name that stands out – a notable Shia Imam (i.e. like a Priest or a Rabbi) who was a Saudi national.
Baqir’s execution aggravated the Mideastern Shia groups and many other nations that follow the Shi’ism. Haider al-Abadi, the prime minister of Iraq, raised questions about the execution, alerting of the consequences for territorial protection. The Islamic Republic of Iran threatened obscure repercussions, shedding light on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and indicating that Saudi Arabia should expect severe revenge. Objections smashed out in Pakistan and Bahrain. The protester in Mashhad, Iran torched the Saudi consulate building, and then the same thing happened to the embassy in Tehran.
The country’s decision to eliminate Baqir was not about this specific spiritual leader; for Saudi Arabia, Baqir portrayed the possibility of inner Shia disagreement, at the rear of which it observed Iran’s dubious control – and possibly, in addition, a chance to obtain more assistance in its troubled conflict in the borders of Yemen.
Why Did Saudi Arab Kill Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr?
Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was from the Kingdom’s east province, where you can find numerous Shia groups. Shia groups make up fifteen percent of Saudi Arabia’s population. Baqir was not a popular Shia scholar. Nevertheless, his counter-government speeches gained him a loyal following. Whereas remaining Saudi Shia leadership made an effort to develop Shia situations by operating inside of the governmental model, Baqir went against this method and made no formula that recognized Iran as his friend.
Although he didn’t demand a fierce Shia revolt, he did nothing to stop it either. In addition, he also gave signs that he may support Iran interceding in Saudi Arabia to safeguard Shias in Saudi Arab. Also, according to WikiLeaks, in 2008, Baqir met with the United States authorities in the American diplomatic building. One of the representatives, according to WikiLeaks, states that Baqir had not supported force, but indicated assistance for it.
Baqir’s personal opinions were in line with his preceding open claims. In these claims, he showed disregard for his home government and Saudi Arabia’s assistance in foreign interference – many analysts believe that he would not have been hesitant to become an Iranian agent and might have supported the uprising as well.
Furthermore, Baqir started to become more well known in 2011, when he severely slammed the Saudi leadership for the death of Prince Nayef. He also supported many Shia protests in his homeland. Even though the Arab Spring had originally motivated the Shia objections, these people wanted improved treatment for the Shia minority. This was primarily a differentiation with a very minimal distinction, and yet Saudi protective forces broke down the protests. The protest saw many casualties; more than twenty people, mainly young Shia men, were shot.
As a result, in 2012, Saudi forces charged Baqir with provoking the ferocity and arrested him for shooting at the police officers who caught him. However, Sheikh Baqir’s relatives deny that. Furthermore, they charged him with supporting international interference.
The Big Picture
The Kingdom of Saudi Arab views Baqir as an individual who is responsible for two primary criminal acts – rousing up Shia discrimination, and stimulating Saudi Shias to be adverse in opposition to their very own nation along with Iran. This is a grievous concern for Saudi Arabia; on the grounds involving Baqir’s arrest four years prior, Saudi’s relationship with Iran has deteriorated — they’re assisting opposing aspects in the Syrian civil conflict, plus the Saudi government blames the Islamic Republic of Iran for the fight in Yemen.
Borzou Daragahi, a Mideast reporter for BuzzFeed, stated that an authoritative retired Saudi officer had explained the Saudi Government’s views on Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr. “He was directly accountable for having stimulated speeches and displays that resulted in many deaths amongst the Saudi police officers from a period from 2012 till 2014. In addition, he motivated a young people’s team to strike the short (meaning police in Arabic) in Al-Qatif with rifles.” Essentially, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was targeted because he was motivating people to tear up the Kingdom from within, and was also receiving funds from the Iranian government.
However, there is genuine cause to be doubtful – If you think the Kingdom was actually motivated by a want to tamper down discrimination, that it should not have targeted Baqir, that it failed to understand that its actions will trigger a serious worldwide disturbance and a worldwide Shia repercussion, particularly amongst its very own Shia community. In fact, this indicates that this unique execution was created to highlight discrimination throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ahmed Shihab Eldin, a journalist and a former host of Huffington Post Live, said in a tweet: “Saudi executed Nimr Al-Nimr knowing that the sectarian narrative helps them rally Sunnis at home & in the region against Shia challenge.“
“Saudi spinning like mad over the execution of Nimr Al-Nimr & Iran. All designed for external consumption!” says Jon Williams, managing editor and foreign editor at The American Broadcasting Company and a former world editor at The British Broadcasting Corporation.
Furthermore, the Saudi war in Yemen—where the Kingdom and its allies are dropping bombs on a Shia uprising that has absorbed the authorities—is occurring because the Kingdom is confident the rebels are people being paid by Iran. It is not a mystery that this battle is heading in a “certain” direction, falling oil rates have damaged the economic climate. A great way to deviate the attention is to discover the means to uphold cerebral dedication in “this” strategy.
Toby C. Jones, an associate professor of history and the director of the Global and Comparative History master’s degree program at Rutgers University, labeled Baqir execution as “red meat to the sectarian radicals,” including the Saudi clerical establishment, hard-line religious scholars, and the judiciary.
However, Saudi Arabia is likely to showcase its official story of the Yemen conflict and “assist” in stopping the warfare.
Saudi leadership has, over the years, fluctuated between safeguarding the nation’s Shia community and its anti-Shiism indulgence amongst its clerical and other Sunni religious establishment. By executing Baqir, the Kingdom is apparently engaging anti-Shiism, in terms of rallying that favored clerical institution to the country’s intention. On the day Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr was executed, Saudi Arabia announced it was officially finishing the present armistice in Yemen. To be clear, the Kingdom’s foreign policy concerns eventually line up with sectarianism, and from now on, their main priority is Yemen.
The Sunni & Shia Faith Lies In The Saudi – Iran Cold War
Primarily, the conflict in the Mideast is being driven by the anxiety and turbulence between Sunni and Shia sects. The disputes in Syria, as well as in Yemen, are primarily segregated amongst Sunni and Shia. In Iraq, the nation and its national politics are split between Sunni and Shia. The divide between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, is also drawn down with Sunni-Shia lines too, beginning with Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr.
However, that dispute is not really about faith, even if it is conveyed with the religious sermon. Instead, it is motivated by the cold war battle for power between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mainly because they are both ruled by the religiously guided officials in one form or another – Islamic Republic of Iran states portray our planet’s Shia population living collectively and Saudi Arabia says to signify its Sunni population, they’ve wanted to attack each other on the grounds of ‘we are right and you are wrong’ — therefore making that religious sect “correct”.
There is certainly a religious separation amongst Sunni and Shia Islam, rediscovering the beginning ages of the institution’s establishment in the 7th century. One can learn about these early religious variations, and the ways in which they unsealed, here. Sunni and Shia did fine in the Mideastern historical past, and the Sunni-Shia disagreement was hardly essential to the area’s political relation. In the eighties, the largest dispute in the Mideast involved two Shia representative nations – The Republic of Iraq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Sunni nations were supporting Iraq.
All of that started to change when the United States of America deployed its troops in Iraq and attempted to sweep away Saddam Hussein. Hussein was dangerous to both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (regardless of the Kingdom’s attempts to aid his 1980s conflict on Iran), and these two nations viewed him as a possible menace, Saddam retained the Mideast using a precarious form of equilibrium.
After the United States had tackled Saddam, it eliminated that stability and exposed a void – Saudis and Iranians targeted to occupy. Due to the fact the Republic of Iraq largely consists of a Shia population, the Islamic Republic of Iran attempted to take advantage of sectarianism, supporting the orthodox Shias that would be supportive of Irans interest and become an opposition for the Sunni dominance, like its enemy the Saudis.
Additionally, they pressured the emerging Iraqi administration to Iranian function concerns, which naturally emerged with the Shia. As a result, governmental manipulation before the times of Saddam were not “mainly” about faith; however, after Saddam, the Sunni-Shia partition hit so gravely that the separation right now describes the Republic of Iraq.
If Not Religion, Then What About It?
Four years ago, the Arab Spring started to turn down governments across the Mideast, both the Saudis and the Iranians once more attempted to occupy the spaces and promoted violence. In order to suffice their needs, the Kingdom wanted to intentionally boost up the sect division. In Yemen, for instance, the Kingdom saw the Houthis (Zaidi Shias from Northern Yemen) revolt as a form of Iranian propaganda. Yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran did assist the uprising.
As a result, in order to segregate Iran’s impact in the Republic Of Yemen, and to feud up assistance for the Kingdom’s interference there, it attempted to cause physical conflict – Sunnis against the Shias. This is one reason why the Mideast is indeed so segregated nowadays, especially when it comes to the Sunnis and Shias.
In an attempt to maintain influence in their fragile states, both the nations have attempted to place themselves as the gérants of their own Islamic group, and they’ve influenced discrimination to build up tensions with the opposite side.
During 2003, people lived in harmony in the capital of Iraq. The Shias and Sunnis lived in the same neighborhoods, shared the same streets – they all lived in peace. However, they gradually started splitting into Sunni communities and Shia communities. Shia segments established Shia private armies, vice versa, initially to protect themselves from the other side, next to chase away the other party, and eventually, to murder each other.
It is clear the exact same thing has happened in Syria, just on a nationwide scale. Initially, the brutality had almost nothing to do with the faith – In fact, in reality, it was all about a common Syrian citizen against their oppressive state. However, the Syrian nation is allied with the Islamic Republic of Iran, meaning it has been inhospitable to the Kingdom. As a result, the Saudis consider it to be their adversary. Naturally, the Saudis, along with other Sunni Gulf countries, assisted Syrian rebels. In addition, they were aware that their anti-Shiism perspective made them more dangerous to the Iranians and more devoted to Saudi Arabian interests.
Iran used a very similar approach, portraying the Syrian battle as a “major killing spree type” strategy against the Shias. It is vital that you are aware that the Mideast is largely Sunni, so for The Kingdom, it may appear to be a successful tactic to market sectarianism, side with Sunnis, and consequently force Shias to side with Iran. By pushing the Sunni-Shia partition, the Saudis can feel confident that they to have the upper hand in this game. This can be seen in how the Kingdom financed Sunni soldiers in Syria, assisting in changing a denominational civil war into a sectarian dispute.
Syrian commander Bashar al-Assad, even though he is Shia, did the same too, darkly aiming to make the party poisonous and push the Iranians to support him. But Iran has utilized discrimination as a device too. Although one may disagree that Iran was, in some cases, reinforced towards this tactic by Saudi Arabia. In the event that the Saudis supported Sunnis to separate the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran backed the Shias to contain influence — what’s more, the Iranians pursued it vigorously.
Why The Hatred?
Following the 1979 Islamic transformation that collapsed the west friendly Shāhanshāh of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the emerging Islamic Republic built an intense foreign policy to convey the Iranian change, planning to agitate uprisings within the Mideast. This became a warning of the Kingdom’s significant impact in the Mideast, and possibly of the Saudi Arabian kingship as well.
The removal of Iran’s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (though he was a Shia himself), and setting of the government by hardcore Shia Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini, came as a shock to the Saudi government. It led to power a person who clearly quarreled the fact that Islamism and the ancestral monarchy were contradictory, a frightening message, to put it mildly, for the ruling class of the Saudi Arab. As a result, the Kingdom and remaining super-conservative Gulf kings created the Gulf Cooperation Council, a group originally made to undo and hold the Iranian effect.
It is relevant to realize that the Saudi kingship is seriously troubled – It recognizes that its grip on power is weak. The current Iran, purely by its establishment, tests this authenticity — not since it’s Shia, but due to the fact its theocratic wave was prevalent and showed promise to serve Muslims greater than the Saudi royals.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, within the beginning years, tried to cultivate such radical changes offshore, particularly in the Kingdom. The Saudis noticed this as being a decree of dispute towards their “real kingship,” and critical danger over their law. But be aware that, in the beginning, this dispute had no connection with the Sunni-Shia disunity. In reality, it was a struggle between the Islamic Republic of Iran and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because both nations believed that they stood for all Muslims.
Iran is not aiming to spread its Islamic Revolution overseas any longer. However, both nations continue to see one another as illicit in their claims of representing all Muslims today. The Kingdom’s administration has hypothesized its spiritual influence over the Muslim world, due to the fact that it has the majority of Islam’s holiest sites. The Islamic Republic of Iran says that its 1979 transformation essentially achieved the Islamic freedom in opposition to a non-Islamic kingship. Even so, they both can’t function as the true delegates of Muslims around the world.
As a result, Saudi Arabia aided Saddam Hussein’s 1980s battle in opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which wiped out more than a million people and triggered damaging effects on the Persian society. The Iran & Iraq war is still vividly remembered, and Saudi Arabia is often blamed for it. One can still see this divide come to life anytime there’s a life-threatening mishap during the time of Hajj (the yearly spiritual pilgrimage to Makkah and Madina, the two Holy Muslim locations in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). These mishaps attract strong criticism from Iran.
Over the years, the radical origins of these nations have tattered slightly. Both of them still see one another as a daunting danger. Both nations identify their own activities as protective, and the opposite side’s as violative. Both states look at the greater Mideast as the battlefield for this struggle, and have combated each other by recruiting teams in the Lebanese Republic in the 1980s, in the Republic of Iraq in the 2000s, and most recently, in the Syrian Arab Republic. Since these types of proxy battles have commonly been played on the sectarian basis, factors such as these have contributed towards the denominational anxiety, mistrust, and brutality that, at present, propels a great deal of the Mideastern chaos.
The Last Few Events Pose a Massive Risk to The Mideast
During the last six months, the Russians, Americans and other European nations have made an effort to bring the Saudis and the Iranians together to negotiate a peace bargain for the people of Syria. However, until both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran back off from assisting their proxy capabilities in Syria, the order of peace cannot be achieved.
The West knows that they are unable to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq & Levant and bring an end to the refugee situation, which is currently damaging the European Unity. Furthermore, for Yemen, the peace negotiations are set to be reserved for the end of January, a ray of hope for the bloody situation present on their soil. So, essentially, it all comes down to both these nations wanting to be the center of Islam. They were, at least, willing to sit down and talk about it – better late than never, right.
Then again, last weeks intensification between Iran and Saudi Arabia has most likely reversed that progression. In the Republic Of Yemen, for instance, Farea al-Muslimi, a writer and activist from Yemen, alerts that discrimination is dragging the nation. Over the years, sect synchronicity and blending was overlooked by the majority of people living in Yemen, and was viewed as an ordinary function of daily life. Sadly, the battle that spread like wildfire in 2011, along with the prominent revolt, has since led the people to favor their sect. This not only makes serenity less likely in today’s dispute, it also this makes Yemen less workable in the long run.
There is No Such Thing as Free Lunch
Although this week’s situation started off with Saudis executing Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr—which was likely done to intentionally highlight discrimination—this is a situation that places Saudi Arabia alone in danger. Sectarianism against Shias can assist Saudi-driven militias, but additionally, it nourishes the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, which presents a great risk to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
ISIL often preys on Shias; in the May of 2015, it announced a Shia mosque assault inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—as many as twenty-one people were slaughtered during this assault. Soon after the strike, Toby Matthiesen, former employee of the International Crisis Group and a Senior Oxford Research Fellow, published that Saudi Arabia was actually dealing with a possibility. If it proceeded to agitate anti-Shia discrimination, it might encourage additional ferocity inside of the Kingdom itself.
Saudis might have to make a choice between making use of anti-Shiism as an effective political means in the country that gave them what they have today, and the genuine threat that orthodox Sunnis view Shias as not being a part of Islam and may bring the fight home to clean the Holy Land – a serious problem for the Saudi leaders. Daesh clearly aims to eliminate the Saudi authorities, especially after many of Imams and Sheikhs of the Saudi Arabia have called Daesh not a part of Islam.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant can prey on years of anti-Shiism provocation in Saudi institutions. In fact, a great number of people joint the revolts in Syria. In addition, uprisings in the Republic of Iraq have been built from a motivation to circumvent the Shia and the Iranian effect, along with the foreign policy objectives that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as other Gulf countries, function upon.
Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Baqir demonstrates an intensification of its current calamitous approach of using discrimination for political purposes. It is an approach that is not only negative, but is also seen as a short term solution. This war, like any other war, is heedless, badly designed, detrimental and pushing everyone to a costly end.
Source: The Guardian, Wiki Leaks, New York Times, New Khaleej, Al Arabiya, Arab News, Independent, New York Times, Brookings, Financial Times, New York Times, Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, Global Voices, The Jerusalem Post, Yahoo News, Press TV, The Intercept, Gulf News, NPR, RT, New York Post
You want to support Anonymous Independent & Investigative News? Please, follow us on Twitter: Follow @AnonymousNewsHQ