Saudi Arabia breaks off ties with Iran after al-Nimr execution

[tantalus]

Saudi Arabia says it has broken off diplomatic ties with Iran, amid a row over the Saudi execution of a prominent Shia Muslim cleric.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir was speaking after demonstrators had stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran.

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 others were executed on Saturday after being convicted of terror-related offences.

Mr Jubeir said that all Iranian diplomats must leave Saudi Arabia within 48 hours.

Saudi Arabia was recalling its diplomats from Tehran, he said.

Mr Jubeir said Saudi Arabia would not let Iran undermine its security, accusing it of having "distributed weapons and planted terrorist cells in the region".

"Iran's history is full of negative interference and hostility in Arab issues, and it is always accompanied by destruction," he told a news conference.

A US official said "we will continue to urge leaders across the region to take affirmative steps to calm tensions".

"We believe that diplomatic engagement and direct conversations remain essential," the official said, according to Reuters.

Earlier, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that the Sunni Muslim kingdom would face "divine revenge" for the execution - an act which also angered Shia Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ayatollah Khamenei called Sheikh Nimr a "martyr" who had acted peacefully.

Protesters stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran late on Saturday, setting fire to the building before being driven back by police. The Saudi foreign ministry said none of its diplomats had been harmed in the incident.

Iran is Saudi Arabia's main regional rival - they back opposing sides in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

Relations between the countries have been strained over various issues in recent decades, including Iran's nuclear programme and deaths of Iranians at the Hajj pilgrimage in 1987 and again in 2015.

Who was Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr?

In his 50s when he was executed, he has been a persistent critic of Saudi Arabia's Sunni royal family

Arrested several times over the past decade, alleging he was beaten by Saudi secret police during one detention

Met US officials in 2008, Wikileaks revealed, seeking to distance himself from anti-American and pro-Iranian statements

Said to have a particularly strong following among Saudi Shia youth.

Most of the 47 people executed by Saudi Arabia were Sunnis convicted of involvement in al-Qaeda-linked terror attacks over the last decade.

Sheikh Nimr was involved in anti-government protests that erupted in Saudi Arabia in the wake of the Arab Spring, up to his arrest in 2012.

The execution sparked new demonstrations in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where Shia Muslims complain of marginalisation, as well as in Iraq, Bahrain and several other countries.

The top Shia cleric in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani denounced the execution as an "unjust aggression".

The leader of Lebanon's Shia Hezbollah movement, Hassan Nasrallah, launched his sharpest attack yet on the Saudi ruling family on Sunday, accusing them of seeking to ignite a Shia-Sunni civil war across the world.

He said the blood of Sheikh Nimr would "plague the Al Saud [family] until the Day of Resurrection", prompting cries of "Death to the Al Saud!" among an audience watching his address.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35217328

How reckless was this execution by the Saudis and how serious could the consequences be? Any insights?

[S2]

"How reckless was this execution..."

Exceedingly reckless. All that without knowing the content of his sermons nor involvement or otherwise with actual terror/sabotage cells. The Saudis routinely offer no nuance WRT to their dealings regarding shia unrest on the peninsula and this might rightfully be characterized as war-making provocation.

All that said, we know there's no counterveiling state-directed insurgency within Iran.

Seems clear without America's presence in the gulf that the two largest regional dogs would likely be openly at war. Now. Might anyway but only because we'd no longer have the inclination or means to prevent that nonsense.

[tantalus]

"How reckless was this execution..."

Exceedingly reckless. All that without knowing the content of his sermons nor involvement or otherwise with actual terror/sabotage cells. The Saudis routinely offer no nuance WRT to their dealings regarding shia unrest on the peninsula and this might rightfully be characterized as war-making provocation.

All that said, we know there's no counterveiling state-directed insurgency within Iran.

Seems clear without America's presence in the gulf that the two largest regional dogs would likely be openly at war. Now. Might anyway but only because we'd no longer have the inclination or means to prevent that nonsense.

It seems to me that America still has the inclination and the means to be a major force for good in the region.

Does anyone have info on the capabilities and motivation of local shia groups to destabilise Riyadh?

[tantalus]

Can we assume that the Saudis knew this would kick off a shit storm that would definitely block peace efforts in Yemen and possibly any hopes in Syria?

[Doktor]

Can we assume that the Saudis knew this would kick off a shit storm that would definitely block peace efforts in Yemen and possibly any hopes in Syria?

You kidding? Look at the reactions in the Gulf

[tantalus]

You kidding? Look at the reactions in the Gulf

Pretty much, semi-rhetorical, conversation starter...

Iran and saudi arabia are surely eliminating faint hopes of an end to the Syrian war. A classic example of a single "minor" incident with drastic wider implications....

[DonBelt]

It seems to me that America still has the inclination and the means to be a major force for good in the region.

Does anyone have info on the capabilities and motivation of local shia groups to destabilise Riyadh?

I don't think Riyadh, but certainly Bahrain.

[lemontree]

The whole region will become one big sectarian cauldron.

[zara]

If it came to a war between the gulf countries and Iran and her allies, would it really matter to the West who won?

I'm really not certain why we take sides with Saudi..

[S2]

Zara,

"...would it really matter to the West who won?"

Your screen info says you live in Ireland. 76% of your energy needs were met by oil and Nat'l gas. Virtually all of that was imported.

The west is assured to lose regardless of who might win.

The 5th Fleet is in Bahrain to assure no Iranian invasion of the GCC or Saudi Arabia. None of us need such assurance WRT to an invasion of Iran by the GCC and/or Saudi Arabia. So long as our fleet remains, however one-sided it appears, all sides can be assured of safely shipping their oil and everybody else can be assured of free and unfettered access to market-priced oil.

Without price speculation fueled by war.

That includes Ireland.

[zara]

Exactly - Ireland is a neutral broker. We aren't allied to Saudi or Iran, but they still sell us oil.
Are you saying that its only possible for us to buy it because of the Western military powers alliance with Saudi?

Oil seems to flow freely from Iraq and Syria despite the chaos. War doesn't seem to have interrupted the supply there...

I just wonder why the west feels it needs to protect such an awful country.. I think we could buy oil from them without binding us to them

[Mihais]

Now you can.There is US,Anada,Russia,Nigeria,Venezuela.10-15 years ago it wasn't that much maneuver space.

[gunnut]

Exactly - Ireland is a neutral broker. We aren't allied to Saudi or Iran, but they still sell us oil.
Are you saying that its only possible for us to buy it because of the Western military powers alliance with Saudi?

Oil seems to flow freely from Iraq and Syria despite the chaos. War doesn't seem to have interrupted the supply there...

I just wonder why the west feels it needs to protect such an awful country.. I think we could buy oil from them without binding us to them

A lot of oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. The first thing Iranians will do if a war breaks out is to lob missiles at passing oil tankers. Which has happened in the late 1980s. Who would want to drive a tanker through that region if it happens? Gulf states would not be able to sell their oil. Their revenue goes down. Oil price goes up due to decreased supplies. World economy experiences a "disruption."

I'm all for sitting back and watching the show. But this war might cost me in terms of a stock market decline.

[SteveDaPirate]

I'm all for sitting back and watching the show. But this war might cost me in terms of a stock market decline.

More importantly, such a war isn't likely to end anytime soon. It's nice to fantasize that the Middle East could just go up in flames for a year or two in the absence of any external intervention, work out all their tensions and problems, and establishing a new and stable regional order.

For such a thing to occur however, there need to be powers involved that are strong enough to win decisively in order to avoid a Syria situation that just keeps grinding on endlessly as it devolves into tribal warlords and city states. Neither the KSA nor Iran possess the wherewithal to pull off a decisive strategic victory, thus their heavy investment into proxies.

As bad as the American Civil war was, can you imagine the carnage if the Confederates had been a closer match for the Union? It might have raged for 14+ years instead of 4, and may not have settled the issue even then!

[TopHatter]

A lot of oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. The first thing Iranians will do if a war breaks out is to lob missiles at passing oil tankers. Which has happened in the late 1980s. Who would want to drive a tanker through that region if it happens? Gulf states would not be able to sell their oil. Their revenue goes down. Oil price goes up due to decreased supplies. World economy experiences a "disruption.

Indeed, we'd be looking at Tanker War II.

Zara, the problem is that oil is bought and sold on the world market. Regardless of where one gets their oil geographically, the price will rise or fall on a planet-wide basis.