The ghost of the regional sectarian war: Has it become imminent?

The mutual tension and escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia has reached an unprecedented record when the latter announced it would sever its diplomatic and trade ties with Iran. This was a response to Iranian “protestors” storming the Saudi embassy in Tehran, setting it on fire, taking down the Saudi flag from the top of the embassy building, and burning a part of the Saudi consulate building in light of the execution of the opposition member, Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr who was accused of terrorism and causing instability in Saudi Arabia.

In addition to the attack on the Saudi embassy it is worth noting the level of escalated discourse on the part of Iran regarding the execution, when the revolutionary guide, Khamenei declared that “divine vengeance” would strike the Saudi politicians “because they unrightfully spilled the blood of a martyr.” There were also clearer statements made by the Hezbollah Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, in his comments on the execution of Al-Nimr, as he threatened that “the spilt blood will write the end of the Al-Saud government, and hints of this end are in sight.”

The unprecedented Iranian escalation in discourse regarding Saudi Arabia causes us to ponder the significance and implications this will have on Iranian-Saudi relations and on the “tense” political scene in the region. We can summarise these significances and implications in the following points:

First, the fact that these statements were made by the revolutionary guide Ali Khamenei, given his position as the highest religious-political reference, means he has declared Iran’s decisive official position on relations with Riyadh and he has committed the reformist trend, led by President Rouhani, to this position. In addition to this, this position, with its high level (which coincides with the burning of the Saudi embassy) will limit the Iranian diplomacy from being able to reduce or mitigate the expansion of the international criticism of Iran. The attack on the embassy has turned the wave of Western statements condemning or having reservation regarding the execution punishment in Saudi Arabia, which Iran could have used to embarrass Riyadh, towards the discourse positions and actions on the ground against the Saudi embassy, which has caused the wave of criticism to head towards Iran and focus on its violation of international conventions and norms which oblige Tehran to protect foreign diplomatic envoys. This has put Iran in a position of defence rather than offence.

Secondly, these statements carried a direct existential threat to the Saudi leadership, which will give it, as well as the Gulf system and many other Arab countries, the legitimacy to doubt the intentions of Iran regarding its intervention in internal Arab affairs and its efforts to change the leaderships in a manner that serves its “sectarian” interest. This may require more Arab measures against Iran and its interests in the region, after Saudi Arabia severed its diplomatic and trade ties with it. Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait and Sudan all followed suit.

Third, these statements focus on the execution of Nimr Al-Nimr and do not include the Sunni Muslims who were executed with him. This has given Iran’s positions a sectarian aspect, as if Iran and all of the other religious references only care about the death of Shias. This reinforces the accusation that Iran is playing a sectarian role in the region and that its talk about the unity of the Muslims and supporting the oppressed, regardless of their doctrine, seems to be nothing more than words to deceive public opinion. This explanation will also be applied to its position in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

The context to which these statements were made cast a dark shadow on the shape of future relations between the two Islamic countries; Iran and Saudi Arabia. In addition to this, these positions has thrown doctrinal fire on the sectarian conflicts that are spreading like a drop of oil in the Middle East.

The magnitude of the differences between Tehran and the Arab and Muslim world regarding Iran’s role in Arab countries such as Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, and Kuwait is growing more than any time before. The continued state of escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia on a sectarian (Sunni-Shia) and ethnic (Arab-Persian) level may lead to a regional military sectarian intervention. This is especially true if we take into consideration the alignments that have formed recently, including an axis led by Iran (with Shia parties) and the Islamic alliance led by Saudi Arabia (with Sunni parties).

Such alignments and alliances are likely to increase every time the conflict between Tehran and Riyadh progresses and grows. This may force a number of parties (both countries and political movements) to take sides based on their political interests, doctrinal relations, and even mutual national and historical ties.

There is no doubt that every country has the right to defend its interests and to possess a political project in order to prosper and grow, and Iran is no exception. However, the problem arises and grows when the interests of a country impact or affect the interests of other countries (especially larger countries). This requires a revision and correction of the political compass before it is too late, which is fast approaching.

Translated from Al-Khaleej Online, 6 January 2015.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.