Sectarianism in the name of Counter Terror

The recent execution of the Shia cleric Nimr al Nimr by Saudi Arabia has greatly escalated the fragile security situation in the region. The sentence was awarded to the cleric along with forty four other Sunni terrorists and two Shias for what has been classified in Saudi Arabia as a threat to national security and inciters of violence and terrorism.

The execution of the Shia cleric grabbed the limelight overshadowing the news of the execution of other Sunni Al Qaida operativeslike Faris al Shuwali al- Zahraniat the same time. In principle Saudi Arabia intended to convey the message of a fair judicial procedure and equality in the rule of law which goes beyond sectarian differences. This message however failed to reach beyond the Sunni citizens of the Kingdom.

Implications at the Domestic Level

The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia has been one of the most sensitive provinces for the kingdom. It also has sizable Saudi Oil fields[1] as well as is home to its Shia minority. The Saudi policies have alienated its Shia minorities as Riyadh suspects it to be supportive of its regional rival, Iran. The actual support base for the regime has been its majority Sunni population and the monarchy would go to great depth to retain its support base. The issues of minorities will affect the regime only to a certain degree and will not pose an existential threat. The regime is well aware of this fact as it has dealt with Shia ‘uprisings’ in the country before.

The issue of autonomy and rights has been simmering in the Eastern province for a while because of Riyadh’s policies. It also witnessed protests during the Arab Spring in 2011. The current execution of Sheikh Nimr al Nimr is only fuelling discontent as he enjoyed greater support in the province. The Iranian rhetoric claiming the imminent collapse of the regime is thus aimed at fuelling paranoia among the Saudi decision makers and the current skirmishes in the city of Qatif, one of the outcomes.

As has been witnessed earlier in the region, an iron fisted policy to quell resistance has seriously backfired on the regime. In this case, Saudi authorities need to weigh their options carefully and avoid resorting to disproportionate use of force against the protestors to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. 

The Saudi Counter terror strategy has been labelled as an instrument to settle scores and quell dissidents[2]. This, in the long run, does not bode well for the monarchy as it might fuel Shia insurgency in the country adding to the terror strikes of Al Qaida and ISIS. In the worst case scenario it could also serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy for Riyadh as it might provide Iran the much needed room to fuel the discontent.

Regional Implications

Following the attack on its Embassy in Tehran and Consulate in Mashad, Saudi Arabia declared severing all diplomatic relations with Iran.[3] Three regional countries also part of the recently formed Saudi ‘counter terror’ coalition namely Bahrain, Sudan and UAE have either severed their diplomatic ties with Iran or have reduced it to a bare minimum following the Saudi move. This has also hinted at the possible ‘utility’ of forming the counter terror coalition: countering Tehran’s regional influence.

Direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia is unlikely but will manifest  through intensification of  existing conflicts especially in Iraq and Yemen.

In Iraq, strong protests have already emerged and the existing Shia- Sunni divide will   exacerbate with pro-Iran Shia militiastargeting  Sunnis . In Yemen, after another round of failed peace talks, Saudi Arabia has declared an end to ceasefire and is likely to go all out on the opposition that is supported by Iran.[4] Yemen thus presents the immediate threat after the domestic unrest to the security of the country.

In case of Syria, the peace talks and peace process is likely to take a hit. The Saudis and the Iranians had their own agendas in the peace talks which prevented them from making any credible headway on the issue. The current situation will indefinitely delay any peaceful outcome to the Syrian crisis.

Regional players like Pakistan are more likely to be in a Catch-22 kind of a situation likely to be forced to take sides making it a difficult choice. In the case of Pakistan,  home to a sizable Shia population, siding with Saudi Arabia will not go down well with its own Shia population and may involve souring of relations with Iran, its immediate neighbour. Whereas a neutral stand will not go down well with Riyadh as was the case during intervention in Yemen.

Extra regional implications

It also puts the US in a tight spot as it has been a vocal opponent of Iranian executions and human rights violation. It has also imposed sanctions on Iran for the same. With the Saudi case however it has failed to take a strong stance. This thus provides Iran an opportunity to highlight the double standards it has been accusing the US of on its human rights policies.

Saudi Arabia coincidentally is also chairing the United Nations Human Rights Council. The blatant violation of the same rights it is supposed to uphold thus becomes a paradox. Keeping in mind the Saudi position in the council, whether a strong case can be put up against the country also remains to be seen. The Yemen file does not seem to make any headway and the current domestic violations are also likely to meet the same fate.

The only beneficiary in the turmoil is the oil industry. It showed a slight increase in price and may register a slight growth if the hostilities continue to simmer.[5] But an exponential rise is unlikely as Saudi Arabia might use economic tools i.e. pump more oil in the already weak market to cause harm to the Iranian oil industry which is now recovering from years of sanctions.

Conclusion

For Saudi Arabia the long term forecast of events, like possible domestic turbulence in its Eastern province, slump in oil prices, engagements in Yemen and support for rebel factions in Syria, all combined may have an adverse impact on the economy of the country. In this case sustaining the multiple complex engagements will thus be difficult. The probable fallouts of such a scenario again remain to be seen. The current hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a setup towards worsening sectarian strife through proxies.

All the above events highlight the relevance and role of the US in the region. In the absence of a super power, all the regional powers, in the quest to tilt the power balance in their favour, will only contribute to more chaos and turmoil.[6] The US’s avoidance of any sort of mediation on the current issue only serves to take the situation on a downward spiral, further worsening the security situation. Thus it can be said that the region is still not ready for a multilateral power setup and will continue to require the US as the regional power broker.

Views expressed by the Author are personal.