What’s the Real Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Shia Cleric al-Nimr?

The execution of Shi’ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr and 46 convicted al-Qaeda members by the Saudis triggered a still-unfolding crisis between the Kingdom and Iran. Protesters in Tehran set fire to the Saudi embassy, and the Iranian government threatened that the Saudis will face “divine” revenge.

Riyadh responded by severing diplomatic relations and ordering Iran’s ambassador to depart the Kingdom, followed by the cutting off of all commercial ties with Iran. Saudi allies Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates made formal diplomatic protests to Iran. Additional acts of retaliation in a region that embraces the concept will no doubt follow, likely inside the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Yemen or Syria. There will be blood.

But why execute al-Nimr now?

The cleric has been a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia’s ruling royal family for some years. In 2009 he went as far as threatening Shi’ite secession, provoking a government crackdown in the minority’s eastern heartland. The Saudis have had al-Nimr in custody since 2012, and he was sentenced to death in 2014.

While there are external factors, particularly the broader Saudi-Iranian struggle for power in the Persian Gulf, those are secondary. The execution of al-Nimr was a signal sent by the new King to his supporters and adversaries at home.

The crucial point in understanding any part of Saudi politics is that the Kingdom has not had its Islamic revolution, a transition from a largely secular rule to a theocratic one, as in Iran in 1979 and as is fumbling forward in other nearby locations, such as Syria. Saudi has also not seen the unpredictable upheaval of an Arab Spring. It instead has been ruled by the al-Saud family for decades. The family’s rule has been made possible in part by fundamentalist Sunni Wahhabi clerics, who provide religious legitimacy to the al-Saud family. Alongside all this were a series of strong, patriarchal Saudi kings to keep control of the military and security forces.

Times have changed.

Shi’ite Islam is on the move regionally, perhaps most significantly in Iraq. Following the American invasion of 2003, Iraq changed from a secular regime under Saddam that waged open war against Shi’ite Iran, to the largely Shi’ite regime now in power in Baghdad that openly welcomes Iranian special forces. Saudi Arabia’s steadiest partner, the United States, has become prone to erratic acts, naively bumbling into Iraq in 2003, demanding regime changes here and there, and unofficially partnering with the Iranians to defeat Islamic State.

The U.S. is also far more energy independent than a decade ago and is slowly moving toward some form of new diplomatic relationship with Iran. Oil prices have also been falling. Many disgruntled Saudi Sunnis support Islamic State, an organization that has sworn to take down the al-Saud monarchy. These are all potentially destabilizing factors for the Saudis.

But perhaps most significantly, the al-Saud family’s rule is facing succession issues in the form of the deceased King Salman’s newly empowered 30-year-old son, Mohammed bin Salman. It is the first time since the country’s modern founder, King Abdulaziz, died in 1953 that power has been concentrated in the hands of just one branch of the family. This was done by the deceased King’s decision to bypass one of his brothers, the traditional successor, in favor of a nephew, who has set up his son as successor. There have been thus not surprisingly rumors of opposition to the son, even of a coup.

It was also the son, who, as defense minister, oversaw the decision to go to war in Yemen, launching his country into an open-ended struggle he may sometime face the need to defend.

The execution of al-Nimr send multiple signals. The most significant is a get-tough message to all inside the Kingdom, coupled with an assurance to the Iranians that Salman is firmly in charge and able to further prosecute the war in Yemen. The execution appeases the Wahhabists, and gives the government a chance to crackdown on Shi’ite dissent.

Al-Nimr’s crime was described using terms normally reserved for jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, to include plotting to overthrow the Saudi government. In a region that pays particular attention to symbolism, executing al-Nimr as a terrorist, alongside 46 al-Qaeda members, is a crystalline example of how the Saudi authorities view a man seen by many Shi’ites inside the Kingdom as a freedom fighter of sorts, and as a religious figure in greater the Shi’ite world.

And in case anyone still did not get the message, the Saudi government did not give al-Nimr’s body to his family, saying that they already buried all of the corpses.

The burning of the Saudi embassy in Tehran plays right into this, though was unlikely to have been anticipated. But what better way to wag the dog for the war in Yemen and perhaps beyond then another example of the “out of control” Iranians, and the threat Shi’ites pose. It doesn’t hurt Saudi relations vis-à-vis the United States to see an embassy burn once again in the heart of Tehran, or for local Saudis angered by a 40 percent rise in gas prices to have an external enemy to distract them.

Events set in motion are difficult to control, and things may yet spin out of Salman’s control, and the ploy backfire; for example, al-Nimr is now a martyr with an international profile.

But for the time being, it appears Salman has moved ahead a few spaces in a real-life Game of Thrones.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent. Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

4 thoughts on “What’s the Real Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Shia Cleric al-Nimr?”

  1. The issue behind the killing of 47 people by Saudi regime in nothing new, the regime been killing people since English find oil in Saudi territory, since BP and other oil companies become interested in supporting a religious dictatorial regime, since governments in Europe and USA started supporting such regime.

    Saudi regime have nothing to do with Islam, the brutality of the regime is supported by iner circles of Islamic sectarian and since 1990 they all invited to participate in US/Europe strategic/economic interests in Europe and Africa, Middle East and etc. Islam, the Saudis style, was introduced in Europe to stop the socialism in Europe, the idea behind the Islamization of Middle East and Europe again have nothing to do with Islam, is a political manipulation based on falsification of western democracy for oil companies/governments to have and protect their monopoly in oil rich regions where as result they would keep their grip on world economy, or of you will for capitalism to survive. Erdogan Turkish regime, Saudis, Qatar and other GCC their internal politics are based on dictatorship, hence they are supported mainly by the western economic system, where as result Isis stolen oils from Syria and Iraq are sold in Turkish market by Erdogan regime being involved. Look: Saudi Arabia never ever will let a church to be built in Saudi Arabia, but they have created their own Islamic shariah law in England, in Belgium they even asking for shariah law to be part of Constitution! that by itself indicating how far the right wing, mentally sick, incompetent European politician have become, that by itself shows how naive the systems are for supporting such regimes without considering the consequences, Iraq war, Libya war and Syria war was demanded by Saudis Wahhabism/Salafism to be conducted by the west, hence, everyone from John Negroponte to at the time state department to pentagon to that Swedish King knew that there wasn't any wmd in Iraq nor Syrian government used chemical against its own people, they all knew that all and everything they were saying was a theater to fool the people.

  2. beheading of alnamr is internal matter of saudi govt., Iran should not intervene in their internal affairs. To maintain peace is responsibility of both the hostile countries. Faiz Hassan Malik Punjab Provence Pakisan

    1. Iran hasn't intervened but people have a right to riot against outrageous abuses of power.

      What the Saudi's did to Al-Namr is no different and no better then what Apartheid South Africa did to Steven Biko. I share the Iranian peoples outrage and you should too.

      Peace, love and empathy, Nicholas Adam Reid AKA comrade hermit, Center County, Pennsylvania.

    2. Iran didn't interfere in Saudis berutality against minority's but Saudis have given themselves all the rights to expend their brutal and inhumane system in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Isis, al-queda, and all other religious fanatics-terrorists terrorizing the Syrian and Iraqi, Libyan people are the Saudis-Turkish manufactured organizations paid and supported by the very same idealogy ruling Saudi Arabia. These barbarians are the last option left for western falsified democracy to obtain their political monopoly in the region and their economic domination, otherwise they all know how, by who and why these barbarians got their weapons, Saudi GCC NATO and that Swedish King are after people's wealth in Libya, Syria and Iraq, rest is just another idiotic comment based on the interests of those who benefits from billions of dollars in stolen Iraqi, Syrian, Libyan oil sold to Europe mafia oil companies.

Comments are closed.