Sunni majority countries are severing diplomatic ties with Iran after violent protesters attack their diplomatic missions? Sound familiar?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:54:03 -0500

Where have I heard this story before?
Maybe the Saudis should just sign a "deal" with Iran... that'll fix it.

The Backstory:
Saudi Arabia executed a Shia cleric, Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, after he was implicated and convicted of having a role in Shia protests in the eastern part of the country and neighboring Bahrain, forcibly put down by the Saudi military in 2012 during the "Arab Spring".
Iran was incensed by this, and as a result sponsored and encouraged a number of violent protests around the region including attacks on several Saudi diplomatic missions including the embassy in Teheran.
The Saudis responded by severing diplomatic relations, and Bahrain and Sudan followed suit. The United Arab Emirates recalled their ambassador and are looking at economic sanctions.
The Russians (!) are offering to mediate the conflict.

My opinion:
The Saudis are well-known for aggressively handing out and executing death sentences. They knew darn well that there'd be consequences for this particular one. The Saudi king has been pretty aggressive since assuming the throne at prosecuting a proactive strategy against Iranian incursions around their sphere of influence, notably in Yemen and Bahrain. I don't think they expected their embassies to come under attack, though.
Interestingly to me, the Iranian protesters mad at the Saudis burned... the American Flag. Chants of "Death to America" were also a component. You know, because reasons.
As the diplomatic schism widens, this has some pretty significant ramifications for US policy in the region. Which way should we go? I don't know which way we should go, much less which way we are going to go. The State Department has been silent so far. Pre-Iran Deal, this would be an easier call. Now... you know the Iranians will start talking about backing out of the deal if we take the Saudi's side. Can't have that.

One thing I know for sure is that you can't cede the diplomatic point to Russia. They might be a useful partner for tamping down the spat, but their motives are definitely not aligned with the US. But we'd better not leave it sit. There have been some very hot tensions along sectarian lines for a while. An actual rupture in relations has the potential to turn into a hot war - one I think both sides are spoiling for.
What say you RP?
I'm very interested in boiler-plating some solutions.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 4 at 2016 11:28 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:28:58 -0500

This is what happens when the U.S. rejects its leadership role in the world - the world reverts to its natural state of disorder and war.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jan 4 at 2016 11:37 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:37:55 -0500

This seems to be so familiar. Like it has been going on for years amongst each other.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 4 at 2016 11:39 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:39:40 -0500

Kind of ironic, last year the Iranins executed nearly 1,000 people. Now they get pizzed off at 47 by the Saudi's? Maybe Kerry can negotiate a "deal" between them.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 11:44 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0500

War .... War!!!! ... i know I am trying to be funny ... but ... somehow ... I am not laughing ... the worse is ... we might track into this one with Russia ...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 4 at 2016 12:34 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:34:08 -0500

US National Security interests have not yet caught up to the reality that we no longer need SA oil. So our vital interest have decreased, but not gone away. Our allies still need their oil, and we still need strategic access. I would not invest another penny or minute in the Iran "deal". It was never a deal for the US, and Iran will use every action or inaction or statement the US makes to extort more money from us to keep the crappy "deal" alive. They never planned to abide by it. I also don't want to get between a multi-national Shia vs Sunni slugfest. Let the Russians get into that 1,000 year old hornet's nest. Continue plinking DAESH in Iraq & Syria, but otherwise stay out of this...like you say, "Death to America" chants indicate we are still the Great Satan there...why add fuel to that fire? Doing nothing is sometimes an OK strategy.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 4 at 2016 12:35 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:35:28 -0500

Just par for the course in this neck of the woods. The only time they're not fighting each other is when some outsider steps in and they'll bond to get rid of them, then back to fighting each other.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 4 at 2016 12:42 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:42:38 -0500

There is probably a good reason that the ME has dictators and monarch ruling the countries.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 4 at 2016 12:51 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:51:08 -0500

Sunni vs. Shia. Around and around we go. The biggest problem I see is our lack of understanding the culture and the cause for the divide in the first place...kinda like the Hatfield and McCoys or the orange and green in Ireland. Trying to impose or expect our western values to hold weight is a recipe for failure. Just my opinion.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jan 4 at 2016 2:02 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:02:36 -0500

Surprise, surprise......Iran is doing something stupid once again and not behaving nicely. I am thinking that Iran has its eye on being the ruling power in the Middle East and I think they are gauging the Saudi response as well as seeing who sides with who. Its a violent chess match they play and have been playing for a long time.

Response by SGT Jeremy Reese made Jan 4 at 2016 2:09 PM

SGT Jeremy Reese — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:09:50 -0500

It definitely has the potential to explode, The sheik Al-Nimr was very influential throughout the middle east with most Shiites. I can only assume Saudi Arabia is looking for a global Jihad from Shiites. Sunni Islam is the more radical sect, I would recommend warming up to Iran despite the chants and flag burning. Just by following through with the "Deal" we already have with Iran will give them enough of a boost to put a dent in the sultanate's proxy wars.

I don't see a reason to step in, Saudi Arabia has this coming. I would expect Iran to make a major push in both Syria and Libya. Hopefully to the detriment of ISIS and Al-Qaida. We can step in after Iran starts cleaning house and bring peace back to the region, preferably through diplomacy.

In the mean time, we should stop supplying Saudi Arabia with ammo. Should cripple any sort of push back initiated by Saudi forces.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jan 6 at 2016 12:57 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:57:13 -0500

I'm tempted to lay a Shakespearean curse of both houses and leave it at that. Our government has a long history of bad results when choosing sides in other country's fights.