On the surface, Riyadh’s diplomatic quarter looks perfectly calm, armed guards at checkpoints, Asian workers squatting between palm trees masking elegant modern offices and the crenellated towers of Saudi government buildings. Iran’s embassy is built in the national style – yellowish brick surrounded by high walls topped with surveillance cameras – with the green, white and red flag of the Islamic republic hanging limply in the winter sunshine.
But it has been a turbulent week. The Iranian mission now stands empty and silent, its diplomats ordered to leave en masse after the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran after Saudi Arabia’s controversial execution of a leading Shia cleric.
News of the death of Nimr al-Nimr instantly ratcheted up the already high tensions between two powerful countries ranged on opposite sides of a deeply unstable Middle East. Forty-six other Saudis – mostly Sunnis convicted for al-Qaida terrorist activities – were also beheaded or shot on 2 January. Three other Shias also died.
On Thursday, this war of supposedly inviolate diplomatic quarters escalated again: Iran accused the Saudis of bombing its embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, where Riyadh leads the coalition trying to restore the government of the Arab world’s poorest country – and Tehran backs the Houthi rebels fighting it.
Evidence of damage was flimsy and the Saudis quickly dismissed the charge as Iranian propaganda. Yet no one thinks that that is the end of this long-running story of strategic competition and sectarian hatred. “Iran,” declared Adel al-Jubeir, the combative Saudi foreign minister, “has been getting away with murder, literally, for 30 years.”
In Tehran’s view, echoed by western human rights watchdogs, Nimr was a political dissident who was judicially murdered by the Saudi state after a flawed and largely secret legal process. Saudi officials flatly reject this as a crude misrepresentation and portray him as a fanatic who promoted violence and fitna– sedition – in the eastern province, close to the border with Bahrain, the Gulf island state where another Sunni monarchy rules over a restive Shia majority.
Iranians in Tehran protest against the execution in Saudi Arabia of prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s defence minister and deputy crown prince (and the king’s son), insisted Nimr had had a fair trial, in a rare interview – with the Economist – that was evidently designed to help improve the kingdom’s dismal image. That claim is widely echoed outside the royal palaces: “Nimr was a Saudi citizen who committed a crime and has been punished,” said a middle-aged driver from Medina as he negotiated the endless traffic jams of the capital’s congested centre. “That’s all there is to it.”
Official media are also busy pumping up hostility to Iran. Al-Ikhbariya TV has been broadcasting clip after clip of short “vox pop” interviews praising King Salman’s decision to sever relations with what it describes as “the Tehran regime”, intercut with clips of sinister-looking members of the Revolutionary Guards and riot police crushing protests in the streets of Tehran.
“Iran is a terrorist state and a great danger to this region,” said Eiman, a young woman in a black hijab at one of Riyadh’s massive shopping malls. “Thanks to King Salman,” said an older woman.
“Iran causes problems and promotes deviant thoughts,” was the response of Mohammed al-Ghamdi, interviewed in Jeddah, the Red Sea shimmering in the background. “Saudi Arabia is a peaceful country with a wise and moderate leadership.”
Tehran’s staunch backing for the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad – whose rebel enemies the Saudis have supported since 2011 – is seen as exposing the hypocrisy of its attacks over Nimr. Friday’s sermon at Riyadh’s King Khaled mosque included a clear reference to Iran “giving orders” to an unnamed man who “encouraged the killing of security personnel and challenged the ruler”. Unusually heavy security measures were in force – a police helicopter hovering overhead – following threats by Islamic State to hit more Saudi targets.
Saudis are pleased with the support they have been getting over the embassy assault – the severance of relations by Bahrain and Sudan and the recall of envoys to Iran and protests by other Arab and Muslim governments. Western reactions are far more nuanced. Britain’s ambassador to Riyadh, Simon Collis, read out a careful statement in Arabic expressing the UK’s “deep concern” about heightened tensions. The US, seen by the Saudis as tilting towards Iran since last summer’s landmark nuclear deal, is the object of barely concealed hostility.
Saudis are angered by the focus on Nimr. “The issue … is not merely an objection to the implementation of a judicial ruling but also an attempt to interfere in internal affairs and to portray Tehran as sponsor and supporter of Shiites everywhere,” said the pundit Mohammed al-Harthi. “This is a dangerous sectarian project. Shias are citizens of their own countries, and if their rights are violated, there are clear means for submitting complaints to the relevant authorities.”
In Jeddah, a Saudi writer agreed – with one slight reservation: “Whether Nimr should have been executed is a different matter,” she said. “Some people think he should have been kept in prison. But that’s a minority view.”
Al-Awamiyah, Nimr’s home town, is hard to reach, with officials warning journalists of security concerns. Videos posted on social media show people there chanting “Death to the Al Saud” or the heady Arab spring slogan: “The people want the fall of the regime.” Visitors have noted nervous police, signs of recent trouble and sounds of gunfire and explosions. Nimr’s family and supporters hail him as a “martyr”. And even Shia who did not back him say they are disturbed by the way he was lumped together with the Sunni al-Qaida men who were executed on the same day.
Official references to undifferentiated “terrorists” appear intended to underline determination to tackle both Isis and Iran – the principal security threats to this nervous kingdom. “We are facing an emergency so the mission is to protect the country,” said Mazen Sudairi, a Riyadh-based economist. “The executions were on Saturday. On Sunday the stock market went up. That means they were seen as a good thing.”
Saudis describe waiting impatiently for the punishments – some for crimes committed over a decade ago – to go ahead after the death of King Abdullah last January. A professional, well-sourced documentary film about al-Qaida that was broadcast by al-Arabiya TV was seen as preparing the way for the executions. “You could see something was coming,” said a local journalist. “If there was surprise it was only that Nimr was killed. But there is no opposition to it in Saudi Arabia – except in Nimr’s own community.”
It is the direct link between sensitive domestic issues and foreign relations that makes this crisis so volatile. Saudi commentators are not only cataloguing alleged Iranian crimes and misdemeanours, but also threatening retaliation. Iranians from Ahwaz in the country’s south-west, home to an Arabic-speaking minority, are being interviewed on Saudi TV – with helpful Farsi subtitles for Iranian viewers.
“If the Iranians intervene in our affairs we need to do the same to them,” the academic Said Sadek said bluntly. “Their house is not made of iron but of fragile glass. Only 60% of the Iranian nation are Persians, so there are a lot of issues. If they raise Shias here then we can raise the question of Arabs and Azeris inside Iran.”
Saudi Arabia and Iran need each other