Is Saudi-Iranian de-escalation possible?

On Tuesday the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) presented a panel discussion, ‘The Saudi-Iranian Confrontation: What Lies Ahead.’ The participants considered the implications of the Saudi Arabian execution of Nimr al-Nimr, the assault on the Saudi Embassy in Iran, and the Saudi government breaking diplomatic ties with Iran. Participants included David Ottaway, a former correspondent for The Washington Post and current senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Barbara Slavin, the acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, and Randa Slim, a non-resident senior fellow at the SAIS Foreign Policy Institute. Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar of AGSIW, moderated the panel.

Ibish began the discussion asking why Saudi Arabia took the initiative to carry out the execution of a significant Shia cleric. The three panel members agreed that this was intended to be a message of strength.  Ottaway said that the Saudi government believed Nimr encouraged secession, striking a regime nerve. Slim added that the execution was a message to Iran that even someone of particular importance to Shia Islam could be killed because it was in Saudi Arabia’s best domestic interest.

The attack on the Saudi Embassy by Iranian protestors in Tehran exposed a split in President Rouhani’s regime. Slavin commented that the attack showed that the Rouhani government is not in control of all aspects of the Iranian government. Slim explained that Iran looked as if it had failed to protect Shiites in Saudi Arabia, so Iranians needed a power move to demonstrate their discontent. The Saudi response to the attack on the embassy was to break diplomatic and trade ties. Though the Saudis and Iranians escalated, the panelists agreed that direct violence against one another is not an objective of either regime. Proxy wars are certainly not out of the picture, though. Ottaway interpreted the cutting of diplomatic ties as the Saudi government taking a hard-hitting approach to anyone or any ideainternal or external, that threatens their power.

Resentment between the two nations remains strong. Ottaway, in particular, expressed concern about potential accidents that could intensify the current tension. Flying over disputed airspace, resources, and inflammatory comments could all push bilateral relations past the point of repair.

The discussion ended with the panelists pondering if there could be a potential agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or if another Cold War scenario is possible. Ottaway believes that if a hot button issue, such as the agreement on a Lebanese president by both Saudi Arabia and Iran is possible, then perhaps they could work out other issues. He added that the Syrian negotiations, with both Saudi Arabia and Iran working together for the same peacekeeping goal, could result in parallel talks between the two regimes. Slim suggested that as long as Iran has a problem with Saudi Arabia, then it will have a problem reaching out to the rest of the Sunni Arab world. Slavin said Iran is looking forward to trading with its Arab neighbors, so the Tehran is more open to repairing the damage.

A question pertaining to collateral damage to the region as a whole. Slim talked about how sectarian tensions will prevent the issues of better governance and citizens’ demands from getting the attention they merit. The panelists agreed the most damage will be done to human rights in the region, with the focus on sectarian conflict increasing. No external force has the power or will to make human rights the main issue on the regional agenda. As the conflict between Iranian and Saudi regimes escalates, regional security will continue to suffer. That’s what likely lies ahead.