Tensions twixt Saudi Arabia and Iran consequence of nuclear deal

On Saturday, Saudi Arabia executed 47 men on charges of terrorism, including an anti-government Shiite cleric named Nimr al-Nimr who may well have been receiving Iranian support. In response, a supposedly spontaneous mob attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and now Riyadh has broken off relations with the Islamic Republic. The entire crisis, writes Benny Avni, is a byproduct of America’s ill-advised Iran policy:

True, Riyadh’s justice system is no paragon of Jeffersonian ideals. Cruel and unusual punishment (stoning, limb-severing, throat slashing) is part of the system. We should certainly condemn it, rather than back the Saudi candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council as we did last year.

But the supposedly aggrieved party here, Iran, is second only to China in using the death penalty, doubling the annual Saudi execution rate—including political opponents. Except rather than slashing throats, like the kingdom’s executioners, the mullahs hang people from cranes at city centers. There are no angels here.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, our allies for a century, are at a crossroads. . . . As [they and other] Arabs see it, America constantly sides with Iran and its Shiite allies against the Sunnis—who make up more than 80 percent of the world’s Muslims...

The Saudis . . . cherish their alliance with America, but last week they learned from our media of a White House plan to impose mild sanctions on Iran for illegally testing a long-range missile—only to reverse course a day later and postpone them after Iran complained.

Such behavior reinforces the notion that America’s only true goal in the region is preserving a presidential legacy: the already much-dreaded Iran nuclear deal signed last July. Having all the leverage over Washington, which fears an Iranian walkout above all, Tehran no longer even needs nukes to cause real existential heartburn in Riyadh.