Analysis: Saudi Arabians ponder Shiite full Moon

Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin, once told US diplomats the Middle East’s so-called Shiite Crescent where the Muslim sect holds sway was “becoming a full Moon” as Iranian influence spread.

For the kingdom’s Sunni ruling princes, that fear now focuses on Syria. Iran-backed president Bashar al-Assad’s forces are advancing with the aid of Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite fighters. Saudi supports the Sunni rebels trying to oust him.

It is a war increasingly seen in Saudi Arabia as the fulcrum of a wider struggle with Iran, which is seen as radical, expansionist and militant, and a potential threat to Saudi Arabia itself.

Since the fall of Syrian rebel stronghold Qusair this month, there has been growing unease in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, about the opposition’s chances.

Riyadh has been backing the mainly Sunni rebels with arms, money and political support, while western countries, above all America, have given mixed signals, calling for Mr Assad’s downfall but refusing so far to send arms or use force.

The western position changed dramatically last week when US president Barack Obama signalled that Washington would arm the rebels. But he has not yet explained how or when that might begin, and Saudis are still sceptical of western support.

Meanwhile, two months ago, Saudi Arabia expanded its own weapons supply to include anti-aircraft missiles.

So worrying is the situation, for the Saudis, that King Abdullah cut short his summer leave in Morocco to fly home last Friday, warning of the “repercussions of events in the region”. Underpinning Saudi worries is the participation in Syria of Shiite militia from neighbouring countries, particularly Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s Abu Fadhl al-Abbas Brigade, which Prince Turki al-Faisal, another former Saudi spy chief, this week described as Iran’s “steel claws”.

Saudi commentator Jamal Khashoggi, in the newspaper al-Hayat, painted a frightening picture of the Gulf after an Assad victory. Iran would threaten Saudi security and angry Sunni youth would turn to al-Qaeda, which is as hostile to Shiites as it is to the West.

“A nightmare, don’t you think?” he wrote.

Since Hezbollah started to trumpet its involvement in Syria, Sunni clerics, including some from Saudi, have used increasingly sectarian rhetoric in their attacks on Mr Assad.

Yet while Saudi Arabia’s official Wahhabi school of Islam sees Shiites as heretical, the kingdom’s rulers also see sectarian language as dangerous, as it can backfire and help mobilise Shiite support for Mr Assad. Worse still, it alienates potential backers in the West and draws Sunni militants to the conflict that can later pose a threat to Riyadh.

Saudi also fears a repeat of previous conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan which drew Saudi jihadists who returned to take up arms against the government.

Some Saudis are calling for the kingdom to take tougher action against Mr Assad but Saudi’s military ability to do this is suspect. It performed poorly in a brief border war with Yemeni rebels in 2010.

It also prides itself as the neutral custodian of Islam’s holiest places, making an attack on an Arab, Muslim country problematic.

Saudi Arabia, therefore, needs Washington to help fight its battles; which it is reluctant to do as long as the Syrian rebels remain fractured and their strongest units so militant.

For Saudi, that means playing down the war’s sectarian side.