A diplomatic rupture between the major Sunni and Shia powers in the region will resonate across the Middle East, where they back opposing sides in many destructive wars and simmering conflicts

UPDATES

Here are the latest updates:

• Bahrain, Sudan and the UAE join Saudi Arabia in severing ties with Iran
• Moscow says Syria record shows it would be perfect mediator in Saudi-Iran row
• At least two Sunni mosques attacked in Shia-majority Iraqi city
• Iranian minister accuses Saudi Arabia of escalating tensions to cover up executions
• Chinese goverment says it is 'highly concerned' by Middle East developments
• UK officials rush to investigate Isis video featuring 'British' militant and child
• ​One dead as gunmen open fire on police in home village of executed cleric
• Iranian diplomats expelled from Riyadh as Saudis sever ties
• UK Government urged to come clean over role in Saudi human rights
• Executions 'pose bigger threat to region than Isis'
• Isis execution video includes threat to UK and 'imbecile' David Cameron
• Footage seeks to create 'new Jihadi John' and includes young child
• The political protesters killed in Saudi Arabia - and those still on death row

Iran-Saudi crisis 'most dangerous for decades'

By Kristian Coates UlrichsenGulf analyst BBC

• 14 minutes ago
 
• From the section Middle East

Image copyrightEPA

Image captionIran-Saudi tensions boiled over with the execution of Nimr al-Nimr

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran are at their worst for nearly 30 years.

Tensions have spiralled following the execution of Saudi cleric Nimr al-Nimr, the subsequent setting ablaze of the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and Riyadh's expulsion of Iranian diplomats. 

The struggle between Riyadh and Tehran for political and religious influence has geopolitical implications that extend far beyond the placid waters of the Gulf and encompass nearly every major conflict zone in the Middle East. 

Most notably, perhaps, the crisis means prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough in Syria and Yemen now look much more remote, just as international momentum for negotiations seemed to be on the verge of delivering results. 

Years of turbulence

The current standoff is as dangerous as its 1980s predecessor, which first saw diplomatic ties suspended between 1988 and 1991. 

This occurred at the end of the turbulent opening decade after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the grinding eight-year Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. 

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states backed Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the war and suffered Iranian attacks on their shipping, while in 1984 the Saudi air force shot down an Iranian fighter jet that it claimed had entered Saudi airspace. 

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionThe 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran drove a wedge between the two neighbours

Saudi and other Arab Gulf governments also linked Iran's post-revolutionary government with a rise in Shia militancy, an aborted coup in Bahrain in 1981, and a failed attempt to assassinate the emir of Kuwait four years later. 

Meanwhile, the Iranian regime established Hezbollah al-Hejaz in May 1987 as a cleric-based group modelled on Lebanese Hezbollah intent on carrying out military operations inside Saudi Arabia. 

Hezbollah al-Hijaz issued a number of inflammatory statements threatening the Saudi royal family and carried out several attacks in the late 1980s as tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia rose sharply.

Deep distrust

While the current crisis lacks as yet equivalent instances of direct confrontation, tensions are as dangerous as in the 1980s for three reasons. 

The first is the legacy of years of sectarian politics that have done so much to divide the Middle East along Sunni-Shia lines and foster an atmosphere of deep distrust between Iran and its neighbours across the Gulf. 

Image copyrightReuters

Image captionIran and Saudi Arabia support opposing sides in conflicts in Yemen and Syria

In such a supercharged atmosphere, the moderate middle ground has been sorely weakened and advocates of a hardline approach to regional affairs now hold sway. 

Second, the Gulf states have followed increasingly assertive foreign policies over the past four years, partly in response to what they see as perennial Iranian "meddling" in regional conflicts, and also because of growing scepticism about the Obama administration's intentions in the Middle East. 

For many in the Gulf, the primary threat from Iran lies not in Tehran's nuclear programme but in Iran's support for militant non-state actors such as Hezbollah and, more recently, the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

Both the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and the multinational coalition against terrorism announced last month by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman show Saudi officials in no mood to compromise on regional security matters.

'Death knell'

Finally, the breakdown in diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran probably sounds the death-knell, at least for now, for regional efforts to end the wars in Yemen and Syria. 

Lost in the furore over the execution of Nimr al-Nimr was an announcement that the fragile ceasefire agreed in Yemen on 15 December had broken down. 

Neither the ceasefire nor the UN-brokered talks that started at the same time had made much headway, and while the UN talks were due to resume on 14 January that is unlikely if the Saudi-led coalition and Iran intensify their involvement in Yemen.

A similar outcome may now await the Syrian peace talks due to begin in Geneva in late January, as weeks of patient behind-the-scenes outreach to align the warring parties will come to nothing if the two most influential external parties to the conflict instead double down and dig in. 

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen is the Research Fellow for the Middle East at Rice University's Baker Institute for the Middle East and an Associate Fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. Follow him on Twitter.

__________________________

BACKGROUND : Shi’a sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr

MEETING WITH CONTROVERSIAL SHI'A SHEIKH NIMR AL-NIMR (C-CT7-00989)
Date: 2008 August 23, 05:31 (Saturday)	Canonical ID: 08RIYADH1283_a
Original Classification: SECRET,NOFORN	Current Classification: SECRET,NOFORN
Handling Restrictions -- Not Assigned --	Character Count: 15822
Executive Order: -- Not Assigned --	Locator: TEXT ONLINE
TAGS: KIRF - International Religious Freedom | KISL - Islamic Issues |PINR - Political Affairs--Intelligence |PREL - Political Affairs--External Political Relations | PTER - Political Affairs--Terrorists and Terrorism | SA - Saudi Arabia	Concepts: -- Not Assigned --
Enclosure: -- Not Assigned --	Type: TE - Telegram (cable)
Office Origin: -- N/A or Blank -- Office Action: -- N/A or Blank --	Archive Status: -- Not Assigned --
From: Saudi Arabia Riyadh	Markings: -- Not Assigned --
To: Central Intelligence Agency | Defense Intelligence Agency | Iran Iran Collective | Islamic Collective | Secretary of State | The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf

B. 08 RIYADH 1070 Classified By: CG JOHN KINCANNON FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) 1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: In an August 13 meeting with PolOff, controversial Shi'a sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr sought to distance himself from previously reported pro-Iranian and anti-American statements, instead adopting a less radical tone on topics such as the relationship between Iran and the Saudi Shi'a, and American foreign policy. Arguing that he is portrayed publicly as much more radical than the true content of his words and beliefs, the Sheikh also espoused other conciliatory ideas such as fair political decision-making over identity-based politics, the positive impact of elections, and strong "American ideals" such as liberty and justice. Despite this more moderate tone, Al-Nimr reasserted his ardent opposition to what he described as the authoritarianism of the reactionary al-Saud regime, stating he would always support "the people" in any conflict with the government. He also continued to argue for the right of the Saudi Shi'a community to seek external assistance if it were to become embroiled in a conflict. The Sheikh was also cognizant of the increased profile that his strong language has earned him, saying that his fiery words continue to attract interest from an increasing percentage of the Shi’a community, particularly young people.  

END SUMMARY. --------------------- Background on al-Nimr --------------------- 2. (S/NF) On August 13, PolOff met with Shi'a sheikh Nimr al-Nimr at the Sheikh's Awamiyya home in the Qatif area. The always controversial sheikh has gained extra attention over the past months by calling in bolder-than-usual terms for an end to anti-Shi'a discrimination in Saudi Arabia, and by seemingly endorsing the Iranian regime, its nuclear ambitions, and its increasingly active role in the region. Al-Nimr is typically regarded as a second-tier political player in the Eastern Province (EP), in large part because he is not directly affiliated with either the Islahiyyah movement (often called the Shirazis) or Saudi Hizbollah, the two largest political blocs in the EP Shi'a community. Despite this secondary status, al-Nimr is currently gaining popularity locally, particularly with young people, as his words appeal to those disaffected by the general economic malaise experienced by Saudi Arabia's lower classes and a perceived lack of sufficient SAG reform in relations with the Shi'a community. Meanwhile, at a national and international level, with everyone from Salafi sheikhs to regional intelligence agencies, al-Nimr's words have gained him increased notoriety due to fears that his words will spark unrest and perhaps point to an Iranian hand in Saudi Arabia (Reftel A). 3. (S/NF) Al-Nimr, a former follower of the late Ayatollah Mohammad al-Husseini al-Shirazi, now follows the religious leadership of Iraqi Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi al-Mudarrasi, the Karbala-based spiritual leader of the Islamic Action Organization. In the meeting with PolOff, al-Nimr complimented both Ayatollahs for being leaders in combining the power of the mind with the power of the Quran in determining guidance for public life. Al-Nimr described his and al-Mudarrasi's attitude towards Islamic governance as being something between "wilayet al-faqih," in which a country is led by a single religious leader, and "shura al-fuqaha," in which a council of religious leaders should lead the state. Al-Nimr, who conducted religious studies for approximately ten years in Tehran and "a few" years in Syria, stated that all governance should be done through consultation, but the amount of official power vested in the hands of a single official should be determined based on the relative quality of the religious leaders and the political situation at the time. ------------------------ Al-Nimr on his Loyalties ------------------------ 4. (S/NF) When asked by PolOff as to whether his tough talk promoted violence or simply warned of it as a possible repercussion of continued discontent in the Shi'a community, al-Nimr responded that if a conflict were to occur he would side with the people, never with the government." RIYADH 00001283 002 OF 004 He continued by saying that though he will always choose the side of the people, this does not necessarily mean that he will always support all of the people's actions, for example, violence. Religiously, al-Nimr said that he is first a Shi'a, then a Muslim, then a member of the Ahl al-Bayt (literally People of the House; the phrase refers to Muslims, Christians and Jews), and finally a member of humanity. He quickly followed by saying that politically, he is on the side of justice, wherever or with whomever it may preside. He provided the example of Iraqi politics, saying that he does not support the aspirations of any Arabs - be they Sunni or Shi'a - or Turkomen who would aspire to power in northern Iraq. In al-Nimr's view, as the Kurds are an undoubted majority in the region, it would be unjust if they did not exercise a majority of power. ---------------------------------- Al-Nimr on Iran, the United States ---------------------------------- 5. (S/NF) Much of the attention recently received by al-Nimr is due to his comments in sermons and an interview with IslamOnline website perceived as supporting Iran, including defending Iran's nuclear aspirations and complimenting the people and government of Iran on their piety. In a July 26 follow-up letter to IslamOnline, Al-Nimr attempted to distance himself from Iran, saying that piety is only God alone, and that all nations act in their own interests. It was this sentiment that continued in the meeting with PolOff, as al-Nimr stated that his fundamental view of foreign powers - including Iran - is that they act out of self-interest, not out of piety or religious commonality. Al-Nimr said he was against the idea that Saudi Shi'a should expect Iranian support based on some idea of sectarian unity that supersedes national politics. 6. (S/NF) In addition to supporting Iran, al-Nimr's recent sermons have been laced with anti-American rhetoric, for example that America "wants to humiliate the world." In this meeting, the sheikh distanced himself from these ideas, saying that he has great affection for the American people. Al-Nimr stated that in his view, when compared with the actions of nations such as Britain, the European colonial powers, or the Soviet Union, the "imperialism" of the United States has been considerably more benign, with better treatment of people and more successful independent states. Al-Nimr said that this was evident in comparing the fortunes of West and East Germany, where the American-supported West was clearly more successful than the Soviet-supported East. The Sheikh also cited Japan as another case of America properly compensating and building a nation. The Sheikh believes that U.S. efforts in the Middle East are also better intentioned than previous imperial powers in the region, but that the U.S. has made tremendous mistakes in Iraq. 7. (S/NF) Al-Nimr also stated that Shi'a Muslims, even more than Sunnis, are natural allies for America as Shi'a thought, as reflected by the Imam Ali, is based on justice and liberty, ideas central to the United States. Al-Nimr cited as proof of his logic the fact that Sunni sheikhs regularly issue fatwas calling for violence and defending murder in the name of God. Meanwhile, in his view, proper Shi'a religious leaders would never advocate such tactics, as they directly contradict the spirit of Shi'ism. In addition to giving his comparison Shi'a and American ideals, al-Nimr showed significant historical knowledge of U.S. foreign policy - for example, speaking positively of the spirit of Middle Eastern initiatives during the Carter administration - and was well-informed regarding the state of the U.S. Presidential campaign. 8. (S/NF) Though al-Nimr moved away from Iran and spoke somewhat positively of America in the meeting with PolOff, he did not change course regarding his previously stated conviction that it is the right of the Shi'a people of Saudi Arabia to avail themselves of help from a foreign power should they become involved in a conflict. Citing Kuwait and Saudi Arabia employing the U.S. military to defend themselves against a fellow Arab force from Iraq, and the people of Darfur relying on foreign intervention to stop their countrymen in the Sudan, al-Nimr stated that the Shi'a community had the right to search for foreign assistance in the case of conflict against other Saudis. Al-Nimr did not invoke Iran in detailing where this foreign assistance might come from, and did not delineate regarding at what point in RIYADH 00001283 003 OF 004 hostilities foreign intervention would be justified. ------------------ Al-Nimr on the SAG ------------------ 9. (S/NF) In addition to his unswerving belief in the right of the Shi'a community to receive foreign assistance, al-Nimr also unflinchingly continued to denounce the Saudi government and its actions. One of the al-Nimr's overriding messages in this meeting was his view of governments as reactionary institutions. For example, al-Nimr stated that Eastern European countries gained their independence through agitation and Soviet failure, not due to any plan by the Russians to offer greater liberty. This fundamental belief affects his thinking generally and is at the foundation of why he advocates tough talk and is not averse to tough action. The Sheikh believes that the SAG is particularly reactionary and has been throughout its history. Al-Nimr stated that whether it is the Holy Mosque takeover, Iranian Revolution and EP Shi'a uprising of 1979; the realities of external pressure after September 11, 2001 and internal panic after the Saudi Arabia attacks of 2003 and 2004; or the advent of satellite television and the Internet, the Saudi government has never introduced change but has instead always been forced to change. 10. (S/NF) The examples given by al-Nimr were numerous: increased laxity in prohibiting the entrance ofreligious materials into the Kingdom is only due to current technology making it impossible to stop access to religious information; minor freedoms recently gained by the Shi'a of Qatif - for example, greater ability to celebrate Ashura - are a result of tensions building due to rising Shi'ism in both Iraq and Iran; municipal councils are a response to America's talk of supporting democracy and liberty over stability in the Middle East. Al-Nimr also cited a very personal story, saying that when he was detained in 2006 by the Saudi Mabahith, he was beaten by authorities and treated quite poorly. The people of Awamiyya, per the Sheikh's account, received no response to letters and formal pleas to the EP Governor for leniency. It was only when citizens began to advocate community demonstrations and a "no fear" attitude toward the SAG that al-Nimr says the authorities' abuse ended, and he was eventually released from detention. 11. (S/NF) With regards to specific SAG policies, the Sheikh believes that the Interfaith Dialogue initiative is a sham, a public relations exercise for audiences external to the Kingdom. He cited as evidence the crackdown against EP Shi'a that accompanied the high-level talk of dialogue (Reftel B). Additionally, he believes that the early June anti-Shi'a statement issued by 22 Salafi sheikhs was published with the consent of SAG officials. In the opinion of al-Nimr, many of the 22 are too close to the SAG for the statement to have been issued without government knowledge or approval. When asked by PolOff if he considered some members of the royal family to be truly committed to greater tolerance, al-Nimr responded that he does not distinguish between different members of the al-Saud, but only judges the government by its actions within the Kingdom, which he feels belie any sign of greater moderation or openness. He did, however, mention that there is a small amount of hope that younger generations, as they continue to study abroad in larger numbers and are exposed to more tolerant societies, will bring more tolerant attitudes back to the Kingdom. 12. (S/NF) While supportive of the idea of elections as a positive development in Saudi society, al-Nimr dismissed municipal councils as non-political, ineffective institutions with purview over only basic functions, and an inability to exercise authority over even those issues. He cited the fact (unconfirmed by post) that Diriyah, the ancestral home of the al-Saud, receives a larger municipal budget than Qatif despite Qatif having several times the population of Diriyah, as proof that municipal governance is simply another area in which the regime's discriminatory policies manifest themselves. ------- COMMENT ------- 13. (S/NF) Al-Nimr's private remarks were consistent with his previous public statements in their disregard for the SAG, RIYADH 00001283 004 OF 004 their support of foreign intervention on behalf of the Saudi Shi'a, and their inferences that the Sheikh at the very least will not denounce the idea of violent uprising. On the sensitive topic of Iran, however, the Sheikh eagerly attempted to divorce himself from the image of being an Iranian agent. Likewise, the Sheikh was much more complimentary of the U.S. - perhaps even somewhat disarming in his recounting of U.S. foreign policy in World War II, the Cold War, and the Carter administration - than he has been previously portrayed. Though it is certainly possible that al-Nimr changed his tune on these issues for the company of a U.S. diplomat, the pace, passion and certainty with which he spoke seemed to reflect true belief, and not cold political calculation or manipulation. In any case, his ideas seem to be internally contradictory. While it might be possible at a theoretical level to distance himself from Iran while also arguing the right of Saudi Shi'a to seek foreign assistance, at the de facto level Iran is certainly the only country at this time that might work with the Saudi Shi'a to undermine SAG control - a future Shi'a Iraq being the only other actor of any possibility. It is perhaps this reality that leads some local analysts to believe that al-Nimr would not hesitate to join Iranian agents in a possible uprising. 14. (S/NF) Also notable for the purpose of predicting al-Nimr's future behavior was his recognition of his own growing popularity, an observation supported by many in the community. Post contacts have described al-Nimr as someone who in previous years was largely an apolitical religious figure, and is still a secondary player in local politics. These contacts point to the death of Ayatollah Shirazi as the moment when al-Nimr began to take more political stances, his politicization a product of desire for greater community influence. Assuming al-Nimr's primary goals are greater rights for Shi'a and greater personal influence, it would seem his plan will be to continue forcefully calling for reform and creating unrest, endearing him to the disaffected, and fitting with his vision of instability as being the only catalyst for real change in the Kingdom. (APPROVED:JKINCANNON) GFOELLER

Did the Saudi Shitbirds Jump the Shark?

Saudi Arabia's executions were worthy of Isis – so will David Cameron and the West now stop their grovelling to its oil-rich monarchs?

The executions were certainly an unprecedented Saudi way of welcoming in the New Year – if not quite as publicly spectacular as the firework display in Dubai which went ahead alongside the burning of one of the emirate’s finest hotels

• Robert Fisk Middle East Correspondent  

Saudi Arabia’s binge of head-choppings – 47 in all, including the learned Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, followed by a Koranic justification for the executions – was worthy of Isis. Perhaps that was the point. For this extraordinary bloodbath in the land of the Sunni Muslim al-Saud monarchy – clearly intended to infuriate the Iranians and the entire Shia world – re-sectarianised a religious conflict which Isis has itself done so much to promote.

All that was missing was the video of the decapitations – although the Kingdom’s 158 beheadings last year were perfectly in tune with the Wahabi teachings of the ‘Islamic State’.  Macbeth’s ‘blood will have blood’ certainly applies to the Saudis, whose ‘war on terror’, it seems, now justifies any amount of blood, both Sunni and Shia. But how often do the angels of God the Most Merciful appear to the present Saudi interior minister, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Nayef?  

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr: Profile of the cleric executed by Saudi Arabia

For Sheikh Nimr was not just any old divine.  He spent years as a scholar in Tehran and Syria, was a revered Shia leader of Friday prayers in the Saudi Eastern Province, and a man who stayed clear of political parties but demanded free elections, and was regularly detained and tortured – by his own account – for opposing the Sunni Wahabi Saudi government. Sheikh Nimr said that words were more powerful than violence.  The authorities’ whimsical suggestion that there was nothing sectarian about this most recent bloodbath – on the grounds that  they beheaded Sunnis as well as Shias – was classic Isis rhetoric.

After all, Isis cuts the heads of Sunni ‘apostates’ and Sunni Syrian and Iraqi soldiers just as readily as it slaughters Shias. Sheikh Nimr would have got precisely the same treatment from the thugs of the ‘Islamic State’ as he got from the Saudis – though without the mockery of a pseudo-legal trial which Sheikh Nimr was afforded and of which Amnesty complained.  

But the killings represent far more than just Saudi hatred for a cleric who rejoiced at the death of the former Saudi interior minister – Mohamed bin Nayef’s father, Crown Prince Nayef Abdul-Aziz al-Saud – with the hope that he would be "eaten by worms and will suffer the torments of hell in his grave". Nimr’s execution will reinvigorate the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, which the Saudis invaded and bombed this year in an attempt to destroy Shia power there. It has enraged the Shia majority in Sunni-rules Bahrain. And Iran’s own clerics have already claimed that the beheading will cause the overthrow of the Saudi royal family.

It will also present the West with that most embarrassing of Middle Eastern problems: the continuing need to cringe and grovel to the rich and autocratic monarchs of the Gulf while gently expressing their unease at the grotesque butchery which the Saudi courts have just dished out to the Kingdom’s enemies. Had Isis chopped off the heads of Sunnis and Shias in Raqqa – especially that of a troublesome Shia priest like Sheikh Nimr – we can be sure that Dave Cameron would have been tweeting his disgust at so loathsome an act. But the man who lowered the British flag on the death of the last king of this preposterous Wahabi state will be using weasel words to address this bit of head-chopping.

However many Sunni al-Qaeda men have also just lost their heads – literally – to Saudi executioners, the question will be asked in both Washington and European capitals:  are the Saudis trying to destroy the Iranian nuclear agreement by forcing their Western allies to support even these latest outrages? In the obtuse world in which they live – in which the youthful defence minister who invaded Yemen intensely dislikes the interior minister – the Saudis are still glorying in the ‘anti-terror’ coalition of 34 largely Sunni nations which supposedly form a legion of Muslims opposed to ‘terror’.

Juveniles on death row in Saudi Arabia

• 8show all

 The executions were certainly an unprecedented Saudi way of welcoming in the New Year – if not quite as publicly spectacular as the firework display in Dubai which went ahead alongside the burning of one of the emirate’s finest hotels. Outside the political implications, however, there is also an obvious question to be asked – in the Arab world itself — of the self-perpetuating House of Saud:  have the Kingdom’s rulers gone bonkers?

US Right Wingers and Israel Firsters are all for NSA Spying Until it Happens Against Them and Against Our Greatest Ally Ever, Israel

Spying on Congress and Israel: NSA Cheerleaders Discover Value of Privacy Only When Their Own Is Violated

Glenn Greenwald
Dec. 30 2015, 2:02 p.m.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the NSA under President Obama targeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his top aides for surveillance. In the process, the agency ended up eavesdropping on “the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups” about how to sabotage the Iran Deal. All sorts of people who spent many years cheering for and defending the NSA and its programs of mass surveillance are suddenly indignant now that they know the eavesdropping included them and their American and Israeli friends rather than just ordinary people.

The long-time GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and unyielding NSA defender Pete Hoekstra last night was truly indignant to learn of this surveillance:

WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.
— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

NSA and Obama officials need to be investigated and prosecuted if any truth to WSJ reports. NSA loses all credibility. Scary.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

In January 2014, I debated Rep. Hoekstra about NSA spying and he could not have been more mocking and dismissive of the privacy concerns I was invoking. “Spying is a matter of fact,” he scoffed. As Andrew Krietz, the journalist who covered that debate, reported, Hoekstra “laughs at foreign governments who are shocked they’ve been spied on because they, too, gather information” — referring to anger from German and Brazilian leaders. As TechDirt noted, “Hoekstra attacked a bill called the RESTORE Act, that would have granted a tiny bit more oversight over situations where (you guessed it) the NSA was collecting information on Americans.”

But all that, of course, was before Hoekstra knew that he and his Israeli friends were swept up in the spying of which he was so fond. Now that he knows that it is his privacy and those of his comrades that has been invaded, he is no longer cavalier about it. In fact, he’s so furious that this long-time NSA cheerleader is actually calling for the criminal prosecution of the NSA and Obama officials for the crime of spying on him and his friends.

This pattern — whereby political officials who are vehement supporters of the Surveillance State transform overnight into crusading privacy advocates once they learn that they themselves have been spied on — is one that has repeated itself over and over. It has been seen many times as part of the Snowden revelations, but also well before that.

In 2005, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration ordered the NSA to spy on the telephone calls of Americans without the warrants required by law, and the paper ultimately won the Pulitzer Prize for doing so. The politician who did more than anyone to suffocate that scandal and ensure there were no consequences was then-Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democratic member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Jane Harman Former Congresswoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., in 2010. Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke/APIn the wake of that NSA scandal, Harman went on every TV show she could find and categorically defended Bush’s warrantless NSA program as “both legal and necessary,” as well as “essential to U.S. national security.” Worse, she railed against the “despicable” whistleblower (Thomas Tamm) who disclosed this crime and even suggested that the newspaper that reported it should have been criminally investigated (but not, of course, the lawbreaking government officials who ordered the spying). Because she was the leading House Democrat on the issue of the NSA, her steadfast support for the Bush/Cheney secret warrantless surveillance program and the NSA generally created the impression that support for this program was bipartisan.
But in 2009 — a mere four years later — Jane Harman did a 180-degree reversal. That’s because it was revealed that her own private conversations had been eavesdropped on by the NSA. Specifically, CQ’s Jeff Stein reported that an NSA wiretap caught Harman “telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage charges against two officials of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for the agent’s agreement to lobby Nancy Pelosi to name Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee.” Harman vehemently denied that she sought this quid pro quo, but she was so furious that she herself(rather than just ordinary citizens) had been eavesdropped on by the NSA that — just like Pete Hoekstra did yesterday — she transformed overnight into an aggressive and eloquent defender of privacy rights, and demanded investigations of the spying agency that for so long she had defended:

 I call it an abuse of power in the letter I wrote [Attorney General Eric Holder] this morning. … I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I’m one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, and I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I’m thinking about others who have no bully pulpit, who may not be aware, as I was not, that someone is listening in on their conversations, and they’re innocent Americans.

The stalwart defender of NSA spying learned that her own conversations had been monitored and she instantly began sounding like an ACLU lawyer, or Edward Snowden. Isn’t that amazing?

The same thing happened when Dianne Feinstein — one of the few members of Congress who could compete with Hoekstra and Harman for the title of Most Subservient Defender of the Intelligence Community (“I can honestly say I don’t know a bigger booster of the CIA than Senator Feinstein,” said her colleague Sen. Martin Heinrich) — learned in 2014 that she and her torture-investigating Senate Committee had been spied on by the CIA. Feinstein — who, until then, had never met an NSA mass surveillance program she didn’t adore — was utterly filled with rage over this discovery, arguing that “the CIA’s search of the staff’s computers might well have violated … the Fourth Amendment.” The Fourth Amendment! She further pronounced that she had “grave concerns” that the CIA snooping may also have “violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.”

During the Snowden reporting, it was common to see foreign governments react with indifference — until they learned that they themselves, rather than just their unnotable subjects, were subject to spying. The first reports we did in both Germany and Brazil were about mass surveillance aimed at hundreds of millions of innocent people in those countries’ populations, and both the Merkel and Rousseff governments reacted with the most cursory, vacant objections: It was obvious they really couldn’t have cared less. But when both leaders discovered that they had been personally targeted, that was when real outrage poured forth, and serious damage to diplomatic relations with the U.S. was inflicted.

So now, with yesterday’s WSJ report, we witness the tawdry spectacle of large numbers of people who for years were fine with, responsible for, and even giddy about NSA mass surveillance suddenly objecting. Now they’ve learned that they themselves, or the officials of the foreign country they most love, have been caught up in this surveillance dragnet, and they can hardly contain their indignation. Overnight, privacy is of the highest value because now it’s their privacy, rather than just yours, that is invaded.

What happened to all the dismissive lectures about how if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide? Is that still applicable? Or is it that these members of the U.S. Congress who conspired with Netanyahu and AIPAC over how to sabotage the U.S. government’s Iran Deal feel they did do something wrong and are angry about having been monitored for that reason?

I’ve always argued that on the spectrum of spying stories, revelations about targeting foreign leaders is the least important, since that is the most justifiable type of espionage. Whether the U.S. should be surveilling the private conversations of officials of allied democracies is certainly worth debating, but, as I argued in my 2014 book, those “revelations … are less significant than the agency’s warrantless mass surveillance of whole populations” since “countries have spied on heads of state for centuries, including allies.”

But here, the NSA did not merely listen to the conversations of Netanyahu and his top aides, but also members of the U.S. Congress as they spoke with him. And not for the first time: “In one previously undisclosed episode, the NSA tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant,” the New York Times reported in 2009.

The NSA justifies such warrantless eavesdropping on Americans as “incidental collection.” That is the term used when it spies on the conversations of American citizens without warrants, but claims those Americans weren’t “targeted,” but rather just so happened to be speaking to one of the agency’s foreign targets (warrants are needed only to target U.S. persons, not foreign nationals outside of the U.S.).

This claim of “incidental collection” has always been deceitful, designed to mask the fact that the NSA does indeed frequently spy on the conversations of American citizens without warrants of any kind. Indeed, as I detailed here, the 2008 FISA law enacted by Congress had as one of its principal, explicit purposes allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans’ conversations without warrants of any kind. “The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans’ international communications — and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal,” the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer said.  “And a lot of the government’s advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it’s a crucial one: The government doesn’t need to ‘target’ Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications.”

Whatever one’s views on that might be — i.e., even if you’re someone who is convinced that there’s nothing wrong with the NSA eavesdropping on the private communications even of American citizens, even members of Congress, without warrants — this sudden, self-interested embrace of the value of privacy should be revolting indeed. Warrantless eavesdropping on people who have done nothing wrong — the largest system of suspicionless mass surveillance ever created — is inherently abusive and unjustified, and one shouldn’t need a report that this was done to the Benjamin Netanyahus and Pete Hoekstras of the world to realize that.