INSTABILITY has stalked the Middle East for as many years as I care to remember.
But even seasoned commentators were surprised by Saudi Arabia’s decision to execute prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr.
The move appeared so provocative.
But Al-Nimr fomented unrest in Saudi’s eastern province and his execution was widely welcomed within the Kingdom.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, his death led to violent demonstrations in Tehran, including the torching of the Saudi embassy.
In response, Iranian diplomats were sent home from Saudi and Gulf diplomats withdrawn from Tehran.
These two Middle Eastern heavyweights are already pursuing a proxy war in Syria, with Shia Iran backing Assad and Hizbollah, and Sunni Saudi Arabia supporting the hardline Islamist Syrian opposition.
Further south, the conflict is more overt with Saudi Arabia bombing insurgent Shia Yemenis while, in Bahrain, a Shia majority is kept cowed by a Saudi-backed Sunni minority.
There’s no doubt that Saudi Arabia has felt embattled and alone since its oldest ally, the USA, lifted sanctions and made a nuclear deal with Iran last year.
Worse, Iran conducted several provocative missile tests in the Gulf last week.
At the same time, fracking has dramatically reduced US dependence on Saudi oil and, with it, Saudi’s importance to the USA.
Finally, at the Vienna peace talks on Syria in November, the US backpedalled on forcing Assad to go – a key Saudi demand.
The result is that Saudi Arabia has decided that, if the USA will not stand up to Iran, Saudi – and many other Gulf monarchies - will do so alone.
If that happens, ancient enmities could lead to a very modern conflagration, one that the UK would not be immune from.
I trust our diplomats are busy, as peace in the Middle East is very much in our interest.