The Execution of Baqir al-Nimr and the Murder of Khashoggi

Since the day the prominent Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, went missing, there has not been a day when major global media outlets have refrained from covering news related to his fate and the responsibility that falls on Saudi Arabia. This indicates the strength of the news about the abduction of an opposition figure, which has deeply wounded the conscience of the world, even affecting Riyadh's allies like Trump. Now that his murder has been acknowledged by Riyadh, pressures on Saudi Arabia have increased to identify those who ordered his killing, not just the perpetrators. The extent of the pressure on Saudi Arabia can be seen in the fact that despite diplomatic immunity, Riyadh has agreed to allow Turkish police to inspect the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and the residence of the consul. It can be confidently said that no country (especially one as influential as Saudi Arabia in recent years) has ever granted such a concession to a host country in the history of international relations. To understand the extent of Saudi Arabia's influence not only in the region or in the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation but also in the United Nations, it is enough to recall that in June 2016, Ban Ki-moon, the then Secretary-General of the UN, stated that the "most painful" decision he made was to remove Saudi Arabia from the UN's blacklist of violators of children's rights. He said he made this decision after Saudi Arabia and some Arab countries allied with Riyadh repeatedly threatened him that they would cut off their financial aid to the UN and related agencies if Saudi Arabia was included in that list. Following this decision by the Secretary-General, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, stated: "Ban Ki-moon has allowed Riyadh to silence him with 'money.'" If this is the fate of the UN, it is clear what fate the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have encountered. In a situation where the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has become a part of the Saudi Foreign Ministry, as noted by Hossein Jaberi Ansari, a former spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, it is evident that the organization is functioning like an office of this ministry. However, despite all the influence that Riyadh has gained through oil money, in a humiliating decision, it has opened the doors of its consulate and the consul's residence in Istanbul to Turkish police to possibly exonerate itself in the case of Khashoggi's disappearance. In this context, it should not be forgotten that the management of "diminishing Saudi credibility" is in Ankara's hands. Ankara, while pumping news about its actions in uncovering the truth, has not ceased consultations with King Salman on one side and the US on the other. We do not witness emotional behaviors in Ankara. The Saudi embassy in Ankara has not been attacked by Khashoggi's supporters. There is no doubt that Ankara sees this event as a blessing to enhance its regional and global standing. In other words, Ankara is trying to increase its credibility as Saudi credibility diminishes. It was precisely during this incredible opportunity that Ankara quietly released Andrew Brunson, the American pastor whose detention had soured Ankara-Washington relations. From the tidal wave that has surged against Riyadh, it can be believed that this wave will continue to be detrimental to Saudi Arabia. However, what is instructive for Iranians is the emotional behavior witnessed in Tehran against Riyadh following the execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr. The execution of Sheikh Nimr was a blessing for Saudi Arabia and a loss for Tehran. On January 1, 2016, the news of the raid on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the burning of its consulate in Mashhad suddenly became the top news worldwide. A wave of global condemnations arose against Tehran one after another. Even a country like Syria did not come to the defense of the Islamic Republic's actions. Violating the immunity of diplomatic premises can only be conceived by a handful of fools; otherwise, no wise person in the world would express alignment with this event. But why did the Islamic Republic incur such a loss? The story began when on December 11, 2015, Saudi Arabia executed a Shia cleric, Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, on security charges. The execution of Baqir al-Nimr, who was supported by the Islamic Republic, drove some individuals in the power circle of the Islamic Republic to madness. The order to raid the Saudi embassy was issued. The attacking forces assaulted the Saudi embassy and set fire to its consulate in Mashhad. This astonishing event occurred while, according to images, the police, under the supervision of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, made no effort to prevent this action. As a result, the execution of Sheikh Nimr, a Saudi opponent who, like Khashoggi, had the potential to become a pressure lever against Riyadh, turned into a pressure lever against Iran. Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries severed relations with Tehran. Some Arab countries downgraded their relations with Iran to the level of chargé d'affaires. Countries and world leaders condemned the actions of the Islamic Republic one by one, and worst of all, the issue of the death of over two thousand five hundred pilgrims (including 464 Iranian pilgrims) during the Hajj that year, which had become a significant pressure point on Riyadh, was forgotten. Thus, as Iran's credibility diminished, Saudi Arabia's increased. Saudi Arabia, citing the closure of its embassy in Tehran, refused to issue visas for Iranian pilgrims, forcing the Islamic Republic to seek its presence at Hajj two years later. As if two years ago, neither Sheikh Nimr had been executed nor thousands had perished in Saudi Arabia. Sheikh Nimr and Khashoggi share a common feature but differ in several aspects. Both are Saudi nationals who raised the banner of opposition against the Saudi regime. Both have met a tragic fate in this path. Sheikh Nimr has been executed, and Khashoggi has also lost his life. However, the difference between the two is as vast as the sky. The news of Khashoggi's fate has not left the headlines. His name is now on everyone's lips. Many world leaders have expressed sensitivity regarding his fate and held Riyadh responsible. Saudi Arabia has opened the doors of its diplomatic premises to possibly relieve itself from global public pressure. The King of Saudi Arabia, his young prince, and the country's foreign minister have not defended themselves before public opinion for even a minute. The murder of a defenseless journalist in a diplomatic building is unprecedented in the history of international relations. From this, one can see the "global" and "historical" scandal that Saudi Arabia has created. However, in the Islamic Republic, many Iranians do not even remember Sheikh Nimr's name, despite the fact that a street adjacent to the Saudi embassy in Tehran has been named after "Martyr Ayatollah Baqir al-Nimr." Another stark difference between these two Saudi nationals is the legacy they left behind. Khashoggi took up the "pen" and considered himself a critic of the regime, while Sheikh Nimr compared the House of Saud to Yazid. Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post, while Sheikh Nimr left not a single page of his thoughts as a legacy. Khashoggi held a status that made him a guest of reputable global media. In contrast, Sheikh Nimr had no media presence in the Arab world, let alone in the media of the Islamic Republic. In short, Khashoggi's fate has become a nightmare for Riyadh, while the execution of Sheikh Nimr turned into a celebration for Saudi Arabia.