Tehran (AFP) - Saudi Arabia's execution Saturday of a prominent Shiite cleric and 46 other men prompted outrage in parts of the Middle East, with Iran warning Riyadh would pay a "high price".
But several Saudi allies offered their support after Riyadh implemented death sentences against cleric Nimr al-Nimr, Shiite activists and Sunnis accused of involvement in Al-Qaeda attacks.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari strongly condemned Riyadh for executing Nimr despite repeated Iranian requests for clemency.
"The Saudi government supports terrorist movements and extremists, but confronts domestic critics with oppression and execution... The Saudi government will pay a high price for following these policies," he said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.
"The execution of a figure like Sheikh al-Nimr, who had no means to follow his political and religious goals but through speaking out, merely shows the extent of irresponsibility and imprudence."
Parliament speaker Ali Larijani also condemned Nimr's death, saying Riyadh would not emerge "easily from the quagmire they created by the martyrdom of this great sheikh".
All Iran's seminaries will be closed Sunday to protest Nimr's execution, with a demonstration expected in the Grand Mosque of Qom, the heart of Shiite faith in Iran, the ISNA news agency said.
The Basij student militia connected to Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards called for a demonstration Sunday afternoon in front of the Saudi embassy in Tehran.
Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are major rivals in the Middle East and are arrayed on opposing sides in several regional conflicts.
Nimr was a driving force of the protests that broke out in 2011 in Eastern Province, where the Shiite minority of Saudi Arabia complains of marginalisation.
He was arrested in 2012, with the interior ministry describing him as an "instigator of sedition".
- 'Serious consequences' -
His execution also drew fire in Iraq, where the head of the Shiite Dawa party's parliamentary bloc urged Baghdad to close the Saudi embassy, expel the ambassador and "execute all Saudi terrorists in Iraqi prisons."
Khalaf Abdelsamad also warned the execution would have "serious consequences and bring about the end of the Al-Saud (ruling family's) rule."
Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and his predecessor Nuri al-Maliki both belong to the Dawa party.
In the holy Shiite city of Karbala, hundreds demonstrated and urged the closure of the newly opened Saudi embassy.
"I swear to God that the sheikh's blood was not spilled in vain," said Said Saad al-Mussawi, one of the protesters.
"We will make the earth shake under your feet," he said, addressing Saudi's royal family.
In Lebanon, the powerful Shiite movement Hezbollah accused Riyadh of "assassinating" Nimr.
It accused Washington of "direct and moral responsibility for this crime" because of its longstanding alliance with Riyadh.
Meanwhile, Syrian Information Minister Omran Zohbi described the executions as a crime, saying they were "an assassination of freedoms and human rights."
He urged international organisations to hold Riyadh accountable, saying "this group assassination is a horrific humanitarian and political crime."
Rights group Amnesty International said it appeared the kingdom was "using execution to settle political scores".
Middle East and north Africa director Philip Luther told AFP the kingdom was using "the guise of counter-terrorism" to clamp down on dissent.
The trials of Nimr and the others "were politicised on the one hand and grossly unfair, because the international standards for fair trial were grossly flouted.
"What is going on is an attempt to silence criticism of Saudi Arabia particularly among the Shia activist community".
The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, members of a Saudi-led coalition battling Iran-backed Shiite rebels in Yemen, praised the executions.
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan called them a "clear message against terrorism and those who call for and incite sedition and unrest to tear apart the society's unity and threaten social peace in the kingdom".
Bahrain, which has itself faced unrest from its Shiite majority population, also backed Riyadh in "all deterrent and needed measures it takes to confront violence and extremism".
Police used tear gas to disperse small demonstrations condemning the executions.
Poster Comment:
The new year starts on a good note, another reason for ROPers to kill each other. Hoping we have the good sense to keep out of it and watch it happen! If they try to make it our fight, the one Kraut in Raiders of the Lost Ark had the right idea.
Damn shame we don't have any pro-American politicians in charge of anything remotely related to foreign policy,or we could probably work this so the Sunni and the Shiites could go back to killing each other,which is their normal state.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
maybe when we start executing some of these terriorists and militant jihadists we will gain some peace. I don't care if we send them to their form of heaven, got to be hell anyway, but we can stop them creating hell on earth for millions then the benefit outweighs the objections. The Saudi didn't just execute a shiite cleric they executed sunni jihadists too. They might be the enemy but they also know who the enemy is. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend
They almost sound like they're ready to do something unpleasant against Saudi interests
don't get excited, Arabs get excited easily, but are cowards at heart. The Shiia in Iran are persians, not arabs, they like expanding their influence and taking back their ancient empire, but they are unlikely to take action themselves
There is a lot they can do. Like supplying arms to Shi'a in the Arabian peninsula. Like the ones in Yemen and the ones concentrated near the Saudi oil fields.
There is a lot they can do. Like supplying arms to Shi'a in the Arabian peninsula.
yes getting others to fight a proxy war, they have observed and read from the CIA playbook. We should thank Iran for opposing the wahhabbist preaching that comes from Saudi Arabia, the base of this jihadist campaign we have been fighting for a long time, otherwise we might be overrun with regimes such as daesh
We should thank Iran for opposing the wahhabbist preaching that comes from Saudi Arabia, the base of this jihadist campaign we have been fighting for a long time, otherwise we might be overrun with regimes such as daesh
Iran is just as bad and will indoctrinate radical Shi'ite ideology as readily as the Saudis do.
Neither offers a Religion Of Peace. Or of prosperity.
Iran is just as bad and will indoctrinate radical Shi'ite ideology as readily as the Saudis do.
Maybe but you don't have evidence that they have been doing it in the manner that the Saudi have been allowed to.. Was it the Shiites that pushed Turkey back into muslim fundamentalism?, Was it the shiites that initiated the Syrian civil war? was it the shiites who trained syrian rebels only to have them join Daesh? While no saint I have formed the opinion that the iranians are more sinned against than sinners. Yes some thirty years ago a radical regime took over and relations with the US soured resulting in a proxy war with the US supporting Saddam Hussien, however the Iranians have not invaded any other country dispite provocation, they have, like the US, interferred in the politics of various nations in the ME
Maybe but you don't have evidence that they have been doing it in the manner that the Saudi have been allowed to.
Iran's record of meddling and foreign radicalism is so well-known that I can't believe you know anything about them after you make such statements.
No, the Shi'ites are not the Good Guys. Just a different bunch of Bad Guys with a slightly different set of religious doctrines. But they are fundamentally no different. They've merely lacked the means, financial and diplomatic, to have the same reach as the Saudis have.
the Shi'ites are not the Good Guys. Just a different bunch of Bad Guys with a slightly different set of religious doctrines. But they are fundamentally no different. They've merely lacked the means, financial and diplomatic, to have the same reach as the Saudis have.
Really? Christians and Jews have rights in Iran, plus guaranteed places in Parliament? Women study and become, lawyers, doctors, professors.
Saudi in Arabia criminalized even private practice of Christians religion, women cannot drive cars etc ...
Christians and Jews have rights in Iran, plus guaranteed places in Parliament? Women study and become, lawyers, doctors, professors.
Saudi in Arabia criminalized even private practice of Christians religion, women cannot drive cars etc ...
Actually, Shias are the Good Guys.
They are better Muslims. That doesn't make them the Good Guys.
Until they became big backers of ISIS, you might argue that Qatar was a decent Muslim country. Or Dubai. Before that, Turkey would have made the list but they are now openly allied with ISIS.
At present, only the Kurds (not a country) and Egypt could be called Good Guys. And Egypt is succumbing to fundamentalism now as well, accelerated by the Arab Spring so beloved by the Dem internationalists and the neocons.
Hmm, are you suggesting that they are bad because they might do something bad in the future like giving arms to ISIS?
I'm saying that Qatar was a direct funder of ISIS and was its first major sponsor. Wealthy Qataris and its government were involved in this funding, they used al-Jazeera to provide adoring coverage of the ISIS "freedom fighters", used their influence and money to draw Turkey into allowing itself to be used as a safe corridor for jihadis to go to Syria and Iraq and hide that info from Western governments.
I would argue that it is not clear that ISIS would even exist if not for Qatar. Later on, other Gulf Emirates got more involved and the Saudis became the primary players but at the beginning, it was Qatar that sustained them.
And who is to give the Good Guys certificates to the peoples of the world? A committee headed by McCain or Hillary?
There is always a theme in these matters of Good Guys and Bad Guys. And since we are indisputably always the Good Guys, then our allies (or the side we favor) are also the Good Guys.
This is simplistic and naïve. There are plenty of times when there are no Good Guys and, other than our leader's own repulsive and self-serving propaganda, we should recognize that there really are no Good Guys in a current brouhaha.
Another shibboleth we see over and over is this nonsense about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is demonstrably false and has served us poorly over the decades. More often, the enemy of our enemy is just another enemy or will become our enemy (or enemies of the West) as soon as they gain some power.
And Russians with Syrians and Iranians and Hezbollah.
This is where it becomes confused. Hezbollah are not the good guys no matter who they might be allied with, these are peopele who fire rockets at civilian populations. I have said if before the enenmy of my enemy is not my friend
Hezbollah are not the good guys no matter who they might be allied with, these are peopele who fire rockets at civilian populations.
They organized as a self-defense against Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon. Rockets? Everyone fires them and collateral damage happens, exaggerated if we do not like someone or played down if we support them.
Beside, they fight ISIS, while we do not, or we support ISIS in a disguised way.
would like to see some evidence of that, we know they fight against Syrian rebels. As to self defense, shooting rockets at civilian populations is not self defense irrespective of what muslims say, I'll go with my government who say they are a terrorist organisation. As far as I'm aware Israel have only ever invaded any neighbouring country following provocation
As to self defense, shooting rockets at civilian populations is not self defense irrespective of what muslims say, I'll go with my government who say they are a terrorist organisation
Are you referring to the Western humanitarian interventions and related "collateral damage"?
would like to see some evidence of that, we know they fight against Syrian rebels
ISIS are not rebels? So, they must be a sovereign authority.
Which other legitimate non ISIS rebels do you have in mind? The ones who eat hearts of Syrian soldiers or drop homosexuals from the high buildings?
BTW, Syrians and Hezbollah fight mostly in the areas east from ISIS for a simple geographical reason - it is where the front line is. That is why Union troops did not fight much in Alabama, or Confederates in Massachusetts. Given the chance they get Raqqa too, don't worry. Unless guys like you will sabotage them.
But they are already engaged in fight with ISIS, one example:
"The Syrian army captured territory from Islamic State east of Aleppo including several kilometers of highway linking the city with the jihadists' de facto capital of Raqqa, Syrian state TV reported on Saturday.
The areas reported captured are east of the Kweires, air base seized from Islamic State control on Nov. 10 in one of several offensives being waged by the Syrian army with support from Russian air strikes, Iranian forces, and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters"
