Blog No. 199. The Khashoggi Murder and Saudi Arabia: What To Do?

The brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi has presented the United States with a dilemma for which there is no easy answer. Despite some embarrassed hedging by President Trump and Secretaries Mattis and Pompeo, it is quite clear that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), was responsible for that outrage, As Senator Bob Corker summed it up tersely, if MBS were put before a jury, he would be “convicted in thirty minutes” for the Khashoggi murder. Nevertheless, given our long-standing alliance with Saudi Arabia, it is not at all clear what the United States can and should do about it.

The position of the United States is inherently awkward, but it has been exacerbated by two factors. First was the leak of the CIA’s conclusion that MBS was responsible for the Khashoggi murder. Whatever one’s view of Trump, Saudi Arabia or United States policy, this is quintessentially the kind of information that should not be leaked. As Paul Rosenzweig explained in Lawfare, such a leak was damaging on several counts and constituted a crime and a violation of important norms. Second was President Trump’s singularly inept statement on the subject in which he managed to suggest that the principal reason for standing by Saudi Arabia was the value of arms sales by American defense contractors (the amount of which, characteristically, Trump grossly exaggerated).

In any event, there is no prospect that anything the United States might do would dislodge MBS from power. He is not merely the Crown Prince, but given the failing capacity of his father the king, MBS is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. And the track record of the United States in bringing about regime changes to unseat foreign heads of state is not encouraging. On occasion we have been complicit in removing a foreign leader by a coup (South Vietnam, Chile) but there is no indication that would be feasible here. And, if it were, it might well lead to a civil war that would be messy and dangerous, possibly leading to the installation of someone even worse.

Nor is there great likelihood that “punishment” by the United States would have a moderating effect on MBS’s temperament or behavior. To be sure, he might be a bit more careful in the manner of effecting extraterritorial executions. MBS and Vladimir were photographed exchanging high fives at the recent G-20 meeting and Putin may have suggested to his friend that poison, such as the Novichok nerve agent used by Russia in England, is tidier than dismemberment by bone saw. On the other hand, nothing is certain: Putin’s two intended targets in England survived and two British citizens became collateral damage (one fatally) when they came in contact with the Russian poison.

In Khashoggi’s case, it is of interest to consider the circumstances led him to become a target. In the media, Khashoggi is invariably described as “a journalist” and it is sometimes suggested that his killing reflected a threat to all journalists. Guy Abernathy, wrote in the Washington Post wrote:

Khashoggi was, by credible accounts, ambushed, tortured, strangled and dismembered in a Saudi consulate in Turkey — all because he spoke out against the Saudi government as a contributing columnist for The Post and other outlets.

The facts, however, are more complex. While Kashoggi was a journalist he was rather more, and the rather more suggests that he was not necessarily killed out of annoyance at anything he had written in the Washington Post.

CNN has reported that, in addition to his position as a journalist, Khashoggi was working with another Saudi activist, Omar Abdulaziz, to organize a social media campaign against the Saudi government. While Khashoggi’s criticisms in the Post were measured, his private communications were not, describing MBS  as a “beast” and a “pac-man” who would devour all in his path, even his supporters. According to CNN, Khashoggi and Abdulaziz were planning to “form an electronic army [‘cyber bees’] to engage young Saudis back home and debunk state propaganda on social media, leveraging Khashoggi’s establishment profile and the 27-year-old Abdulaziz’s 340,000-strong Twitter following.” Unfortunately for the two dissidents, their extensive communications were intercepted by the Saudis. While Khashoggi’s activities do not remotely provide an excuse or justification for his killing, awareness of them adds some texture to the situation.

Despite the widespread outrage over the murder, a complete rupture of relations with Saudi Arabia seems highly unlikely. Our alliance with the kingdom has extended through the administrations of several presidents, Republican and Democratic, and has survived various occasions of awkwardness, including the discovery that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. At the present time, the Trump administration insists that Saudi Arabia continues to be a vital ally. Secretary of State Pompeo made that argument on Capitol Hill and more concisely in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq’s fragile democracy and keep Baghdad tethered to the West’s interests, not Tehran’s. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria’s civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.

In light of Pompeo’s reference to Saudi Arabia’s growing ties with Israel, it may be noted that the interception of Khashoggi’s communications with Abdulaziz was made possible by the use of software provided by an Israeli company, NSO (with the approval of the Israeli government). It has also been reported by both the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post that Saudi Arabia’s intensive courtship of Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, included assurances that the kingdom could be helpful in resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The courtship paid off. Kushner and MBS became close personal friends and Kushner today is reported to be a strong defender of MBS within the councils of the administration.

On Capitol Hill, however, many have a far more critical view of Saudi Arabia. One of the most outspoken voices is that of Senator Lindsey Graham (aptly described by Brett Stephens as “episodically spineful”). Responding to Pompeo’s piece in the Journal, Graham challenged the claim that Saudi Arabia is a source of stability in the Middle East:

The Saudi regime’s murder of Jamal Khashoggi, its reckless military campaign in Yemen, its blockade of Qatar, and its effort to remove Lebanon’s prime minister all show astounding arrogance entitlement, and disregard for international norms. If these actions make Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia a “source of stability” in the Middle East, I’d hate to see what destabilizing behavior looks like.

Even Graham, however, conceded that Saudi Arabia is indeed a “strategic ally” and he did not urge an end to the alliance. As an alternative means of showing our anger at the Khashoggi murder Graham and others are supporting a resolution sponsored by Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Mike Lee that is set for a vote this week. The resolution would end United States aid to Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen where the Saudis have supported the Yemen government against Houthi militants backed by Iran.

Yet this initiative is questionable, both as to its rationale and its prospects of success. Quite apart from the Khashoggi matter, there are good reasons to reconsider and perhaps end, our participation in the Yemen civil war. The instinct to oppose the spread of Iranian influence is understandable and legitimate, but any gain from such opposition may be outweighed by the humanitarian costs. The conflict has left tens of thousands dead and pushed millions to the brink of starvation. Still, a decision to withdraw is one that should be made on the basis of of a realistic assessment of American interests in Yemen and not as a crude means of sending a signal to Saudi Arabia. Beyond that, it is doubtful that the resolution would be approved by the House, at least in this term, and if approved, it would surely be vetoed by Trump. Finally, it is dubious to expect that even if such a signal were sent, MBS would be responsive to it.

On the whole it seems more likely that any improvement in Saudi behavior may be accomplished by quiet diplomacy over a period of time rather than by dramatic gestures. And while a reassessment of our relationship with Saudi Arabia may well be in order, it should go far beyond a focus on any single incident, however despicable.