MbS: Riding roughshod or playing a risky game of bluff poker?
By James M. Dorsey
A stalemate in efforts to determine what happened to Saudi
journalist Jamal Khashoggi is threatening to escalate into a crisis that could
usher in a new era in relations between the United States and some of its
closest Arab allies as well as in the region’s energy politics.
In response to US President Donald J. Trump’s
threat of “severe punishment” if Saudi Arabia is proven to have been
responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance while visiting the kingdom’s
consulate in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia is threatening to potentially upset the
region’s energy and security architecture.
A tweet by Saudi Arabia’s Washington embassy thanking
the United States for not jumping to conclusions did little to
offset the words of an unnamed Saudi official quoted by the state-run news
agency stressing the kingdom’s “total rejection of any threats
and attempts to undermine it, whether through economic sanctions, political
pressure or repeating false accusations.”
The official was referring to the kingdom’s insistence that
it was not responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and assertion that it
is confronting a conspiracy by Qatar and/or Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.
“The kingdom also affirms that if it is (targeted by) any
action, it will respond with greater action,” the official said noting that
Saudi Arabia “plays an effective and vital role in the world economy.”
Turki Aldhakhil, a close associate of Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman and general manager of the kingdom’s state-controlled Al
Arabiya news network, claimed in an online article that Saudi
leaders were discussing 30 ways of responding to possible US sanctions.
They allegedly included allowing oil prices to rise up to
US$ 200 per barrel, which according to Mr. Aldhakhil, would lead to “the death”
of the US economy, pricing Saudi oil in Chinese yuan instead of dollars, an end
to intelligence sharing, and a military alliance with Russia that would involve
a Russian military base in the kingdom.
It remains unclear whether Mr. Aldhakhil was reflecting
serious discussions among secretive Saudi leaders or whether his article was
intended either as a scare tactic or a trial balloon. Mr. Aldakhil’s claim that
a Saudi response to Western sanctions could entail a reconciliation with the
kingdom’s arch enemy, Iran, would make his assertion seem more like
geopolitical and economic bluff.
Meanwhile, in what appeared to be a coordinated response
aimed at demonstrating that Saudi Arabia was not isolated, Oman,
Bahrain, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt rushed
to express solidarity with the kingdom. Like Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE
have a track record of suppressing independent journalism and freedom of the
press.
Ironically, Turkey may be the kingdom’s best friend in the
Khashoggi crisis if its claims to have incontrovertible
proof of what happened in the consulate prove to be true. Turkey has
so far refrained from making that evidence public, giving Saudi Arabia the
opportunity to come up with a credible explanation.
Turkish president Recep Tayyip “Erdogan
wants to give Saudis an exit out of #Khashoggi case, hoping the
Saudi king/crown prince will blame ‘rogue elements’ for the alleged murder,
then throwing someone important under the bus. This would let Erdogan walk away
looking good & prevent rupture in Turkey-Saudi ties,” tweeted Turkey
scholar Soner Cagaptay.
The Saudi news agency report and Mr. Aldakhil’s article suggest
that Prince Mohammed believes that Saudi Arabia either retains the clout to
impose its will on much of the international community or believes that it
rather than its Western critics would emerge on top from any bruising confrontation.
Prince Mohammed no doubt is reinforced in his belief by Mr.
Trump’s reluctance to include an arms embargo in his concept of
severe punishment. He may also feel that Western
support for the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen and reluctance to credibly take the
kingdom to task for its conduct of the war was an indication that he
was free to do as he pleased.
Prince Mohammed may have been further strengthened in his
belief by the initial course of events 28 years ago, the
last time that the fate of a journalist was at the centre of a crisis between a
Western power and an Arab country.
At the time, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher,
similar to Mr. Trump’s inclination, refused to impose economic sanctions after
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein ordered the arrest, torture and execution of
Farhad Barzoft, a young London-based Iranian journalist who reported for The
Observer.
Since declassified British government documents disclosed
that Mrs. Thatcher’s government did not want to jeopardize commercial relations
despite its view of the Iraqi government as a “ruthless
and disagreeable regime.”
The comparison between the Khashoggi crisis and the case of
Mr. Barzoft goes beyond Western governments’ reluctance to jeopardize
commercial relationships.
Mr Barzoft was executed months before Mr. Hussein’s military
invaded Kuwait prompting US-led military action that forced his troops to
withdraw from the Gulf state, crippling economic sanctions, and ultimately the
2003 Gulf War that, no matter how ill-advised, led to the Iraqi leader’s
downfall and ultimate execution.
Prince Mohammed’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen,
of which Mr. Khashoggi was critical in
one of his last Washington Post columns, has tarnished the kingdom’s
international prestige and sparked calls in the US Congress and European
parliaments for an embargo on arms sales that have gained momentum with the
disappearance of the Saudi journalist.
To be sure Saudi Arabia enjoys greater leverage than Iraq
did in 1990. By the same token, 2018 is not 1973, the first and only time the
kingdom ever wielded oil as a weapon against the United States. At the time,
the US was dependent on Middle Eastern oil, today it is one of, if not the
world’s largest producer.
More fundamentally, Prince Mohammed appears to show some of
the traits Mr. Hussein put on display, including a seeming lack of
understanding of the limits of power and best ways to wield it, a tendency
towards impetuousness, a willingness to take risks and gamble without having a
credible exit strategy, a refusal to tolerate any form of criticism, and a
streak of ruthlessness.
"We're discovering what this 'new king' is all about,
and it's getting worrisome. The
dark side is getting darker," said David Ottaway, a journalist
and scholar who has covered Saudi Arabia for decades.
Mr. Hussein was public and transparent about Mr. Barzoft’s
fate even if his assertion that the journalist was a spy lacked credibility and
the journalist’s confession and trial were a mockery of justice.
Prince Mohammed flatly denies any involvement in the
disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi and appears to believe that he can bully himself
out of the crisis in the absence of any evidence that the journalist left the
kingdom’s Istanbul consulate of his own volition.
Mr. Hussein miscalculated with his invasion of Kuwait
shortly after getting away with the killing of Mr. Barzoft.
Prince Mohammed too may well have miscalculated if the
kingdom is proven to be responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance.
Mr. Hussein’s reputation and international goodwill was irreparably
damaged by his execution of Mr. Barzoft and invasion of Kuwait.
Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance has dealt a body blow to Saudi
Arabia’s prestige irrespective of whether the journalist emerges from the
current crisis alive or dead.
King Salman and the kingdom appear for now to be rallying
the wagons around the crown prince.
At the same time, the king
has stepped into the fray publicly for the first time by phoning
Turkish president Erdogan to reaffirm Saudi cooperation with an investigation
into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate.
It remains unclear whether that phone call will pave the way
for Turkish investigators to enter the Istanbul consulate as well as the Saudi
consul general’s home and whether they will be allowed to carry out forensics.
The longer the investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate stalls,
the more Saudi Arabia will come under pressure to put forth a credible
explanation and the harder Western leaders will be pressed by public opinion
and lawmakers to take credible action if Saudi Arabia is proven to be
responsible.
A Saudi decision to act on its threats to rejigger its
security arrangements and energy policy, even if overstated by Mr. Aldhakhil,
in response to steps by Western nations to penalize the kingdom, could prove to have not only far-reaching
international consequences but, in the final analysis, also equally momentous
domestic ones.
“Looks like #Saudi royal family is coming together to
protect the family business. Eventually there
will be internal reckoning with what transpired. Not now. Now is the
time to save the family reign,” tweeted Middle East scholar Randa Slim.
Said former US State Department and White House official
Elliott Abrams: “Jamal Khashoggi lost control of his fate when he entered the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Mohammed
bin Salman must act quickly to regain control of his own.”
Dr.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture,
and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast.
James is the author of The Turbulent World
of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored
volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and
the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting
Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa
and just published China
and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom
Comments
Post a Comment