No Let Up in Khashoggi News

UPDATE II: An essential read from this morning is Glenn Greenwald's "The Washington Post, as it Shames Others, Continues to Pay and Publish Undisclosed Saudi Lobbyists and Other Regime Propagandists":

But the Washington Post’s particular righteous fury as expressed in words, while understandable in one sense, is very difficult to reconcile with their actual actions, including their ongoing relationship with numerous individuals who either work directly for the Saudi regime, financially benefit from propaganda and lobbying work performed on their behalf, or have a history of taking the lead in doing P.R. work for Saudi tyrants under the guise of journalism. Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who oversees all of this as he tries to shame others for maintaining relationships with the Saudis, failed to respond to any of the Intercept’s inquiries regarding these multiple ethical and behavioral contradictions.

The filthy hypocrisy that Greenwald spotlights in this piece leads one to believe that the cover story being trotted out by al-Saud, that a "tragically incompetent" Saudi intelligence operative botched the Khasshogi interrogation, will be accepted by the powerful, and business will attempt to return to normal. (In this regard, the strong ties between the power elite in the United States and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, read Anand Giridharadas' "Silicon Valley’s Saudi Arabia Problem.")

Will it work? Probably.

****

UPDATE: Trump has floated a counter-narrative. Rogue killers --

“The king firmly denied any knowledge of it,” Trump told reporters. “He didn’t really know, maybe - I don’t want to get into his mind but it sounded to me - maybe these could have been rogue killers. Who knows?”

In order for this story to take hold the Saudis would have to round up some patsies and provide them to the Turks for interrogation. There are a lot of moving pieces here, a lot to coordinate when the parties have such divergent agendas. It would take a miracle of leadership and coordination to pull it off, with the U.S., Saudis and Turks working closely together selflessly and seamlessly. This appears unlikely.

****

It's heartening to see the full coverage of the Khashoggi assassination in today's New York Times. There is a story by Jim Rutenberg about the mainstream corporate media embrace of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS); Ben Hubbard and David Kirkpatrick provide a much needed assessment of Jamal Khashoggi's professional career (Khashoggi, though not a royal, was close to the royal court, an Islamist and an old buddy of Osama bin Laden); and Peter Baker shines a spotlight on Trump's failure so far to criticize the House of Saud. More corporate behemoths are cancelling their participation in al-Saud's "Davos in the Desert."

But the big news from the weekend is that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is threatening retaliation if any nation sanctions it because of the Khashoggi assassination. Germany, France and the UK are demanding a detailed investigation. I don't see how the Saudis wriggle off the hook. The penalty could be nothing more than a cosmetic delay of weapons delivery that the Obama administration inflicted on the Sisi government.

Let's not discount the role of the midterm elections next month. The Saudis are not popular with U.S. voters. Never have been. A big tell for the MAGA faithful that it was going to be business as usual should have been when Trump traveled to Riyadh on his first overseas trip as president.

Trump will not be able to delay for the three weeks before the election. He will have to come forward with some act of punishment. The monarchical Saudis might  overreact and lash out. Things could spiral out of control just when Trump meant to launch his sanctions on Iranian crude oil.