Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Saudi Arabia underestimated the response to Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance

Published

on

Saudi Arabia underestimated the response to Jamal Khashoggis disappearance

Saudi Arabia denies any part in the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. All evidence points to the theory that they have either abducted or killed Khashoggi after luring him to the consulate to obtain wedding documents. The Washington Post columnist has been a critic of the Saudi regime.

At this point, either Saudi Arabia ambushed Khashoggi or Turkey is going to great lengths to fabricate evidence pointing at them. While still possible, the latter seems highly unlikely, especially in light of a new report that shows the U.S. may have been aware of the plot.

Jamal Khashoggi: Saudis discussed plan to lure journalist to Saudi Arabia

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/politics/khashoggi-us-intelligence-saudi-plan-to-lure-journalist/index.htmlThe US has intercepts of Saudi officials discussing a plan to lure journalist Jamal Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia and detain him, according to a US official familiar with the intelligence.

The official would not go so far as to say Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the operation but said that, although he may not have known the specifics such a plan couldn’t have taken place without his approval.

This was a bold move made on foreign soil against a Saudi citizen with ties to the United States. In retrospect, it may seem obvious the world would pay attention, but it’s likely the Saudis expected this to be a blip on the news radar.

It hasn’t been. Between the Washington Post using every ounce of clout and reach they have to push out the story to nearly every U.S. news outlet covering it, the exposure Saudi Arabia is receiving from this had to be underestimated. If they’d known taking and/or killing a journalist would have this much blowback, it’s hard to imagine them executing the plan.

Now, they’re stuck with an international incident that isn’t going to go away until Khashoggi is returned unharmed. That is likely impossible.

Saudi Arabia has been one of the harshest dictatorships in the world when it comes to silencing dissidents. Khashoggi is far from the first journalist to be punished for his criticisms, which may have helped push the notion through Saudi leadership that they could sweep this under the rug as they have so many times in the past.

There are huge implications if the White House is forced to respond. Saudi Arabia is the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Any successful peace deal will go through Riyadh and pass through the hands of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This puts the White House in a predicament. If they call out bin Salman, they could jeopardize their strong relationship with their second most important ally in the region. If they say nothing and the story continues to have legs, it could make the White House seem complicit in the coverup.

Some on Capitol Hill have taken steps to make the White House act:

Senators trigger law forcing Trump to probe Saudi journalist’s disappearance

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/410865-senators-force-trump-to-investigate-disappearance-of-saudi-journalistThe Magnitsky law requires that the president conduct an investigation after a request from the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee into whether a foreign person is responsible for an extrajudicial killing, torture or other gross violation of internationally recognized human rights against an individual exercising freedom of expression.

Under the law, the president has to report the findings back to the committee in 120 days, along with a decision on imposing sanctions on the person or persons responsible.

If Saudi Arabia can be proven to have abducted and/or killed Khashoggi, should we continue to call them friends and engage with them as allies? To me, the answer is a resounding ‘No!”

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

No, Rashida Tlaib, boycotting Israel is not the same as boycotting Nazis

Published

on

No Rashida Tlaib boycotting Israel is not the same as boycotting Nazis

There are many things the nation of Israel, as well as every other nation in the world, does that deserves to be called out by the international community. But Israel gets the lion’s share of criticism despite being the freest nation in the Middle East and one of the freest in the world. Israel has nothing in common with Nazi Germany, but that’s the comparison Representative Rashida Tlaib made in her attempts to justify support for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) Movement.

On one hand, she has a point. Singling out the BDS Movement, as vile and misguided as their precepts are, is not necessarily the proper way to handle them. On the other hand, one has to wonder if she’d be making the same argument if a pro-Israel group was the target instead.

The BDS Movement was powerful enough before picking up friends in Congress. Now, they’re systematically infesting the Democratic Party with supporters through Justice Democrats and others.

But even if one were to agree with Tlaib’s desire to protect BDS, making the comparison between their activities and the activities of those who boycotted the Nazis before World War II is over the top. She strategically included them among other boycotts to appeal to those in the American Jewish community who are Democrats and who are not friendly to Israel. She’s giving them talking points as well as support in an effort to get more people to compare Israel to Nazi Germany.

It seems a day doesn’t go by that a member of “The Squad” doesn’t make headlines by saying something stupid. Today was no different. This time, it was Tlaib and her love for BDS that got the better of her and the worst for us.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Even Tulsi Gabbard thinks Kamala Harris is unqualified to be president

Published

on

Even Tulsi Gabbard thinks Kamala Harris is unqualified to be president

Representative Tulsi Gabbard has a lot of poor policies in her playbook that she would unleash if elected president. Moreover, she is missing important experiences both in life and politics that one might expect from a Commander-in-Chief. But one thing she has experience in that she can hang her hat on is foreign relations. A few of her ideas on the subject are quite Libertarian, if not somewhat conservative.

One candidate who has no foreign policy experience is Senator Kamala Harris, and Gabbard let everyone know just how little the top tier candidate actually knows about the geopolitical atmosphere today. It’s one of the few attacks being leveled on or by someone other that Vice President Joe Biden.

“I think one of the things I’m most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander in chief, and I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier,” Gabbard said. “She’s got no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander in chief.”

Gabbard: ‘Kamala Harris is Not Qualified to Serve as Commander in Chief’

Gabbard frequently criticizes America’s foreign policy.

In a May fundraising email, Gabbard blasted a Daily Beast article for stirring “up hysteria that makes it easier to push our country into war.” A February email warned that “our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine.”

Left-wing publications such as the Nation and Jacobin have criticized Gabbard. The Daily Kos hit Gabbard for meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and developing ties with Hindu nationalists in a piece which endorsed her Democratic primary opponent in her congressional race.

Having a strong foreign policy has been a hallmark of President Trump’s. He reversed many of the poor decisions made by his predecessor. Now, he’s fighting for another term to keep proper foreign policy in the Oval Office.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Two weeks after Benghazi attack, Ilhan Omar Tweeted ‘Allahu Akbar’

Published

on

Two weeks after Benghazi attack Ilhan Omar Tweeted Allahu Akbar

This is old news, of course, but bears repeating at this time. Representative Ilhan Omar has been doing everything she can over the last couple of weeks to paint herself as the victim of bigotry and someone who loves our country. And while there’s definitely some substance to the notion that crowds of Republicans shouldn’t be chanting “send her back,” it’s also understandable why so many Americans are opposed to her presence on Capitol Hill.

Even if we dismiss reports that she married her brother, called for CBP to be eliminated, said this is “not going to be the country of white people,” referred to 9/11 as “some people did something,” and is regularly praised by former KKK leader David Duke, it’s difficult to dismiss her reaction to the Benghazi attacks that took the lives of four American heroes in 2012.

I’m not going to dignify her Tweet with an opinion. She’s the one who needs to explain it. But despite her celebration, life isn’t good for the four men who lost there’s in Benghazi. Remember this, folks, as Democrats embrace her wholeheartedly.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending