This article fails to point out that the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is also trying to push the idea that the Washington Post is a credible source of news and information, which it is not. This orchestrated event had multiple agendas, and one of them, although not at the top of the list, is the fact that they are trying to make the Washington Post seem like this outlet that has journalists who really really go deep and get the inside information that nobody else is getting, the real deal Holyfield information. But they aren't, they are a propaganda apparatus of the establishment elite, along with numerous other very popular information outlets such as Huffington Post, NY Daily News, CNN, MSNBC, all now widely known as the "Fake News Media."
https://geopolitics.co/2018/10/24/khashoggi-murder-made-to-force-saudis-to-buy-american-not-russian-s-400/
Here is the text from the original article, from the link above:
The response of the Trump administration and many U.S. politicians to
Khashoggi’s disappearance is largely being guided by the
military-industrial complex — in this case Lockheed Martin — but
masquerading as a response motivated by “human rights.”
The disappearance and alleged murder of Saudi journalist and
Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi continues to strain relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia. On Saturday,
President Donald Trump warned the Saudis of “
severe punishment” if the Saudi government was found to have been responsible for the journalist’s alleged murder.
The Saudi government has vocally denied any involvement even though
Khashoggi disappeared within the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and
responded to Trump’s threats by vowing an
even “stronger” response if the Gulf monarchy is ultimately targeted by the United States. The exchange of threats caused Saudi
stocks to sustain their biggest one-day loss since 2016 when trading opened and has brought the upcoming three-day Future Investment Initiative (FII) in Saudi Arabia much
unwanted negative publicity.
However, there is considerable evidence pointing to the fact that the
U.S.’ response to the Khashoggi affair is likely to be determined, not
by any Saudi government responsibility for Khashoggi’s fate, but instead
whether or not the Saudis choose to follow through with their promise
to purchase the $15 billion U.S.-made THAAD missile system or its
cheaper, Russia-made equivalent, the S-400. According to reports, the
Saudis failed to meet the deadline for their planned THAAD purchase and
had hinted in late September that they were planning to buy the S-400
from Russia instead.
While the U.S.’ response to the alleged murder of the Saudi
journalist is being cast as a U.S. government effort to defend press
freedom and finally hold the Saudi government to account for its long
litany of human-rights abuses, there is every indication that the U.S.
is not in fact seeking to punish the Saudis for their alleged role in
Khashoggi’s apparent murder but instead to punish them for
reneging on this $15 billion deal to U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the THAAD system.
Khashoggi’s disappearance merely provided a convenient pretext for
the U.S. to pressure the Saudis over abandoning the weapons deal by
allowing the U.S. to frame its retaliation as a “human rights” issue. As
a result, it seems likely that, if the Saudis move forward with the
latter, the U.S. and the Trump administration the Saudi government
guilty of involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance while, if they move
forward with the former, the media frenzy and controversy surrounding
the Saudi national will likely fizzle out and, with it, Trump’s threats
of “severe punishment.”
Ultimately, the response of the U.S. political class to the Khashoggi
affair is just the latest example of a U.S. government policy being
motivated by the military-industrial complex but masquerading as a
policy motivated by concern for “human rights.”
Why the sudden concern over the Saudi government’s atrocious human rights record?
As the Khashoggi saga has drawn on since the Saudi journalist
disappeared earlier this month, some observers have noted that the
corporate media and the U.S. government’s sudden preoccupation with
Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record, particularly in regards to
journalists. Indeed, just last Wednesday, Reporters Without Borders
(RSF)
announced that
15 Saudi journalists and bloggers had been arrested over the past year
and noted that “in most cases, their arrests have never been officially
confirmed and no official has ever said where they are being held or
what they are charged with.”
In addition, Saudi Arabia has helped kill tens of thousands of Yemeni
civilians in the war it is leading against that country, with most of
those civilian casualties resulting from the Saudi-led coalition’s
bombing campaign that routinely targets civilians. The Saudi-led
coalition’s blockade of food and medicine into Yemen has also brought
the country to the brink of famine, with nearly
18 million now at risk of starving to death — including over 5 million children, while thousands more are dying from
preventable diseases in the country.
While murdering a journalist by “hit squad” in a diplomatic compound
on foreign soil — as is alleged to have Khashoggi’s fate — would
certainly set a dangerous precedent, Saudi Arabia leading the genocide
against the Yemeni people is arguably a much worse precedent. However,
little concern over the Saudis’ role in this atrocity in Yemen has been
raised by those pushing for action to be taken against Saudi Arabia over
Khashoggi’s “inhumane” fate. So, why the sudden concern?
Despite it being a well-known fact that the Saudi government
routinely imprisons journalists and activists and is leading a genocidal
war against its southern neighbor, the Trump administration has now
adopted a harsh tone towards the Saudis, with concerns over Khashoggi’s
disappearance serving as the “official” excuse.
Indeed, Trump
told CBS’ 60 Minutes during an interview broadcast on Sunday that
“there’s something really terrible and disgusting about that if that
were the case [that Saudi Arabia had been involved in Khashoggi’s
murder], so we’re going to have to see. We’re going to get to the bottom
of it and there will be severe punishment.”
Other powerful figures in the U.S. political establishment have
called for dramatic action to be taken against the Saudi government,
particularly the Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). For instance,
John Brennan, former CIA Director under Obama and current cable news pundit, lobbied in
a recent Washington Post op-ed to dethrone MBS for his alleged role in Khashoggi’s fate.
Brennan also notably called upon the U.S. to impose “immediate
sanctions on all Saudis involved; a freeze on U.S. military sales to
Saudi Arabia; suspension of all routine intelligence cooperation with
Saudi security services; and a U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Council
resolution condemning the murder.”
Another prominent figure in Washington pushing for action to be taken against the Saudis over Khashoggi’s disappearance is
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham
recently stated
that there would be “hell to pay” if the Saudi government was found to
be responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance and alleged murder.
Notably, the
top contributor to Graham’s 2020 re-election campaign is U.S. weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Given that human-rights concerns among the U.S. power establishment
have only emerged after the disappearance of this one journalist and
such concerns regarding the Saudis other grave human-rights abuses
continue to go unvoiced by these same individuals, something else is
likely driving Washington’s sudden concern over alleged Saudi
state-sanctioned murder.
So what has protected the Saudi government from U.S. retribution over
its repeated human-rights abuses in the past? Though Saudi Arabia’s
vast oil wealth is an obvious answer,
a recently leaked State Department memo
revealed that U.S. weapon sales to the Gulf Kingdom were the main and
only factor in the Trump administration ’s continued support for the
Saudi-led coalition’s disastrous war in Yemen. Those lucrative weapon
sales, according to the memo, led
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “
rubber stamp”
the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign in Yemen despite the fact
that the coalition has continued to bomb civilian buses, homes and
infrastructure in recent months.
If the Saudis were to back away from a major, lucrative deal with
U.S. weapon manufacturers, such an act would likely result in
retribution from Washington, given that weapons sales to the Gulf
Kingdom are currently the driving factor behind Washington’s “concern”
with the Saudi government’s poor human-rights record.
This is exactly what happened and it took place just two days before
Khashoggi disappeared inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
The Saudis back out of a US deal and eye the rival’s wares
Last year, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and praised its crown
prince for finalizing a massive weapons deal with the United States at a
value of over $110 billion. However, it emerged
soon after that this “deal” was not contract-based but instead involved many “letters of interest or intent.” Over a year later, the
Washington Post recently noted that many of the planned weapons deals have yet to be finalized.
One of those agreements was the planned $15 billion purchase of the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD), which is
manufactured by U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin. The deadline for the
Saudis to finalize that deal
passed on September 30, just two days before Khashoggi’s disappearance on October 2. However, a Saudi official
told the Post
that the Saudi government is still “highly interested” in the deal but
“like any military purchase, there are negotiations happening which we
hope will conclude in the quickest means possible.”
Yet, not only has Saudi Arabia apparently backed out of the $15
billion deal to buy Lockheed’s THAAD, it is also actively considering
buying the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system instead and
has also refused U.S. government requests to disavow its interest in the Russian-made system.
Indeed, on September 21, Saudi ambassador to Russia Raid bin Khalid Krimli
stated:
Our cooperation with Russia continues and grows. And during King
Salman’s historic visit [to Russia] we have signed 14 agreements that
began to be implemented. There were four agreements in the military
field; three of them began to be implemented. As for the fourth … there
is discussion of the technical issues. Because the system itself is
modern and complex.”
The fourth deal to which he alludes appears to be the S-400. The
Saudi ambassador also stated the he hoped “nobody will impose any
sanctions on us” for making the purchases with Russia — further
suggesting that the system he was discussing was the S-400, given that
the U.S. sanctioned China for purchasing the system soon before the
Saudi ambassador’s comments.
Interestingly, soon after the Saudis’ failure to stick to the planned
deal with Lockheed, Trump began to publicly criticize the Saudis for
“not paying” their fair share. Speaking at a campaign rally in
Mississippi on October 3 – one day after Khashoggi’s disappearance in
Istanbul and three days after Saudi Arabia “missed” the Lockheed Martin
deadline,
Trump stated:
“I love the king [of Saudi Arabia], King Salman, but I said: ‘King,
we’re protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us.
You have to pay for your military, you have to pay.”‘
More recently, this past Saturday,
Trump told reporters that he did not want to risk the bottom line of the U.S.’ top weapons manufacturers in determining the Saudis’ “punishment:”
I tell you what I don’t want to do.
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these companies. I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that [emphasis added]. And you know there are other ways of punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.”
However, if the Saudis do follow through with the purchase of the
S-400, Lockheed Martin will lose $15 billion as a result. It will also
endanger some of other potential contracts contained within the $110
billion weapons contract that Trump has often publicly promoted. With
Trump not wanting to “lose an order like that,” some analysts like Scott
Creighton of the
Nomadic Everyman blog
have asserted that the Khashoggi scandal is being used as a “shakedown” aimed at pressuring the Saudis into “
buying American” and to force them to disavow a future purchase of the Russian-made S-400.
Would the U.S. use such tactics against a close ally like the Saudis
over their potential purchase of the Russian-made S-400? It would
certainly fit with the U.S.’ recent efforts
to threaten countries around the world
with sanctions for purchasing that very missile defense system. For
instance, in June, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell
threatened Turkey
with sanctions if Turkey purchased the S-400. Those threats were
followed by the September decision made by the Trump administration to
sanction China
for its purchase of the S-400 system.
Notably, it was right after China was sanctioned for purchasing the S-400 that the Saudi ambassador to Russia
told Russian media that “I hope nobody will impose any sanctions on us” for purchasing the S-400.
However, U.S. sanctions against the Saudis may now be in the works
after all, with Khashoggi’s disappearance as the pretext. Indeed, as
previously mentioned, former CIA director John Brennan, among other
powerful figures in Washington, is calling for sanctions against the
Saudi government and Trump himself stated on Saturday that “severe
punishment” could soon be in the Saudis’ future.
Yet another piece of this puzzle that cannot be ignored is the fact
that Khashoggi himself has ties to the CIA, as well as to Lockheed
Martin through his uncle Adnan Khashoggi, one of Saudi Arabia’s most
powerful weapons dealers.
Khashoggi’s deep connections to CIA, Saudi Intelligence suggest his “disappearance” may be something more
Following his disappearance, Khashoggi
has been praised by
establishment and non-establishment figures alike, from Jake Tapper to
Chris Hedges, for being a “dissident” and a “courageous journalist.”
However, prior to his scandalous disappearance and alleged murder,
Khashoggi did not receive such accolades and was a very controversial
figure.
As
Federico Pieraccini recently wrote at
Strategic Culture:
[Khashoggi is a] representative of the shadowy world of collaboration
that sometimes exists between journalism and the intelligence agencies,
in this case involving the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia and
the United States. It has been virtually confirmed by official circles
within the Al Saud family that Khashoggi was an agent in the employ of
Riyadh and the CIA during the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.”
Indeed, Khashoggi doubled as a journalist and an asset for the Saudi and U.S. intelligence services and was also
an early recruit of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was also
the protégé of Turki
Faisal Al-Saud,
the head of Saudi intelligence for 24 years, who also served as the
Saudi ambassador to Washington and to the United Kingdom. Khashoggi was
“media advisor” to Faisal Al-Saud during his two ambassadorships.
Notably, Khashoggi became a regime “critic” only after internal power
struggles broke out between former Saudi King Abdullah and Turki Faisal
al-Saud.
Supporters of King Abdullah accused Khashoggi at the time of having
recruited and paid several journalists on behalf of the CIA while he was
editor of the leading English-language magazine in Saudi Arabia,
Arab News, a post he held from 1999 to 2003.
More recently, Khashoggi strongly supported the Muslim Brotherhood
during the “Arab Spring” and backed the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton
regime-change efforts that spread throughout the Middle East, including
the regime-change effort targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
However, under King Salman, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presence in
Saudi Arabia came under threat and was suppressed. This led Khashoggi to
leave and
seek refuge in Turkey.
Perhaps most significantly, prior to his disappearance, Khashoggi was
“working quietly with intellectuals, reformists and Islamists to launch
a group called Democracy for the Arab World Now.” As
Moon of Alabama notes,
these projects that Khashoggi was involved in prior to his
disappearance “reek of preparations for a CIA-controlled color
revolution in Saudi Arabia.”
Not only does Khashoggi share ties to the CIA and the Saudi intelligence services (services that
often collaborate), but his family is well-connected to global power structures, including Lockheed Martin.
Indeed, as previously mentioned, Khashoggi’s uncle is none other than Adnan Khashoggi, the notorious Saudi arms dealer who was
an important player in the Iran-contra affair and was once Saudi Arabia’s richest man. Adnan Khashoggi was
deeply connected
to Lockheed Martin, as demonstrated by the fact that, between 1970 and
1975, he received $106 million in commissions from the U.S. weapons
giant with his commission rate on Lockheed sales eventually rising to 15
percent.
According to
Lockheed’s former Vice President for International Marketing, Max
Helzel, Adnan Khashoggi “became for all practical purposes a marketing
arm of Lockheed. Adnan would provide not only an entry but strategy,
constant advice and analysis.”
Adnan Khashoggi also had
close ties
to the Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan White Houses, with the latter
likely explaining why he was acquitted for his role in the Iran-contra
scandal. Also notable is the fact that Adnan Khashoggi sold his famed
yacht to none other than Donald Trump for $30 million. Trump
later called Adnan Khashoggi “a great broker and a lousy businessman.”
Given Jamal Khashoggi’s past and present connections to the CIA and
his family’s connections to Lockheed Martin and powerful players in the
U.S. political establishment, the possibility emerges that Khashoggi’s
disappearance may have in fact been a set-up in order to place pressure
on the Saudi government following its decision to renege on its plan to
purchase Lockheed’s THAAD system. This theory is also somewhat supported
by the fact that the U.S. intelligence community
had known in advance of an alleged Saudi plot to capture Khashoggi but ignored its duty (
via ICD 191)
to warn Khashoggi of the apparent threat against him. Furthermore, the
claims that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul
have — so far — been entirely based on claims from U.S. and Turkish
intelligence and no evidence to support the now prevailing narrative of
murder has been made public.
If a “set-up” were the case, Khashoggi’s CIA links and his apparent
efforts at pushing a CIA-controlled “color revolution” in Saudi Arabia
suggest that his disappearance could also have been intended for use as a
pretext, not necessarily to punish the Saudis over the S-400, but to
remove MBS from his position as crown prince and replace him with former
crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was ousted by MBS last year and
also
holds close ties to the CIA. Such a possibility cannot be ignored.
However, the Trump administration’s willingness to cooperate with the
faux outrage regarding Khashoggi is much more likely to be motivated by
the weapons-deal drama given the administration’s
close ties to MBS.
Of course, it is equally likely that this was not a set-up given that
MBS is undeniably authoritarian and relentlessly pursues his critics
and perhaps thought that his close relationship with Trump would allow
him to act with impunity in targeting Khashoggi. However, MBS’ pursuits
of his critics in the past were more readily accepted by the West — like
the so-called “
corruption crackdown”
last December. Either way, the Saudi government’s role in the alleged
murder of Khashoggi is being capitalized on by the CIA and other
elements of the U.S. political scene and military-industrial complex for
its own purposes, as these groups normally turn a blind eye to Saudi
government atrocities.
Tracking the political typhoon
Though the U.S. tactic to strong-arm Saudi Arabia seems clear, it is a
situation that could dangerously escalate as both MBS and Trump have
proven over the course of their short tenure that they are stubborn and
unpredictable.
Furthermore, the timing of this situation is also troubling. In early
November, the Trump administration’s efforts to punish countries
importing Iranian crude oil will take effect and Trump is set to lean
heavily on the Saudis to prevent a dramatic oil price increase due to
the supply shock the removal of Iranian oil from the market will cause.
Notably, the Saudis are
working closely with Russia to keep oil prices from spiking.
Is the U.S. willing to risk the dramatic jump in oil prices, which
themselves could have major domestic economic consequences, in order to
keep the Saudis from buying the S-400? It’s hard to say but the
coming battle of wills between Trump and MBS could well have truly global consequences.
Acknowledgment: The author of this article would like to thank Scott Creighton of the Nomadic Everyman blog for his assistance in researching aspects of this investigation.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for
MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work
has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st
Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances
on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern
Chile.
