It took the killing of an innocent man in Turkey
for Clifford D. May to write the kind of piece that illustrates with meticulous
exactness the kind of relationships that America is allowed to have with the
nations of the Middle East while satisfying Israel's ambitions in the region,
and doing nothing but that.
The title of Clifford May's article is “Killing
Khashoggi,” published on October 23, 2018 in The Washington Times. Governed by
a high concentration of the spirit, and proceeding with careful steps, the
writer walks a high wire as he tells America's diplomatic corps what posture it
must take with regard to the Khashoggi incident. Here is how he set up the
scene to instruct on how America's diplomats ought to perceive the unfolding of
the drama, and what moral of the story they ought to draw from it:
“This much we know: Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and
critic of the royal family was killed by Saudi operatives inside the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul. The dominant media narrative: Crown Prince Salman
dispatched Saudi agents to carry out an assassination. Leaks from Turkish
intelligence, and reports in Turkish media have provided the basis for this
narrative. They are not reliable sources. Turkish President Erdogan was
expected to produce evidence during a speech. He did not. He didn't even
mention Turkish officials' claims that they have recordings of the killing.
Instead, he posed questions”.
As can be detected, the unfolding of the drama
begins with the asking of the overarching questions: Who was responsible for
that dreadful crime? And how much of it can be attributed to Crown Prince
Salman? These are important questions because the answers to them will
determine the kind of relationship that America will have with Saudi Arabia and
everyone else in the region; and how this incident will impact the current
effort to bring the Sunni Arab World and Israel to talk to each other.
The way that Clifford May narrates the story, is
that Turkey, which is a rival of Saudi Arabia, wants Crown Prince Salman to
bear full responsibility for the crime. To this end, President Erdogan of
Turkey, tried to pull a fast one. He tried to make the world believe he had
proof that the crown prince was personally involved in the crime. But Erdogan
never delivered the proof.
To side even more closely with Saudi Arabia,
Clifford May mentioned that the Saudis acknowledged their guilt in the
Khashoggi affair, which makes them believable. For this reason, he posited that
it would be unfair to say that scapegoats were already chosen to take the fall
for the crown prince. Instead, May has advanced the theory that the so-called
scapegoats may have been guilty of exceeding their authority. He suggested that
they were sent to abduct Khashoggi and take him to Saudi Arabia, but that
something went wrong in the procedure, and the man was killed by accident.
Still, none of that is enough to completely
absolve Salman or the Saudi Kingdom of the terrible crime. And this happens to
be the “not fully guilty nor fully innocent” situation that is ideal in the
eyes of Clifford May. It's because he doesn't want the Saudi Kingdom to be
completely immune to the Judeo-American leverage. Thus, Clifford May has
expressed glee in telling his readers that President Trump finds himself in a
tough spot. He knows he must punish Saudi Arabia and the crown prince for what
happened, but in so doing, must not reward the Kingdom's enemies, such as
Turkey and more importantly Iran ... all that being the cure that Doctor Zion
of diplomacy has ordered for this situation.
Certain that he got the tiger of American
diplomacy by the tail, as well as the opportunistic windfall he has pocketed
with confidence, Clifford May turned his attention to telling the rulers of
Saudi Arabia what to do, now that they are in a bind and must listen to what he
says:
“If Mohammed bin Salman remains crown prince ––
King Salman does not appear inclined to demote his 33-year-old-son –– he would
be well-advised to respond to whatever the White House and Congress do by
turning the other cheek, and taking pains to make amends”.
Nothing can be more direct than that. But this
done, it is now time to draw the moral of the story. Here is how Clifford May
did it:
“Free nations can never be friends with regimes
that maintain power through acts of barbarism. Yet there is a difference
between regimes with whom we share vital national interests, and regimes with
whom we don't. It's a jungle out there. Those who don't understand that end up
in the jaws of predators”.