U.S. intel report implicates Saudi crown prince
WASHINGTON >> Saudi Arabia’s crown prince likely approved the killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, according to a newly declassified U.S. intelligence report released Friday. The finding could escalate pressure on the Biden administration to hold the kingdom accountable for the murder that drew widespread outrage in the U.S., and abroad.
The public blaming of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman amounted to an extraordinary rebuke and was likely to set the tone for the new administration’s relationship with the country President Joe Biden has criticized but which the White House also regards in some contexts as a strategic partner.
The conclusion that the prince approved an operation to kill or capture Khashoggi, the critic of his authoritarian consolidation of power, was based on what intelligence officials know about his role in decision-making inside the kingdom, as well as the involvement of one of his key advisers, Saud al-Qahtani, and members of his protective detail, according to the report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Officials also factored in the prince’s past support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad, the report said.
As Democrats in Congress clamored for aggressive action, the State Department responded by announcing visa restrictions on 76 Saudi individuals involved in threatening dissidents abroad.
“As a matter of safety for all within our borders, perpetrators targeting perceived dissidents on behalf of any foreign government should not be permitted to reach American soil,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The declassified document was released one day after a later-than-usual courtesy call from Biden to Saudi King Salman, though the White House summary of the conversation made no mention of the killing and said instead that the men had discussed the countries’ longstanding partnership. The kingdom’s staterun Saudi Press Agency similarly did not mention Khashoggi’s killing in its report about the call, rather focusing on regional issues, such as Iran and the ongoing war in Yemen.
The milder tone on the call was in contrast to Biden’s pledge as a candidate to make Saudi Arabia “a pariah” over the killing.
Once in office, Biden has said he would maintain whatever scale of relations with Saudi Arabia that U.S. interests required. He also ordered the end to U.S. support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen, and said he would stop the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia. He has given few details of what weapons and support he meant.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Friday that the administration has been clear that it will “recalibrate our relationship” with Saudi Arabia.
Democrats, meanwhile, pressed for strong action.
Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, urged the Biden administration to make sure the report leads to “serious repercussions against all of the responsible parties it has identified, and also reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and Intelligence Committee member, called for consequences for the prince, such as sanctions, as well as for the Saudi kingdom as a whole.
Khashoggi had gone to the Saudi consulate to pick up documents needed for his wedding. Once inside, he died at the hands of more than a dozen Saudi security and intelligence officials and others who had assembled ahead of his arrival. Surveillance cameras had tracked his route and those of his alleged killers in Istanbul in the hours leading up to his killing.
A Turkish bug planted at the consulate reportedly captured the sound of a forensic saw, operated by a Saudi colonel who was also a forensics expert, dismembering Khashoggi’s body within an hour of his entering the building. The whereabouts of his remains remain unknown.
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZ. >> When Wyoming U.S. Sen. John Barrasso snapped at Deb Haaland during her confirmation hearing, many in Indian Country were incensed.
The exchange, coupled with descriptions by other white, male Republicans of the Interior secretary nominee as “radical” left some believing Haaland is being treated differently because she is a Native American woman.
“If it was any other person, they would not be subjected to being held accountable for their ethnicity,” said Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, chairwoman of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah in Massachusetts.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Barrasso wanted assurance that Haaland would follow the law when it comes to imperiled species. Before the congresswoman finished her response, Barrasso shouted, “I’m talking about the law!”
Barrasso, former chairman of Senate Indian Affairs Committee, later said his uncharacteristic reaction was a sign of frustration over Haaland dodging questions.
“My constituents deserve straight answers from the potential secretary about the law,” he said in a statement. “They got very few of those.”
Among Haaland supporters across the nation who tuned in virtually, it was infuriating.
“It was horrible. It was disrespectful,” said Rebecca Ortega of Santa Clara Pueblo in Haaland’s home state of New Mexico. “I just feel like if it would have been a white man or a white woman, he would
never have yelled like that.”
The Interior Department has broad oversight of energy development, along with tribal affairs, and some Republican senators have labeled Haaland “radical” over her calls to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and address climate change. They said that could hurt rural America and major oil- and gas-producing states. Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy after two days of hearings called Haaland a “neo-socialist, left-of-Lenin whack job.”
Andrews-Maltais saw “radical” as a code for “you’re an Indian.”
But Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana said it is not about race. Daines frequently uses the term to describe Democrats and their policies, including President Joe Biden and former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, whom Daines defeated in November.
“As much as I would love to see a Native American be on the president’s Cabinet, I have concerns about her record . ... To say otherwise is outrageous and offensive,” he told The Associated Press.
Civil rights activists say Haaland’s treatment fits a
pattern of minority nominees encountering more political resistance than white counterparts.
The confirmation of Neera Tanden, who would be the first Indian American to head the Office of Management and Budget, was thrown into doubt when it lost support from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He cited her controversial tweets attacking members of both parties.
Critics also have targeted Vanita Gupta, an Indian American and Biden’s pick to be associate attorney general, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as Health and Human Services secretary. Conservatives launched campaigns calling Gupta
“dangerous” and questioning Becerra’s qualifications.
Democrats pushed back against Haaland’s treatment and questioned if attempts to block her nomination are motivated by something other than her record. Former U.S. Sens. and cousins Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Udall of Colorado said Haaland “should be afforded the same respect and deference” as other nominees.
The hearing, in which Haaland was grilled on oil and gas development, national parks and tribes, represented a cultural clash in how the Democrat and many Indigenous people view the world: Everything is intertwined and must exist in balance, preserving the environment for generations to come.
That was seen in Haaland’s
response when asked about her motivation to be Interior secretary. She recalled a story about Navajo Code Talkers in World War II who prioritized coming up with a word in their native language for “Mother Earth.”
“It’s difficult to not feel obligated to protect this land, and I feel that every Indigenous person in this country understands that,” she said.
That broader historical context is missing from Republican talking points against Haaland that instead simplify the debate to the battle between industry and environmentalists, said Dina Gilio-Whitaker, a lecturer in American Indian studies at California State University, San Marcos.
“There’s obviously a really huge conversation about how the land came to be the United States to begin with,” she said. “That’s the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about.”
Andrew Werk Jr., president of the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes on Montana’s Fort Belknap Reservation, said Republicans’ brusque treatment of Haaland was unfair to her and to Americans.
But he doesn’t see any racial bias in Daines’ actions for dismissing Haaland as a “radical,” only hardened partisanship.
“For all the reasons Sen. Daines opposes her, those are all the reasons we support her in Fort Belknap,” Werk said. “Our land is our identity, and as tribes we want to be good stewards and protect that.”