The SETA Foundation held a panel today in order to discuss the possible effect that the Jamal Khashoggi can have on the politics of the Middle East.

Moderated by Kemal Inat, Berdal Aral, Ferhat Unlu and Huseyin Alptekin were the three panellists.

Before starting the panel, Kemal Inat stated that there were three aspects to the Jamal Khashoggi case. A humanitarian aspect, regional and international politics aspect, and finally an aspect regarding Saudi Arabia’s domestic politics.

In terms of the geopolitical consequences, Inat underlined how the fact that the event took place in Istanbul could have the potential to reconstruct foreign policy with countries close to Turkey. Second, the fact that Jamal Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post automatically puts the U.S. in the frame, and thus event has given the opposition the opportunity to utilize Trump’s closeness with the Saudi regime in the upcoming mid-term elections. Finally, the fact that Saudi Arabia is the only prominent regime in the region that is supporting Israel, also brings a question as to whether this event will have the consequence of changing Israel’s place in the geopolitical spectrum.

Berdal Aral from Istanbul Medeniyet University approached the issue from a international and human rights law perspective.

He first began by informing the audience of diplomatic immunity, as this was an issue that has been laid on the table after the Saudi consulate general refused to allow Turkish authorities to search the consulate.

While he highlighted the immunity provided to diplomats, Aral highlighted that these diplomats, are by international law, “required to respect the rule of law in the hosting country and are forbidden from using the diplomatic missions for events apart from national policy.”

“The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is an extraordinary situation as it was committed in the consulate. It’s difficult to find such examples in history.”

This event also damaged Turkey. It was a “disrespect to its national sovereignty.”

“There is a violation of international law.”

Berdal Aral also emphasized how Saudi Arabia has tried to extend its use of force to a different country, which is why this event, the way it took place, the actors involved, and the consequences that will be drawn from it, “are nothing like the events we’ve seen before.”

Referring to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s call for the people involved in the murder to be held to account in Istanbul, Ardal explained that this was in Turkey’s right to request to do so. However, he also reminded the audience that not only will Saudi Arabia resist, but they also have to uplift the diplomatic immunity of the consulate workers in order for a judicial review to begin.

Echoing statements made by Berdal Aral, Ferhat Unlu, a journalist from Sabah, also highlighted how the Jamal Khashoggi case was different from previous ones.

“There have been many murders since the Cold War committed by intelligence services. However, this one is very different.”

“The Saudi officials didn’t even feel the need to provide fake ID to the people that flew here [to Istanbul] to commit the murder.”

Although there is no concrete evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder, Unlu stated how it’s extraordinary for people that can be described as the Prince’s “right-wing men” to commit such a crime without having their identities covered.

It’s clear that all members of the hit squad are close allies of MbS, and therefore how can we expect for this crime to be committed without the prior knowledge of the Saudi regime?

Observing the issue from an intelligence perspective, Unlu also underlined that the Director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, came to Turkey in order to see what evidence the Turkish authorities have. He also added that there are some background reports that state Haspel listened to the recording of the murder.

Finally touching upon the future of Saudi Arabia-US relations, Unlu stated how “Although Trump will not cancel arms trade deals, he has to accept that this was an infringement on human rights and therefore, we can expect changes in relations between the two countries.”

Huseyin Alptekin, a Professor of International Relations at Istanbul Sehir University tried to answer the following questions: “Why Turkey? Why now? Why Khashoggi? Why Saudi Arabia?”

In regards to the “why Turkey?” question, Alptekin highlighted that although relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia were not in crisis mode, they had deteriorated in the previous years due to certain disagreements between the two countries.

“The Middle East is not a number one priority for the U.S. anymore,” stated Alptekin, and therefore, Mohammed bin Salman and Saudi Arabia tried to take advantage of this space in regional politics.

Alptekin described MbS as someone “that needs to prove himself.” “Those before him didn’t have to prove themselves, because they already had this. However, the way MbS came to power was through some kind of coup. Let’s remember the Ritz Carlton event.”

Thus, Alptekin described MbS as having “power” but no “legitimacy.”

In general however, Alptekin observed the Jamal Khashoggi case as a “critical juncture.”

He stated that “although critical junctures do not tell us what happen next, they tell us that anything can happen.”

In this regard, Turkey’s stance on the Khashoggi case is an example of Ankara trying to expand its boundaries of what can happen. The Turkish government could have made deals with the Saudi and U.S. governments behind closed doors. However, it has displayed a consistent tactic and has been able to place this issue as number one on the international agenda.

Alptekin finished his words by stating that “Saudi Arabia will not be able to commit such an operation like this in Turkey again.”

World War I had begun following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, but the geopolitical reason behind the war traces back to the power competition among the European states in the late 19th-century. Even though Ferdinand’s assassination was a crystallization of the already-broken strategic balance within European politics, it unearthed the influence of geopolitics on international politics: The intensified geopolitical antagonism in the Balkans that took place back in the day constitutes a great example in that regard.

One hundred years later, this time in the Middle East, another example reveals the mentality behind geopolitics. The disappearance of the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, at the hands of Trump’s close ally, in the Saudi consulate general in Istanbul, displays the very nature of the violent geopolitics of the contemporary Middle East. The incident does not only expose the strategic rationality behind the brutal operation led by the MbS coalition but also underlines the competitive nature of regional geopolitics.

Competing narratives on the murder of Khashoggi

There have been two broad categories of competing narratives since Khashoggi’s first disappearance in the Saudi consulate. The first one revolves around the idea of fundamental human rights and freedom, for which killing a dissident journalist at the hand of a rogue apparatus of the Saudi regime constitutes the case. Contrary to the moral logic, the second narrative points out the reality of the geopolitics of the Middle East in general, and the geopolitics of Saudi Arabia in particular.

The latter is gradually becoming the main narrative and shaping our perception of the murder of Khashoggi. These two narratives enable us to understand the already-worsening political landscape in the Middle East. It is crucial to keep in mind that the region has a unique anarchical trajectory, and the ongoing legitimacy crisis of the existing international order shapes the very future of this region via geopolitics. Also, needless to say, the U.S. is an active influencer of the geopolitics in the Middle East.

The U.S. narrative regarding the disappearance of Khashoggi depicts the Trump administration’s complicated relationship with the Middle East. It is widely accepted that the U.S. is a liberal democracy, in which the rule of law, the freedom of speech and free market economy are at the center. This perception might be partly true within the borders of the U.S., but it does not play into reality abroad. The U.S. had never been a real proponent of ideal liberal democracy in shaping its foreign policy priorities abroad, especially in the Middle East. More importantly, the existing U.S. strategy in the Middle East constitutes the most troubling strategic obstacle preventing the achievement of a stable order in the region.

In other words, the U.S. itself is undermining the potential of establishing a stable region in the Middle East. The intention here is not to argue that without the U.S., the Middle East region would overcome its issues overnight. The U.S.’s Middle East grand strategy is only achievable through rogue actors that have no perception of universal values. From the PKK to Saudi Arabia and from Israel to the UAE and Egypt, the U.S. can only deliver its strategic objectives through rouge entities or regimes, who are also incapable of delivering their own grand strategies without the support of the U.S. in the region. It is no secret that, in every single incident, the Trump administration stands by the rogue regime or entity at stake.

The Khashoggi murder is no exception for the U.S.

Regarding the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, however, the U.S. embraced two different narratives simultaneously. The mainstream media, particularly the Washington Post, where Jamal Khashoggi contributed as a columnist, disseminated the intelligence information shared by anonymous Turkish intelligence sources and pushed the Trump administration to take some responsibility to clarify whether his most popular ally, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, also known as MbS, has any responsibility behind the disappearance of Khashoggi.

While the media and some of high profile Republicans and Democrats frame the Khashoggi case within the context of American universal values, the Trump administration determined its strategy in line with its arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the containment strategy of Iran, the fragile balance of power in the Gulf region, and the U.S.-Israel master plan on Palestine. However, Turkey’s cautious approach gradually pushed Saudi Arabia to accept its responsibility, and the Trump administration had to change its ways of framing the issue.

Here, the problem for the Trump administration is not the action of the Crown Prince against a dissident journalist, but it is the intelligence information shared by Turkey.

At this stage, if Trump decides to retreat MbS because of his brutality, which is unlikely to happen, it will not be a decision of American liberal principles, but a decision motivated by the increasing unpredictability of MbS’s actions in the Middle East.

Turkey and the Khashoggi murder

When it comes to Turkey, besides the moral aspect of the Khashoggi murder, the mentality of geopolitics is also a determining factor not only in understanding the nature of Khashoggi’s death but also in determining Ankara’s foreign policy agenda. From the geopolitical angle, Turkey did not initially want to disrupt its relationship with the Saudi state but desired to influence Saudi’s anti-Turkey position in the region. During the first stage of the disappearance of Khashoggi, Ankara decided to provide details about Khashoggi’s killing at the Saudi consulate to shape the perception of international media to test the waters. This stage was crucial for Ankara to locate the Khashoggi murder as an international issue rather than formulating it as a Turkish-Saudi problem.

More importantly, Ankara pushed the Trump administration to take a leading role in addressing the issue to confront Saudi Arabia. The central rationality behind Ankara’s behavior was to create an international moral awareness to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and push the Saudi authorities to accept the crime that they committed. It was clear for Turkey that Saudi Arabia would not accept its responsibility if Turkey had not gradually shared the intelligence information with the international media.

In the second stage, Ankara started to intensify its intelligence sharing to ultimately show that Saudi Arabia had the responsibility in organizing every single stage of the Khashoggi operation. Following the 17 days of intelligence sharing by Turkey, Saudi Arabia had to confirm that something went wrong during the interrogation of Khashoggi in the consulate. During this stage, Saudi Arabia quickly became an international flashlight as international actors began to change their attitudes against MbS.

In the third stage, President Erdogan himself began to lead the process by sharing his perception with the international audience. On Tuesday, President Erdogan gave a very detailed timeline explaining that the Saudi team planned the brutal killing of Khashoggi. In his speech, Erdogan did not directly accuse the Saudi leadership but highlighted that a Saudi probe, which has resulted in the arrest of 18 people so far, has not yet reached the high-level representatives in the Kingdom’s inner circle.

It is clear that Ankara has a moral duty to clarify what happened in the consulate as well as various geopolitical concerns. Within this context, underlying the role of MbS in Saudi politics carries a critical role in explaining the geopolitical dimension of Khashoggi’s murder. For Turkey, there is profound geopolitical disagreement between Ankara and Riyadh regarding regional affairs.

While Saudi Arabia’s support of the U.S. strategy towards the PYD/YPG in Syria is an essential one for Turkey, MbS’s role in the Palestinian case demonstrates another issue, in which Saudis seem to be an integral part of a long-term U.S.-Israel strategy to redesign the region. Qatar is also a critical disagreement point in Turkish-Saudi relations. From Libya to Yemen, Turkey and Saudi Arabia compete with each other.

President Erdogan intentionally highlighted in his speech the difference between the King of Saudi, Selman and politically responsible name behind the murder by saying that the killing was premeditated. At this stage, Turkey is trying to carry out its position one step forward to weaken the legitimacy of MbS internationally and to deter Saudi Arabia’s anti-Turkish geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East. The intelligence knowledge that Turkey has can also shift the U.S. position against MbS.

Khashoggi’s murder revealed the complex nature of geopolitics in the region, but how it is going to influence the future of the region remains a big question mark.

The international agenda has recently been occupied with the brutal murder of the Jamal Khashoggi who was last seen on 2 October before entering into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made his first public appearance in regards to this issue. But before observing what the President said, let’s recap what happened to the journalist:

A day before Khashoggi’s entrance to the consulate (1 October) a group of men from Saudi Arabia flew to Istanbul. A group of 15 people – the hit squad – came in 3 groups. Two groups of three traveled together and the last, and most important group of 9 people, came with a private jet to Ataturk airport.

After going to their hotels, they then visited the consulate.

On the day of the murder, this group of 15 men all arrive at the consulate between 9:50 and 11 am. Khashoggi is called at 11:50am to remind him of his appointment. And finally, Khashoggi arrives at 13:08.

After he entered the consulate, the prominent Saudi journalist did not leave.

At first, after his fiancée had informed Turkish authorities, the Saudi regime claimed that Khashoggi had left, but that they couldn’t provide evidence because the hard disk of the camera system was faulty. [According to President Erdogan’s remarks, the hard disk was removed by the hit squad].

Turkish authorities immediately began an investigation into the issue. However, Saudi officials did not allow for the consulate general to be searched immediately. The consulate general was only allowed to be searched after a couple of days.

After the investigation was launched various reports and intelligence that was gathered by the Turkish authorities were released to the press. It became evident that Khashoggi had been brutally murdered by the hit squad that came from Saudi Arabia.

The brutal murder of Khashoggi took place in front of and in the general consul’s room.

Only recently did it become clear that Saudi al-Qahtani, who was recently dismissed as senior adviser to the Saudi royal court last week, hurdled insults at Khashoggi before giving the heads up to the group of men that were sent for Khashoggi’s murder.

Qahtani ran social media for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and masterminded the arrests of hundreds of his country’s elite.

After their first explanation that Khashoggi had left the consulate, the Saudi regime then switched to accepting that Khashoggi had been murdered. However, the official statement read that it was an accident and that he was killed in a fight at the consulate.

Nor Turkey, nor the international community, accepted this as an explanation. However, the Saudi regime went further and extended their condolences to the family of Jamal Khashoggi – trying to make it seem that the Saudi regime had nothing to do with the murder at all.

Today, President Erdogan publicly tore the Saudi regime apart, and insisted that they tell the international community the truth and hold those responsible for the event to account.

After providing a timeline of events that occurred, Erdogan explained that he had two phone calls with Saudi King Salman, and it’s the second one that’s the most important –

Erdogan explained that King Salman had informed him that the 15 people who flew to Turkey to conduct the murder and 3 other individuals involved had been arrested in Saudi Arabia. The President highlighted that these arrests were important in terms of accepting that a horrendous crime had been committed.

The President also touched on the Vienna Convention that provides diplomatic immunity. Citing this document as an obstacle for Turkish authorities to officially question Saudi consulate workers, the President suggested for this Convention to be put on the table in order for states not to “brush crimes under the carpet” in the name of the Vienna Convention.

While saying that the President was confident with King Salman’s approach, Erdogan made no reference to Mohammed bin Salman – who is suggested to be at the very top of this murder.

Thus, Erdogan’s speech was very important in the sense that the President required for questions to be answered in order for the case to reach an explanation.

“Why did the murder take place in Istanbul? Who did these people get their orders from? Why didn’t they allow for the consulate to be searched straight away? We’re looking for answers. Why did the Saudi regime make so many contradictory statements? Where are the remains of Khashoggi if his murder is accepted?”

“You should all be re-assured that without answers to these questions, no one assume that we will let go of the issue.”

President Erdogan finished his speech by stating, “Blaming a couple of security officers for an event like this will not satisfy us or the international community.” Many have interpreted this as Erdogan suggesting that someone at the top of the Saudi regime had ordered Khashoggi’s death.

Last, by making a call to the Saudi officials, President Erdogan stated that “since the murder took place in Istanbul, I suggest for the 15+3 people who are currently arrested in Saudi Arabia to be held to account in Istanbul.”

1. How should the developments in Saudi Arabia be read?

Right after the formation of the “anti-corruption commission” on November 4 under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Selman, there were shocking news about numerous arrests occurring in Saudi Arabia. As part of the anti-corruption effort, dozens of princes and businessmen along with high-ranking military officials were detained and their assets were frozen. The cabinet was renewed, while new force commanders were appointed. Many scholars were also arrested in a similar fashion in the past few days. All of these occurred in synchronization with the extermination of a ballistic missile originating from Yemen, which had Riyadh as its target. In parallel with the high-level transformation in the kingdom, it is possible to assert that the arrests are more about eradicating domestic opposition rather than a so-called anti-corruption effort. Of course, in terms of legitimacy, using the well-known corruption card as an excuse for these arrests is a reasonable move. Therefore, we can read large scale anti-corruption operations targeting Saudi Arabia’s high-level administration and the discourse on transitioning to “moderate Islam” as a reflection of domestic consolidation in effort to form a more inclusive coalition.

2. Is domestic politics being redesigned for the new king?

Since the day he ascended the throne, King Selman has taken decisions and steps towards reforms. After the dismissal of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and appointment of his son Mohammed bin Selman, these steps became more about power, most of which were targeting powerhouses within the royal family and the status quo of the dynasty.

Detention of Prince Turki bin Abdullah (Governor of Riyadh) and Prince Miteb bin Abdullah (Saudi Arabian National Guard), both of whom are sons of the late King Abdullah, is a crucial move. Presence of various powerhouses within the dynasty was causing disparate alliances to emerge. These alliances were usually formed with the maternal tribe. It seems that preparations of a new era in Saudi Arabia is underway. To eradicate old structures and systems, powerhouses are being put in order one-by-one. While scholars were the first to be intimidated, now the focus has shifted towards the dynasty, business world, the media and bureaucracy. Wahhabi scholars, thus the Sheiks family’s position will be decisive in this matter. Currently, the royal family is enjoying full support from them. Therefore, preemptive initiatives aiming to eliminate the emergence of encumbrances in domestic politics when the new king ascends to the throne are at play.

3. What is the impact of the regional conjuncture in all these changes?

The Iraqi Central Government’s capture of Kirkuk and other disputed territories together with Hashd al-Shaabi consolidated Iran’s influence in Iraq. Moreover, with the Astana process, the initiative in Syria has fallen completely to Turkey, Iran and Russia. Despite all efforts, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were unsuccessful against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Therefore, the need to form a more powerful coalition to counterbalance Iran’s influence over Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen arose. It could be asserted that the Trump administration and Israel have also taken a more active role in this matter. With the encouragement of the US, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Selman has taken the initiative to form a more effective coalition. In this respect, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s visit to Riyadh at the end of October was an important development for the Iraqi Central Government, which has been under the influence of Tehran for many years. When considered together with the recent efforts to improve Saudi-Israeli relations, it becomes clear that formation of a powerful coalition lead by Saudi Arabia is being sought in order to counterbalance Iran. Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s visit to Saudi Arabia twice in the previous week, which was followed by his resignation with the pretext that his life was in danger, was also a prominent development. Here, the targets were Iran and Hezbollah, and the increasing influence of these two actors in Lebanon and Syria. This move was followed by the ballistic missile launched from Yemen, targeting the capital of Saudi Arabia. All of these developments are seen as a sign of an extensive military intervention aiming to limit Iran’s influence over the region.

4. What awaits the region in the near future?

If the alliance is successfully formed, these events will most likely lead to a regional war. Saudi Arabia’s military expenditure in the recent years gives the impression that the country is preparing for a war. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Selman’s ventures to improve cooperation with the Trump administration has consolidated Saudi Arabia’s stake at taking the lead. This effort is also being supported by the US and Israel. Isolation policy towards Qatar was an attempt to force the country into becoming part of this alliance. However, Saudi Arabia’s greatest weakness is its domestic frailty. Not being able to produce a more inclusive discourse in the Sunni world is another handicap. Nevertheless, detention of influential princes and businessmen aims to consolidate the political power of the current government along with intimidating oppositional princes.

5. What should Turkey’s position be?

Instead of directly taking sides in this tension, Turkey could focus on its own security interests. Eradication of the PKK/PYD, located at the southern border of Turkey and the north of Syria, is Turkey’s priority and steps are being taken to achieve this end. Turkey could attempt to diplomatically intermediate this crisis, as antagonism among the countries of the region expands the influence of non-regional actors and opens more space for terrorist organizations. Preventing tensions that will create a power vacuum should be Turkey’s top priority. If needs be, taking a proactive role, Turkey has to prevent crises that could have a direct impact on the country. Increased moderation in Saudi Arabia is beneficial for Turkey, only if it is completely domestic and not backed by foreign actors. Turkey could think about improving relations with Saudi officials, and therefore have a direct impact on these reforms. However, being a party in tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia does not overlap with Turkey’s interests; cooperation and coordination with Iran is needed to delimit the PKK in Iraq and Syria. This cooperation with Iran should not be thought as a full-fledged alliance, as there are many fields, notably security of the Gulf and bilateral relations, which also require close cooperation with the Riyadh administration. Turkey should therefore seek ways to masterfully maintain this fragile balance.

For the first time in recent Saudi history a number of ministers were sacked and 11 princes were arrested during the mid-night raids on Sunday – just another surprise by the young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a bid to consolidate his powers.

The move is said to be triggered by a new anti-corruption committee. Though without any legal charges, the given reason for this move was a clampdown on corruption.

The arrested and sacked include some of the most prominent businessmen and ministers of the family such as Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a billionaire who owns an investment firm, Kingdom Holding. Prince Al-Waleed is the 50th-richest person in the world, with a $19 billion fortune according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He has investments in international companies including Citigroup Inc and Apple Inc. He bought his own A380 superjumbo jet in 2007, planning to kit it out as a “flying palace.” He was a vocal critic of Donald Trump during the US presidential election last year. A minister Prince Mitaab bin Abdullah, the head of the National Guard, and Adel Faqih, the economy minister, include the bunch of sacked ministers. Fahad al-Ghafli replaced Abdullah al-Sultan as commander of the Saudi navy.

The move and the current circumstances can have unprecedented implications for Saudi Arabia and the wider Middle Eastern region as it coincides with the many events: first, resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Hariri cited Iranian meddling in Lebanese internal affairs as reason for his resignation, which drew a strong reaction from Iran and Lebanese pro-Iran militia group, Hezbollah. Second, an airport in Riyadh was targeted by Yemeni Houthi rebels, who are backed by Iran. According to the Saudi Ministry of Defense, the missile was intercepted over northeast Riyadh. Saudi Arabia, while accusing Iran for the Houthi missile attack, described it as a potential “act of war.”

Amid the heightening crisis in Saudi Arabia’s neighborhood, war in Yemen where Saudi Arabia has been involved for the past two years, and the Syrian civil war where Assad, backed by Iran, is gaining back his ground, this high-profile crackdown has triggered a series of speculations about Saudi Arabia’s internal stability.

Many of the conservatives in the kingdom see the 32-year-old prince’s liberal policies as counter to their traditional Islamic ideology of Wahhabism, which so far has been the state ideology. A number of conservatives and clerics, who till now wielded immense power, have reportedly been told to remain quite.

Helicopter crash Kills deputy Governor

Meanwhile in an unelaborated incident Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, along with seven others, died in a helicopter crash in the southern province of Asir. Mansour was the son of Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, a former intelligence service director and a one-time crown prince of the kingdom. Prince Muqrin was removed as crown prince in April 2015 by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to install Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, a counterterrorism head and interior minister.