The 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi continues to cast a long shadow over relations between Riyadh and Washington. Nearly three years after his murder inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, a declassified US intelligence report has officially confirmed what many long suspected: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) approved the operation.
As the Biden administration attempts to recalibrate its relationship with this key Middle Eastern ally, former US President Donald Trump has entered the debate, offering a starkly different perspective. Trump’s response highlights the fundamental tension in American foreign policy between moral accountability and strategic necessity.
US Intelligence Report: MBS ‘Approved’ Khashoggi Killing
The report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was unequivocal. “We assess that Saudi Arabia‘s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” it stated.
This conclusion was based on several key factors:
* The Crown Prince’s absolute control over the kingdom’s security and intelligence apparatus.
* The direct involvement of a key MBS advisor and members of his personal protective detail.
* The Crown Prince’s established support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad.
In response, the Biden administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions on dozens of Saudi officials under a new “Khashoggi Ban.” However, it stopped short of sanctioning the Crown Prince himself, a move that drew criticism for not holding the kingdom’s de facto ruler directly accountable.
Trump’s Response: Defending the US-Saudi Alliance
Donald Trump’s reaction to the report was characteristically blunt and consistent with his approach while in office. In interviews, he questioned the certainty of the intelligence and defended his own handling of the crisis, which prioritized preserving the US-Saudi alliance above all else.
Trump’s argument, both then and now, is rooted in transactional geopolitics. He has repeatedly highlighted massive arms deals worth billions and Saudi Arabia‘s role as a strategic counterweight to Iran. From his perspective, punishing the Saudi Crown Prince too harshly would jeopardize American jobs, destabilize a critical partner, and potentially push Riyadh closer to rivals like Russia and China.
“I saved his ass,” Trump reportedly told author Bob Woodward, a sentiment he has effectively reiterated. He argues that he protected American interests by forcing the Saudis to “pay” in other ways, without severing a critical relationship. This reveals the core dilemma Washington faces with Riyadh: is it more important to uphold human rights values or to protect strategic interests? Trump’s answer was clear: the alliance came first.
Geopolitical Fallout: A Dilemma for Global Partners
For nations like India, this divergence is more than just American political theatre. New Delhi maintains a robust and growing partnership with both the United States and Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is a vital source of India’s energy, a major employer of its expatriate workforce, and an increasingly important investment partner.
The official US condemnation of the future Saudi king puts partners in a delicate position. While the details of the Jamal Khashoggi killing are a grave concern, foreign policy is often dictated by national interest. The episode is a potent reminder that international relations are a frequent tightrope walk between values and necessities. The intelligence report may have answered who was responsible, but as Trump’s response shows, the debate over what comes next is far from over.
