Jamal Khashoggi was on a barely concealed mission to dethrone Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the heir to the Saudi throne. He disseminated materials concerning Mohammed that were less than flattering and were instead lurid and gothic.

Some members of the Al Saud family, motivated by anger at the de-Wahabbization drive initiated by the crown prince in a country founded on the creed, ensured that the Washington Post columnist lived a comfortable li fe in exile. From Turkey and elsewhere, Khashoggi carried on a campaign to remove Crown Prince Mohammed from office (an outcome that would almost certainly cause his death or incarceration, as well).

Assuming that the lurid and gothic reports about the likely death of the Saudi dissident in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul are correct, this would be standard operating procedure for the Saudis in such situations. Given this, there seems to be more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the outrage that is erupting across the globe at what is almost certain to be the assassination of an individual who sought what in Washington is known as “man change,” or the removal of a particular leader through measures that cause death.

Had Khashoggi succeeded, the de-Wahabbization drive led by Mohammed would have collapsed. The same result would ensue were the present global outcry against the crown prince to succeed in its mission of driving him out of office, much to the glee of those members of the Al Sauds who seek the same outcome and who had used the Washington Post columnist as part of the group entrusted with bringing this about.

Certainly the killing of Khashoggi, assuming it took place, was horrible and deplorable. But that hundreds of thousands of innocents have died in wars launched by NATO during just the present century is equally a fact, as has been the rendition by the United States of several terror suspects to countries severely injurious to the health of those sent there through such processes.

©UPI