-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
}}}>Begin
Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
January 23, 2002
THE WAR AGAINST THE SAUDIS
What's behind Washington's split with Riyadh?
Washington is all atwitter over what appears to be a sea-change on
the foreign policy front: evidence of a developing rift between the
US and Saudi Arabia, its most loyal Arab ally. Since World War II,
Washington and the House of Saud have enjoyed a lucrative and
seemingly permanent alliance, in which the former provided protection
against enemies at home and abroad, while the latter provided a
steady stream of oil profits for politically-favored American
companies. The US went to war against Iraq, in 1991, and stationed
close to half a million US troops on the Arabian peninsula,
supposedly to protect Riyadh from a threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Now, it appears, the events of September 11 have produced a split in
this formerly rock-solid relationship, with talk of an impending
Saudi demand for a US withdrawal. The Washington Post reports that
"Saudi Arabia's rulers are increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S.
military presence in their country and may soon ask that it end �.
Senior Saudi rulers believe the United States has 'overstayed its
welcome.'"
DEMOCRATS TAKE THE LEAD
The response to this has been fierce, and Congressional Democrats have been
particularly bellicose, with Senator Joseph Lieberman, a putative presidential
contender, going so far as to declare that a "theological iron cur
tain" was falling over the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. Senator Carl Levin
(D-Michigan), powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took up this
"cold war" theme with some particularly hot rhetoric,
saying he had "an uneasy feeling" that the Saudis were coddling Islamic terrorists and
that American forces were "not particularly wanted" there:
"They act as though somehow or another they're doing us a favor. And I think the war
against terrorism has got to be fought by countries who really realize that it's in
everybody's interest to go after terrorism. I think
we may be able to find a place where we are much more welcome openly, a place which
has not seen significant resources flowing to support some really extreme, fanatic
views."
Levin and Lieberman were joined by Rep. Ike Skelton, top Democrat on the House Armed
Services Committee, who averred that the Saudis "need to cleanse the place of
potential terrorist groups."
'FORBIDDEN TRUTH'
This fusillade comes as the climax of a furious post-9/11 anti-Saudi propaganda
campaign that has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. From noting that most of the
alleged hijackers were identified as Saudi nationals to s
creaming headlines about a dispute between a visiting Saudi princess and her maid, the
anti-Saudi jihad has become an intellectual paradigm for the theoreticians of a new
cold war. Neoconservative ideologues such as Danie
l Pipes and Stephen Schwartz, see Wahabism as the totalitarian flavor of the new
millennium, just as the varieties of socialism (Stalinism and Nazism) were the scourge
of the twentieth century. This view has been populari
zed � indeed, one might say novelized � by a new book, written and published inside of
a few weeks, Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth, by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume
Dasquie, described by the Los Angeles Times as
"A dense, conspiracy-minded portrait of Saudi-dominated banks, companies and tycoons,
all allegedly interconnected, that they maintain have helped fund Bin Laden's holy
war."
THE APOSTATES
This Saudi-devil theory, which posits that we ought to have bombed Riyadh in addition
to Kabul, is senseless if we compare it with the facts. For Bin Laden is an avowed
enemy of the House of Saud, and is pledged to their
overthrow. As Peter L. Bergen points out in Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World Of
Osama bin Laden:
"Bin Laden also believed the House of al-Saud, the family that has ruled Arabia for
generations, were 'apostates' from Islam. Apostasy is a grave charge to level against
the Saudi royal family, who style themselves the pr
otectors of the two holiest places in Islam, Mecca and Medina, and practice the most
traditional form of Sunni Islam."
In addition Bergen relays the charge of Khaled al-Fawwaz, an Al Qaeda sympathizer who
helped arrange Bergen's interview with Bin Laden, that "several assassination attempts
have been mounted against [Bin Laden] by Saudi i
ntelligence services." Al Qaeda's holy war against the US military presence on the
Arabian peninsula makes a particular target of those who invited the Americans in �
the House of Saud.
THE MARLARKEY FACTOR
Brisard and Dasquie basically say that the Americans let 9/11 happen because of a
"softness" on the Saudis on account of the influence of Big Oil in American politics.
This is what supposedly motivated the Bushies to ente
r into secret negotiations with Bin Laden prior to September 11. The popularity of the
Brisard-Dasquie book in France is understandable, as it blames the Americans for the
disaster that befell them, but the lesson really
ought to stand for the Europeans as well, says M. Dasquie:
"The U.S. is not the only one. The question is why developed countries need to do
commercial deals with Saudi Arabia and if those commercial deals are why they must
close their eyes about the reality of the Saudi Arabian
kingdom. Since the 18th century, Saudi Arabia has been focused on conquering the
world."
Such an overweening ambition would be difficult to hide, but isn't it funny how nobody
ever noticed it before? And another thing: this "forbidden truth" theory being a lot
of marlarkey, what, then, is the real reason for
the anti-Saudi propaganda campaign, so ably and relentlessly conducted by a broad
coalition of neoconservatives (the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New York Post) and
liberal Democrats (Lieberman, Levin, the New Republi
c)?
TARGET: BUSH I
The interest of congressional Democrats in the "Forbidden Truth" thesis is
understandable, especially if they can make the charge of "secret negotiations" stick.
If the Bush administration was not only "soft" on terrorism
but even somehow protected their Saudi allies from scrutiny by law enforcement
agencies, then who benefits? The Bush family, long tied to the Saudis, is fair game
once the "Forbidden Truth" conspiracy theory becomes the
conventional wisdom: George Herbert Walker Bush, reviled by some for his pro-"Arabist"
policies, is the particular target of this left-wing hate campaign.
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
The neocons, no friends of Bush pere, also have much to gain. They blame the father
for not "finishing the job" and concluding the Gulf war prematurely, even as they
exhort and try to shame the son into a military confron
tation not only with Iraq, but with nearly the entire Islamic world. Weekly Standard
editor Bill Kristol didn't waste much time after 9/11, quickly mobilizing a phalanx of
intellectuals and other policy wonks calling for
an all-out invasion of a whole list of Arab nations: not only Iraq, but also Iran and
Syria � and I'm sure none of the signers would object to the addition of Saudi Arabia.
Okay, so at least two groups of ideologues � and I can think of a few more � on the
right and the left have some interest in propagating the "Forbidden Truth" scenario,
but, by themselves, these people are just a bunch of
writers, policy wonks, and political hacks, without the resources to do anything but
bloviate. The real power � that is, the money power � behind the anti-Saudi campaign
are the same financial interests that have profite
d from the Saudi-US alliance lo these many years: the Rockefeller family, the
controlling factor in the Arabian-American Oil Co., Aramco. And therein lies a story�.
THE ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION
In return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King Ibn Saud granted Aramco a
monopoly over the production of Saudi oil at the end of World War II. Aramco is a
consortium of companies, with Exxon, Mobil, and Soca
l � all Rockefeller-connected � granted 70 percent ownership, and Texaco granted the
rest. A premier example of crony capitalism, the Rockefeller-Saudi alliance translated
into multi-millions in subsidies through the Expo
rt-Import Bank, so that the King could build his own personal railroad from his
capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took money out of the war budget to
prepare the way for Rockefeller's pipelines. In return,
the Saudis granted the US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil fields.
Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to protect their property, but the
big boys � or, at least, some of them � have the use
of the American military.
AN ENDURING ALLIANCE
The Saudi-Aramco relationship has endured a lot. There was a phony "nationalization"
of Aramco in the 1970s, when Nasserite and Baathist socialism were all the rage on the
Arab "street": the Saudi government took over Ara
mco, formally, but then immediately turned around and granted the Aramco-Rockefeller
consortium the exclusive contract to "manage" the operation. Under this new deal, the
consortium would get the lion's share of Saudi oil
, with the rest going to Petromin, the state- owned company. As Murray N. Rothbard
succinctly summed it up:
"It all boils down to a happy case of the 'partnership of industry and government' �
happy, that is, for the Saud family and for the Rockefeller oil interests."
TURNING ON A DIME
This was the rock upon which the US-Saudi alliance was founded, and anyone who
questioned the necessity, wisdom, or cost of this friendship � let alone calling for a
US withdrawal � was roundly denounced as a foolish "iso
lationist." Now, the same people who hailed the Gulf war and the imperative of
defending the Saudi oil fields, have turned on a dime, and are not only calling the
historic friendship into question, but openly wondering if
the Saudis are enemies.
How to explain this sudden about-face by the chattering classes, the political mavens,
and now a growing number of mostly Democratic politicians? I say � follow the money!
Oh, but "everything's changed!," they cry. How can you be so cynical? Don't you know
that skepticism is out and earnestness is in? Be that as it may, I can only report the
facts as I see them, and what I can tell you is t
hat everything changed well before September 11, 2001, as far as the Rockefeller oil
interests in Saudi Arabia were concerned.
TURNING POINT
The pivotal event occurred without much public notice, on September 23, 1998, during
Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to the US, where he met with the presidents of the major
US oil companies, "with whom he exchanged cordial
talks and reviewed issues pertaining to petroleum affairs," as the Saudi embassy
website delicately phrases it. But the reality lurking beneath the veneer of
diplomatic phrases was a lot rougher: according to widespread
reports in the Arab media, the Prince basically told the Aramco consortium that their
monopolistic state-privileged status was about to be revoked. A very interesting piece
by Adel Darwish in the Middle East Analyst purpo
rts to give us the inside scoop on the Prince's message to this gathering:
"During a private, hour-long meeting on Saturday 23 September at the house of Saudi
Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan in McLean, Virginia, with senior executives
representing seven American oil companies: The four Ameri
can oil giants Mobil Corp, Exxon Corp, Texaco Inc. and Chevron Corp. (which
established the Arabian American Oil Co now known as Saudi Aramco, in the 1930s) the
other three were Atlantic Richfield Co., Conoco Inc. and Phi
llips Petroleum Co.
"According to sources close to the meeting, [the] Prince [told] the executives to
submit directly to him a study of 'recommendations and suggestions' about the role
their companies could play in the exploration and develo
pment of both existing and new oil gas fields, said one participant in the meeting.
The same source said that the executives appeared 'shocked' by the major policy
reversal. Saudi Arabia began nationalizing its oil indust
ry in 1973 and has adamantly excluded foreign oil companies from production operations
ever since."
SHOCKWAVES
Adamantly excluded but for the Aramco consortium, that is � until now. Abdullah, the
heir apparent to the invalid King Fahd, is a modernizer who has decided that it's time
to throw open the doors of free competition and l
et the free market take over. The deal was off. The Rockefeller stranglehold on Saudi
oil production was about to end, announced the Prince, and this surely sent waves of
shock through his audience. Indeed, the shockwaves
are still being felt today, as the US ponders not only withdrawing its troops from
the Saudi kingdom, but whether our longtime ally is really our deadly enemy.
ABDULLAH TO ARAMCO: 'THE PARTY'S OVER'
The Saudis, usually close-mouthed about business matters and subtle policy shifts,
were more than forthcoming in broadcasting their declaration of independence. Prince
Abdullah went to the trouble of granting an unusual i
nterview, in which he said exactly what happened at that historic meeting:
"In 1998 I had a chance to meet with a number of executives from major oil companies.
We had discussed the investment opportunities in the Kingdom especially in light of
its stability and the availability of huge oil and
gas reserves. I had indicated to them, at that time, that we welcome, and we will be
willing to look into, any investment ideas that might be of benefit to both sides."
THE SAUDIS AND THE 'SILK ROAD'
Abdullah's vision of a modernized Saudi Arabia is to be financed by a new arrangement
with Western oil companies, and an opening up of the Saudi economy to competitive
foreign investment. He boasted of receiving proposals
"from 18 of the top oil companies in the world" worth a total exceeding one hundred
billion dollars and ranging from "production, processing, transporting and
distributing of gas to refining, transporting and marketing o
f oil and building the required infrastructure." The Prince went on to politely but
firmly declare his defiance:
"All this will take us a long way towards the creation of a solid and integrated
economy that realizes the full economic potentials of the oil and gas industry and
will open new and wide investment opportunities for the S
audi private sector. And it is important to keep in mind that money invested in
projects in Saudi Arabia means less money available for investment in competing
projects elsewhere."
TWO CAN PLAY
A very interesting comment, that last: what are these "competing projects"? This is
none other than the Transcaucasian "Silk Road" pipeline project, slated to extend from
the Caspian Sea oilfields to Turkey, and perhaps d
own through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. This project has long been on the drawing
boards, and the Clinton administration took it up with alacrity, even going so far as
to set up a special department to facilitate its
creation. If the foreign oil companies were going to try to go around them, said the
Prince in so many words, then two could play that game:
Q: "Your Royal Highness what about Saudi Aramco? Will it assume a new role following
the formation of the council and the invitation of the international oil companies?"
A: "We are proud of Aramco's achievements through the years and our dealings with
foreign companies will never be at the expense of Aramco. I believe the presence of
these companies will strengthen Aramco and sharpen its
competitive edge. Aramco, has, I believe, the administrative and technical expertise
and know-how that enable it to compete effectively with these companies."
FREE MARKET ECONOMICS 101
With the price of oil steadily falling, Abdullah is strapped for cash. Darwish cites
Yehya Sadowski, associate professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies, who says the Saudi
s exhausted their capital assets paying off the US for the cost of the Gulf War. Faced
with the looming prospect of bankruptcy, and increasing competition in the oil market
from South America and Central Asian states of t
he former Soviet Union, Abdullah's choice was made out of necessity: the alternative
is continued stagnation and the indefinite postponement of modernization.
In any case, the glee with which the heir presumptive to the Saudi throne delivered a
lecture on free market economics to the leading capitalists of the West should be
shared and appreciated by free marketeers everywhere.
A LESSON LEARNED
In spite of the Prince's reassurances that the Rockefellers would get their fair share
� and no more � it is doubtful that the assembled Aramco executives were all that
appreciative of the little lesson in Economics 101.
Their great unhappiness is what is really driving this anti-Saudi hysteria. Oh, you've
got to modernize, say the globalist policy wonks, you've just got to open your
borders to free trade and open up your markets to free
competition: let the market rule! This is the advice routinely given, but, when it is
finally taken, the reaction is a concerted campaign of calumny and vilification.
ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE
After years of close military cooperation between the two countries, a female pilot
pops up who objects to settled rules on proper attire while serving in the Saudi
kingdom � and becomes a feminist icon overnight. All of
a sudden, we hear from Andrew Sullivan about the persecution of homosexuals under the
strictures of Sharia law, a cause that somehow previously escaped his attention.
Virtually overnight it is discovered by all sorts of i
nstant "experts" that Wahabism, the official state religion of our longstanding ally,
is the equivalent of Nazism if not outright devil-worship. That this sudden awakening
to the alleged "Saudi threat" occurred in tandem
with the Rockefeller's acrimonious (and costly) break with the House of Saud is, of
course, the purest coincidence.
THE NEW COLD WAR
A number of public figures have weighed in on this potentially explosive issue: Bill
Clinton warned against the withdrawal of US troops from the region (surely an argument
in favor), while Neil Bush urged the Saudis to ma
ke a better case for themselves. But the momentum is all the other way, and, while the
administration is denying that any withdrawal is being contemplated, clearly the Bush
people are speaking only for themselves. For if
and when Abdullah asks the US to set a departure date, this is sure to set off a new
round of renewed Saudi-bashing, one that the new cold warriors look forward to with
gusto � and which the rest of us have good reason to
fear.
A GREAT DANGER
The dissolution of the Rockefeller oil monopoly, and the creation of a truly
independent Saudi Arabia, with freer markets and without the burden of justifying the
presence of foreign troops on its soil, will strengthen th
e forces of modernization and expand the margins of freedom in the Middle East. That
is why the withdrawal of US forces would be a giant step forward in defeating the Bin
Ladens of this world. It is a divorce that will be
nefit both: however, all divorces contain some bitterness, no matter how outwardly
amicable, and it is going to be all too easy for the War Party to segue straight into
an adversarial relationship with our former ally. An
d therein lies a great danger.
THIRSTY FOR BLOOD
With Max Boot of the War Street Journal complaining about the paucity of American
casualties in Afghanistan, clearly our bloodthirsty hawks were disappointed in the
brevity of the Afghan campaign, and yearn for more. The
same arguments made by the warhawks of National Review for an invasion of Iraq could
be applied with even more force to an alleged "threat" from Riyadh. As our foreign
policy tends inexorably toward an all-out assault on
the entire Arab world, the Saudis will take the place of the Soviets in the demonology
of the new cold war � at least that is the hope in certain quarters.
THE VENTRILOQUISTS
When Crown Prince Abdullah called off his sweetheart deal with Aramco, he incurred the
wrath of some very powerful people, and it was only natural that they would seek
revenge. Speaking through Jeff Jacoby � in an act of
ventriloquism that no doubt had the dummy-columnist's full cooperation � the
Aramco-Rockefeller consortium delivered this "ultimatum" to their former business
partners:
"We would make it clear to the Saudi princes that we expect their full cooperation no
matter where the war on terrorism takes us. And if it takes us to a land war in Iraq,
Saudi Arabia will make its military bases availab
le for staging the invasion.
"Will the Saudis refuse? Will they protest that complying with our demands will mean
the toppling of their regime? Either way, our course will be clear: We will seize and
secure the oil fields."
How convenient.
"But our purpose would not be plunder."
Oh, of course not!
"We would appoint a respected, pro-Western Muslim ally to run the oil industry in
trust for the Muslim world."
I imagine Aramco has a few suggestions.
"No longer would the petro-wealth of Arabia be used to advance Islamist fanaticism and
terror � or to maintain a decadent royal family in corrupt opulence. It would be used,
rather, to promote education, health, and democ
racy throughout the Middle East."
� and to fill the coffers of the Rockefellers and their corporate allies, who won't
allow the prize of oil- rich Araby to escape their grasp quite so readily.
"The Gulf's great riches, now a well spring of disorder and unrest, could be
transformed into a force for decency, stability, and peace."
The Gulf's great riches, in other words, will stay right where they are: securely
deposited in Armaco's bank account. So the revenge of the Rockefellers plays itself
out on the world stage: they'll retain their monopoly o
n the largest known oil reserves � one way or the other.
BUSH PAYS THE PRICE
So far, President Bush has made it plain that he does not mean to wage war on Islam,
and for that he is being made to pay a price. While his State Department is struggling
to undo the damage done by the anti-Saudi media a
nd the Lieberman-Levine assault in Congress, a grand coalition of left and right is
pushing for World War III in the Middle East � a war that, given the presence of
Pakistan and India (not to mention Israel) in the equati
on, could quickly go nuclear.
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian
Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed
with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need t
o fight the lies being put out by this administration and its allies in Congress. And
now, for a limited time, donors of $50 or more receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's
classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets
on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or Contribute Via our Secure Server
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
