Monday, July 16, 2012

Ramifications of Ziocon-Saudi Duplicity....

Center for Democracy and Human Rights In Saudi Arabia

By Ali Alyami

Coerced into living under the yoke of a monarchical tyranny since the formation of the Saudi state in 1932, many Saudis have been cowed into accepting this system of oppression as their divine fate, eradit Allah. Prior to WikiLeaks’ shocking publication of classified diplomatic cables between American diplomats in Saudi Arabia and their handlers in the State Department, the Saudi people may not have realized the full extent of their ruling family’s sinister nature. Via these documents the Saudi people learned that their “beloved” King Abdullah and his nephew Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal were covertly engaged in duplicitous schemes that would inexorably result in heavy loss of life and crippling damage to their oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia which provide the bulk of the country’s revenues. These dangerous Saudi schemes would also eventuate in far-reaching consequences.

The published WikiLeaks’ documents quoted King Abdullah pressuring President Obama to invade Iran and “cut off the head of the snake.” The dispatches also quoted Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, arguing for what would amount to US and other NATO forces invading Lebanon: “The U.S. and NATO would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as naval and air cover,” ostensibly to help a coordinated Arab ground invasion of Lebanon to crush Hezbollah. The Saudi monarchs know that such Saudi-instigated attacks by the US, most likely from Saudi territory, would result in the killing of many fellow Arabs and Muslims and would generate punishing retaliation by Iran and its supporters against the Saudi people and their oil rich Eastern Province, located within the range of Iranian guns. The stark revelations by WikiLeaks exposed the Saudi monarchy for what it is, a regime that will not hesitate to sacrifice its citizens’ lives and livelihood to maintain its autocratic rule at home and influence abroad.

For the autocratic Saudi monarchy, maintaining control at home is inseparable from cultivating its influence abroad. The monarchy utilizes its exclusive domination over the nation’s oil wealth and over Muslims’ holy shrines as well as employing its extreme Wahhabi ideology to subdue Saudi citizens. As an extension of its domestic policies, the Saudi monarchy exports its lethal ideology, finances religious infrastructure projects and extremist groups for the purpose of establishing pro-Saudi Muslim regimes and communities which the monarchs use to influence decision-making in other countries and to extract favorable policies from Muslim and non-Muslim governments throughout the world.

While American Administrations, main stream media, some think tanks and prominent institutions of higher learning publicly hail Saudi monarchs as partners in the “War on Terror,” privately they concede that the Saudi government actively supports and encourages terrorism worldwide. What has been concealed from the Saudi and American peoples was publicly revealed in the released WikiLeaks documents. The documents quoted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complaining about the Saudi regime’s unwillingness to cut off support for terrorism; “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority…donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” While cutting off financial support for extremist and terrorist groups is a priority for the US and the West, continuing it is a major element of the Saudi regime’s overall policy of global religious imperialism.

In addition to spreading its extreme brand of Sunni Islam worldwide, the Saudi monarchy seeks to eliminate Iran as a potential rival for leadership in the Muslim world. Furthermore, the Saudi rulers fear the possibility of rapprochement between the West and Iran which would drastically undermine the crumbling Saudi influence in the Gulf region. By pressuring the US and NATO to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and to invade Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah, the Saudi monarchy hopes to eliminate its current remaining rivals in the region. As implied in King Abdullah’s phrase ‘cut off the head of the snake,’ an attack on Iran will not stop at taking out its nuclear facilities as publicly advocated, but would have to destroy Iran’s military and disrupt its political infrastructure if Iran’s threats to the Saudi monarchy and to other Arab Gulf regimes are to be removed. The Saudi monarchy knows that such an undertaking by the US and NATO will come at a high cost domestically, regionally and globally, but for the Saudi royals no price is too high to pay for their survival and regional dominance, including the lives of their populace.

The reason no one seems eager to embrace the warmongering Saudi schemes, including Israel which the Iranian leadership has vowed to “wipe from the surface of the earth”, is because the consequences of attacking Iran and Lebanon would be widespread and devastating. The would-be executors of the Saudi wishes realize that it would entail tremendous loss of lives and destruction of property in Iran, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States and Lebanon. Regardless of how hard Iran and Hezbollah are hit initially, Iran’s proximity to the Saudi oil facilities and a large portion of the Saudi population makes it seem inevitable that the Iranians will retaliate against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States from which attacks might be launched. In the unlikely event that the Iranians are unable to retaliate, their sympathizers (marginalized Arab Shi’a) who reside in Eastern Saudi Arabia and in other Gulf countries, would be expected to rise in support of Iran against their oppressive Sunni rulers. In such an event, the autocratic Sunni rulers of the Gulf States would use this opportunity to crush their vocal Shi’a minorities whom they consider threats to their exclusionary Sunni rule.

Likewise, if Hezbollah is attacked by a Saudi-instigated Arab force, the former would likely seek revenge on its Lebanese Sunni and Christian fellow citizens. Even though the Saudi royals employ the widely appealing rhetoric of crushing Hezbollah, an objective shared by many Arab and non-Arab states, the Saudi monarchy’s true intent is to ensure Sunni Muslim supremacy in Lebanon along the lines of Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine. Given Lebanon’s bloody history of civil strife, retaliation by Hezbollah on Sunni Muslims and Christians could lead to a prolonged Lebanese civil war that would guarantee interventions by Syria and Israel to protect their conflicting interests in Lebanon. Many Christians around the world would also pressure their governments to rescue their fellow Christians in Lebanon.

Given these likely scenarios, the regional and global consequences of the duplicitous ensnaring Saudi schemes exposed by the WikiLeaks’ documents would be more than the current fragile international political and economic environment can absorb.

Attacking Iran and Lebanon as the Saudi monarchy advocates will indubitably interrupt production, refining and shipping of oil from the Persian Gulf region to oil consuming nations worldwide. This would likely create global political, economic and psychological disorder that would make the 1973 Arab oil embargo look benign and would negatively impact national and international economies which are struggling to emerge from the recent protracted global financial downturn. In addition to global economic disorder, increased tension within Muslim communities and between Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide would quickly boil over. Strife between the already antagonistic Sunni and Shi’a Muslims would intensify and spread to other communities regardless of beliefs.

Moreover, Saudi instigated military campaigns against Iran and Lebanon by the West would drastically increase extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism in Arab and Muslim countries and communities. Even though the Saudi royals and other Arab regimes are pressuring the West to rid them of what they consider their mortal Persian Shi’a enemies, these regimes will use their controlled media, mosques, clerics, Arab American intellectuals, Muslim groups in the West, selected American universities and Western recipients of their largess to depict the West as modern day Crusaders intent on destroying Islam and Muslims.

Given the probable consequences discussed here, the only beneficiaries of the Saudi schemes as exposed in WikiLeaks would be the Saudi ruling family and other totalitarian Arab regimes. It appears that the Machiavellian Saudi strategy is designed to prove that the West is an aggressive villain determined to destroy Arabs and Muslims.

In the past, the Saudi ruling family successfully linked Western interest to the monarchs’ survival and dominance in Arab and Muslim countries despite the Saudi regime’s draconian domestic polices and its ideological threats to Western democracies. The Saudi monarchs achieved their objective by making sure that the only alternative to their rule at home would be the extremists and terrorists they helped create and by ensuring that their external political and military rivals, such as Nasser of Egypt and Saddam of Iraq, are removed from the regional landscape.

By urging the US and other NATO forces to invade Iran and Lebanon regardless of consequences the Saudi rulers aim to maintain the status quo which is being relentlessly punctured by events some of which they myopically created. In recent years, geopolitical shifts and the rise of formidable power players around the Gulf area, the region and globally are slowly eroding the Saudi royals’ domination over OPEC, the financing of extremist groups and projects and undermining the Saudi monarchs’ invented indispensability to the West. The rise of Iran to regional and global prominence, the creation of Hezbollah and Hamas, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the imbalance of power in OPEC and the global search for new sources of energy continue to diminish the usefulness of the Saudi monarchy to the West. In addition, Western democracies have wrenchingly discovered that a royal Saudi autocracy empowered and protected by the West has proved more harmful than useful as exemplified by the most barbaric flase flag/inside job 9/11 attacks on the US, the spread of Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine and the financing of extremists and terrorists worldwide as described by Secretary Clinton in the WikiLeaks/CIA documents....

The US and other Western democracies are faced with one of their most grim challenges ever: a choice between protecting our individual liberties and democratic values or continuing to rely on the flow of oil and cash from an erratic, tyrannical system whose policies and practices promote destruction of democratic institutions and replace them with a totalitarian Islamic system....

[Somehow, the crypto-jewish Saudis have managed to work some form of primitive desert magic over us, effectively blinding us to what they have been doing, mostly in our name (CIA), obscuring the fact of their centrality in the realm of "Islamist" terror. It is no coincidence that 15 of the 19 names which have been forever wedded to the false flag 911 events were Zioconned Saudis. Using their dominance over other Muslim nations like Pakistan and Turkey, the Saudis have drawn together the force known as "al-CIAda," and dozens of other terrorist outfits that have been hiding behind constantly changing Arabic-sounding names, to exact revenge primarily upon the "unbelievers" and secondly upon "the infidels." The Pakistanis grew the Wahabbi virus right there upon their own soil, while the Turks toned down their rhetoric just a bit, so that they could export their "Wahabbi lite" extremist beliefs into the former Soviet Union and into other equally receptive Muslim nations, like Indonesia.

Around the world, we are doing the will of the Zioconned Saudi royal family. We are their enforcers, in the sense of "mob enforcers," as we push the world around in the name of "fighting terrorism," when it is the Saudis (and the others which they hold influence over) who are the authors of all global "Islamic terrorism." By making the Saudis partners in exporting CIA policy (to skirt the laws against arming terrorists), we have allowed the utterly Zioconned US policy towards Muslims to become focused through this Wahabbi lens. We have helped the Saudis export their terrorist beliefs to the entire Muslim world, so that their militant beliefs stood alongside True Islam, and understanding true believers. We have helped them to infect millions with the false belief that The Living God has commissioned them with a duty to kill "non-believers," as defined by them. The world media reports this killing spree of the non-believers as acts of "terrorism," committed by shadowy, unknown terrorists and nameless sponsors of that terror. They call it "Al-Qaeda," as if it really was that anonymous entity killing Muslims and the occasional Westerner around the world. Sectarian ethnic killing is going on around the world under the protective umbrella of the US and NATO militaries. The sad truth is, we are fighting the "war on terror" to extend Saudi power around the world and to create for them a "seat at the table" of "civilized" nations. We are helping the tribal barbarians to use their enormous wealth to purchase respectability from the world.]

I have to say that I am extremely impressed by Sergei Lavrov whom I consider to be one of the best diplomats I have ever listened to (the other one being James Baker whose views I never shared, but who undoubtedly was a top level diplomat). Russia is really fortunate to have such an excellent team as Sergei Lavrov and Vitalii Churkin (Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN) representing its interests on the foreign policy arena, in particular at such a difficult time of multiple crises.

I also really like the Russian approach to the Syrian crisis. Basically, Russia accepts that a transition to a new regime might be needed and that it does not defend the Assad regime as such, but it insists that any such transition must occur exclusively in the context of international law. What does that mean? That means the following:

1) Violence is not an acceptable way of seizing, or retaining, power.
2) Syria's territorial integrity cannot be compromised.
3) All parties must seek a negotiated solution and renounce violence without preconditions.
4) No external interference in the Syrian crisis.
5) UNSC Resolutions 2042 and 2043 and are mandatory on all the parties, as is the obligation to support Kofi Annan's peace plan.
6) No Chapter VII UNSC shall pass as long as UNSC Resolutions 2042 and 2043 are not fully implemented.
7) The future political regime of Syria can only be defined by the Syrian people.
8) The rights of all minorities must be fully guaranteed.

Ok, this might sound like the typical "doubleplusgoodwilling" language all diplomats use. But let's translate these into simple terms:

1) The current US policy of subversion of the Syrian regime is wholly illegitimate.
2) Russia will never allow a repeat of what happened in Libya.
3) No amount of US/NATO pressure will change Russia's principal stance on this issue.

This is very good news indeed. Russian cannot and therefore will not attempt to use its military power to prevent the US/NATO/Wahabi alliance to attack Syria, but short of that, Russia will use all its soft power to prevent such an outcome. Hillary's dumb threats about "Russia and China must be made to pay" are totally rejected as not only undiplomatic, but even as basically laughable and ill-mannered.

Something is becoming increasingly obvious: Russia is really getting fed up, badly, with the US and NATO and we can expect a lot of firm "niets" ("no" in Russian) in the future. Niet to the anti-missile shield in Europe. Niet to the US/NATO war on Syria. Niet to any attempts to interfere inside Russian affairs. Niet to any attempts to pressure Russia to comply with US/NATO demands, threats and ultimatums. Niet to any NATO expansion, in particular to Georgia or the Ukraine. Niet to any further conventional arms reductions in Europe. Niet to further sanctions on Iran and, of course, Niet to any military aggression on that country either.

The western elites finally got what they apparently so badly wanted: not some nonsensical "restart" or relations with Russia, but a full-spectrum Cold War.

I am left marveling at the mind-boggling stupidity and hubris of the international plutocracy of "1%" which is currently in power in the West. Do these fat cats really, sincerely, think that this time around they will prevail? Do they really want to take on Russia, China, the massive systemic, economic and social crisis which devastates every western country, and, potentially, face the rage of their own "99%" all at the same time?!

For all the lies of the corporate media, the regime in Russia is very popular and the country is booming. Structurally and politically, it has not been as strong as it is now since the reign of Tsar Alexander III (and I would say that it is stronger today than it was then), and it has enough reserves (financial, organizational, military, etc.) to face a prolonged crisis. If the western elites still think that these are the 1980s or 1990s they are sorely mistaken and they will pay the price for this mistake....
Russia has even learned to use the same tricks the West does, like defending human rights and democracy:

Pity that the Russian media doesn't have the same spread over the entire world as the US does.
Interesting how Lavrov mentions the Serb refugees who were ignored by the powers that be. I believe 200 000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the Croat province of Krajina in 1995 by the fascist Tudjman regime, the biggest piece of ethnic cleansing of the war but nothing was done about it indeed NATO helped to arm the Croats at the time.

The classic Western doctrine of humanitarian intervention was stated by the liberal academic Timothy Garton Ash as follows

"Military intervention - preferably with explicit UN sanction, failing that with the support of a double majority (of democracies and of the country's neighbors, and in very exceptional cases even with a smaller coalition - can be justified a) where there is genocide taking place as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq in 1988 but not Iraq in 2003 or b) where there is a real and present danger of a regime or terrorist group acquiring weapons of mass destruction which they are likely to use against us, their neighbors or their own people. How on earth we establish whether there is such a real and present danger is something we shall all have to wrestle with - especially after this claim was made about Saddam's Iraq, on the authority of secret intelligence and turned out to be untrue. What qualifies as genocide is also a matter for the most serious debate. But intervention is not justified simply to end a dictatorship"

Criteria a)is wide open to abuse and tears up international law which is there for a reason. Garton Ash himself ruefully admits "There are good reasons why statesmen from the signatories of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the authors of the UN Charter in 1945 set such store by respect for state sovereignty and non-intervention. If I think I'm justified in invading your country you may equally well feel you're justified in invading mine. Or someone else's. President Putin plainly felt encouraged by America's unilateral action over Iraq to continue his oppression of Chechnya and China felt it had a freer hand in Tibet. The road back to international anarchy is a short one" Ash fails to recognize that Chechnya and Tibet are internal Russian and Chinese issues whereas Iraq was a sovereign state so there is no comparison between them.

Criteria b) is simply a license for imperialism on the base of pre-emptive strikes to a threat which may well turn out to be entirely bogus as it was in Iraq.

The idea that a majority of democracies licenses intervention without a UNSC is another ideological assault on international law. I've heard it argued that the SC veto would be justified if you had a two thirds majority of the General Assembly in which case the intervention would still be technically illegal but it would be legitimate.

My view is that there should have been an intervention in Rwanda but not Bosnia Kosovo or Iraq.

If by the middle of this century the West finds itself confronted by a Russian Chinese alliance plus Muslim satellites with a combined economic and military power equal to its own it may come to regret its lack of respect for international law. Having set a precedent for overriding the veto it may find the precedent used against it....

It is arguable that the consequence of supporting the rebels is that they have no incentive to cooperate with the Annan Peace Plan and so the ZIOCONNED West and their Zioconned Saudi Wahhabi thugs and their Qatari satellites are promoting the violence and have blood on their hands. Lavrov doesn't quite put it as bluntly as that but I suspect that is how he privately feels.

Garton Ash by the way recently wrote a Guardian article attacking Putin's Russia for having no shame over Syria. The liberal Guardian has been banging the drum against Putin for years, worse that the Zioconned "conservative" press....

No comments:

Post a Comment