“The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply
penetrated the world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear
threat in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through
its dozens of well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”
*
“The
Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys
are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush
Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
* We
will take advantage of their immigration policy to infiltrate them.
* We
will use their own welfare system to provide us with food, housing, schooling,
and health care, while we out breed them and plot against them. We will
Caliphate on their dime.
* We
will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who criticizes us, we will
take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from the media and Democrats
and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.
* We
will use their own discrimination laws against them and slowly introduce Sharia
Law into their culture..
WHO FUNDS THE BUILDING
OF THE BUSH, CLINTON AND OBOMB PRESIDENTIAL LIBARARY and BUILDING THE LA RAZA
WELFARE STATE ON LEGALS’ BACKS!
The simple fact is Saudi Arabia is the principal ally of the US in the
Arab world and a huge purchaser of US weapons. How we can continue to allow
these double standards in our foreign policy is unimaginable, but one of the
reasons why the Saudis get away with it is that they spend so much money
influencing our media and our senior politicians.
IT GETS WORSE!
Barack Obama’s back door,
however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer
Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just
how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned
an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility
to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy
alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the
statesmanship of today.” THEODORE ROOSEVELT
Nolte: Dems Promise to Take Away Our Health
Insurance and Give It to Illegal Aliens
"The
California dream of taking care of everyone's needs is undermined by the
California dream of open borders. State lawmakers were forced to choose
between them, and they chose open borders.”
"The California dream of taking care of everyone's needs is undermined by the California dream of open borders. State lawmakers were forced to choose between them, and they chose open borders.”
Salvaging U.S. Interests in Iraq
The killing of Qasem Soleimani is a seismic event with huge ramifications across the Middle East and worldwide. It underscores the need for a new approach in Iraq and the region. To salvage something from its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the U.S. should focus on the Kurds.
The Shiite-led Government of Iraq (GoI) has strongly protested the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The Iraqi parliament will debate a resolution to terminate the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which provides a legal basis for the deployment of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil.
Iraqi rage will intensify, putting U.S. troops and personnel at risk. The spasm of violence is a reality check: Iraq is a failed state under Iran’s control. Iraqis are only unified by their hatred of America. The Kurds are the only friends we have.
How did Iraq get to this point? America’s failure to stand with the Iraqi Kurds created a gap that Iran has filled.
The U.S. brokered Iraq’s constitution in 2004. However, Baghdad refused to implement articles favorable to the Kurds. The Obama administration demurred when it should have pushed harder to uphold Kurdish interests. Baghdad’s failure, and America’s acquiescence, left the Kurds little choice but to initiate a process putting Iraqi Kurdistan on the path to independence.
Though 93% voted to disassociate in September 2017, the U.S. failed to support their national aspirations. It turned a blind eye when Iranian-backed militias, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMUs), occupied the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and evicted the Kurdish governor. The current crisis arose when PMUs, the same Khataib Hezb’allah militias who seized Kirkuk and stomped on the Kurdistan flag, attacked U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week.
After repeated provocations, the U.S. responded with air strikes that killed 24 militia members. Tensions intensified with the killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, head of Kataib Hezb’allah.
The U.S. has a big stake in Iraq, having sacrificed thousands of lives and spent trillions. In light of volatile conditions that exist today, how can Washington preserve its position and interests?
A direct line can be drawn between U.S. policy towards Iraq and Iran’s aggression. Previous policies under successive administrations have marginalized the U.S. and made Iran ascendant.
Qasem Soleimani was testing U.S. resolve. In 2019, the Quds Force seized oil tankers in the Persian Gulf; shot down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz; and bombed Abqaiq, a major Saudi oil processing plant.
Khataib Hezb’allah’s recent aggression was intended to provoke a response. Qasem Soleimani sought to turn popular protests over Iran’s role in the country, during which more than 500 people were killed, into anti-American demonstrations. Turning their anger from Iran to the U.S., protesters chanted “death to America” and demanded that U.S. forces leave the country. Rage and popular protests are likely to intensify after the killing of Soleimani and Muhandis.
America should reconsider its strategically flawed and morally defunct “one Iraq policy.” Recent events affirm America’s military superiority. At the same time, they underscore America’s irrelevance and diminished influence. In light of recent developments, the U.S. should pivot and support Kurdish national aspirations.
In Iraq and other countries where Kurds reside, Kurds are critical to peace and stability. A regional approach, focusing on the Kurds, would secure U.S. interests in Iraq and the region.
Candidate Trump pledged to withdraw from “endless wars” of the Middle East. He focused on bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria. However, his plan was delayed by the rise of ISIS.
Kurdish valor helped defeat the caliphate. Iraqi Kurds helped liberate Mosul. In Syria, 11,000 Kurds died and 23,000 were wounded fighting ISIS at America’s behest. When President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces, Iran responded by ratcheting up operations against the U.S.
U.S. influence is diminished without boots on-the-ground. Iran, Russia, and Turkey shaped a UN-sponsored constitutional committee to kick-start negotiations on ending Syria’s civil war. Kurdish political parties, whose armed forces gained control over more than 30 percent of Syria’s territory fighting ISIS, were excluded. Sustainable peace is impossible without the Kurds, rendering the committee an exercise in futility.
Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan also took advantage of U.S. ambivalence, further polarizing U.S.-Turkey relations. Erdogan views the Syrian Kurds as an extension of the PKK, an armed rebel group fighting for greater political and cultural rights for Kurds in Turkey, resulting in 40,000 deaths and millions displaced since the 1980s. The PKK wants U.S. mediation, but Erdogan rejects the participation of third parties.
Erdogan uses the conflict to justify draconian policies towards the Kurds and other oppositionists. His course has marginalized America’s influence, undermined Turkey’s democracy, and directed Turkey into Russia’s embrace.
Blood knows no borders. Just as conflict is transnational, peacemaking requires a regional approach.
James Jeffrey serves as Trump’s Special Envoy to Syria. Though Jeffrey is skilled and experienced, he is working with one hand tied behind his back. Current U.S. policy limits his ability to maneuver diplomatically. The killing of Soleimani and Muhandis will make his job even harder.
The Iraqi Parliament is on the verge of censuring the Trump administration and evicting U.S. forces. As the U.S. redeploys to Iraqi Kurdistan, it will need a legal basis for basing troops there. As Iraq becomes more violent, the U.S. might need to recognize Iraqi Kurdistan and an independent and sovereign state.
To manage the intricacies of U.S. policy towards the Kurds in Iraq and the region, President Trump should appoint a “Special Envoy for Kurdish Issues”. The envoy’s activities would be based on the recognition that Kurdish and U.S. interests align. Instead of placating our adversaries, such as the Shiite-led government, the U.S. should support its friends.
Ken Blackwell is the former award-winning United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. He is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations.
David L. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. Her served as a Senior Adviser working on Kurdish issues at the State Department during the Bush administration. His recent book is The Great Betrayal: How America Abandoned the Kurds and Lost the Middle East.
THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY STARTED TWO WARS WITH IRAQ ON BEHALF OF
THEIR SAUDIS PAYMASTERS…. WHO FUNDED THE BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND THEN THE
CLINTON AND OBAMA LIBRARIES. THE SAUDIS HAD A TIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH HILLARY
CLINTON WHEN SHE WAS WHORING HER FOUNDATION’S INTERESTS AS SECRETARY OF STATE…
THE SAUDIS PUMPED BIG MONEY INTO THE PHONY CLINTON SLUSH FOUNDATION.
WE NOW SEE TRUMP KISSING SAUDIS ASS.
WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT OUR NATION THAT THE TOP “LEADERS” ARE IN
BED WITH THE GLOBAL FINANCIERS OF MUSLIM HATE, TERRORISM AND ANTI-AMERICAN,
ANTI-JEWISH and ANTI-CHRISITIAN PEOPLES???
JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Twenty-eight pages of heavily redacted documents released in 2016 after being concealed from the public for
13 years established that Saudi intelligence officers funneled substantial
amounts of money to the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, while
assisting them with finding housing as well as flight schools to attend.
Sixteen years after
9/11: lies, hypocrisy and militarism
12 September 2017
The sixteenth
anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed more than 2,900
people in the United States were marked once again on Monday with ceremonies at
the site of the World Trade Center’s demolished Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a
field in Pennsylvania where one of four hijacked planes crashed as passengers fought
to regain control of the aircraft.
Thousands gathered in
New York City for the solemn reading of the names of those who lost their lives
to a criminal and reactionary terrorist attack that served only the interests
of US and world imperialism, which ever since have exploited the events to
justify wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights the world over.
The genuine emotions
of sorrow and remembrance shared by those who lost loved ones on 9/11 once
again stood in sharp contrast to the banality and hypocrisy of the official
commemorations staged by US officials.
This longstanding
dichotomy reached a new level with the main speech of the day delivered by the
fascistic billionaire con-man President Donald Trump at the Pentagon Monday.
Trump, whose first reaction on the day of the attacks was to brag—falsely—that
the toppling of the Twin Towers had made his own property at 40 Wall Street the
tallest building in lower Manhattan, delivered remarks that consisted of barely
warmed-over platitudes from previous addresses, repeated tributes to the
American flag and a vow to “defend our country against barbaric forces of evil
and destruction.”
Trump repeated the
well-worn cliché that on September 11 “our whole world changed.” The phrase is
meant to suggest that the unending wars, police state measures and sweeping
changes in American political life over the past 16 years have all been carried
out in response to the supposedly unforeseen and unforeseeable events of
September 11, having nothing to do with anything that came before.
That this is a cynical and self-serving lie becomes clearer with
every passing year.
On the eve of the anniversary, new
revelations emerged linking Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest ally in the Arab
world, to the preparation of the September 11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19
hijackers were Saudi citizens. The corporate media, which published nothing of
any significance on the anniversary, largely blacked out this new evidence.
The New York Times marked the anniversary with an editorial
detailing efforts by the New York City medical examiner to identify human
remains.
A federal lawsuit on
behalf of the families of some 1,400 of the 9/11 victims has presented evidence
that the Saudi embassy in Washington financed what was apparently a “dry run”
for the 9/11 attacks in 1999. Two Saudi agents posing as students boarded an
America West flight from Phoenix to Washington, D.C. with tickets paid for by
the Saudi embassy. The lawsuit states that both men had trained in Al Qaeda
camps in Afghanistan with some of the 9/11 hijackers. While on the flight, the
two asked flight attendants technical questions about the plane that raised
suspicions and twice attempted to enter the cockpit, leading the pilot to carry
out an emergency landing in Ohio. Both men were detained and questioned by the
FBI, which decided not to pursue any prosecution.
This is only the latest in a long series of revelations that have
made it abundantly clear that the events of 9/11 could never have taken place without
substantial logistical support from high places. Despite the repeated claims
that the attacks “changed everything,” there has never been an independent and
objective investigations into how they were carried out. And, despite being
what is ostensibly the most catastrophic intelligence failure in American
history, no one was ever held accountable with so much as a firing or a
demotion.
What evidence has
emerged makes it clear that the 9/11 hijackers were able to freely enter the
country and attend flight schools despite the fact that a number of those
involved had been subjects of surveillance by the CIA and FBI for as long as
two years before the attack. Two of them actually lived in the home of an FBI
informant.
Twenty-eight pages of heavily redacted documents released in 2016 after being concealed from the public for
13 years established that Saudi intelligence officers funneled substantial
amounts of money to the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, while
assisting them with finding housing as well as flight schools to attend.
While Saudi Arabia
was the government most active in carrying out the September 11 attacks, the
involvement of Saudi intelligence really means the involvement of a section of
the American state apparatus. This is not a matter of conspiracy theories, but
established fact. It is bound up with very real conspiracies involving the CIA,
Afghanistan and Al Qaeda going back to the Islamist group’s founding as an arm
of Washington’s dirty war against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan
in the 1980s.
Far from the attacks
having “changed everything,” they provided the pretext for acts of military
aggression long in preparation. In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet
Union a decade earlier, the ruling class initiated a policy developed to use US
military might to offset the decline of American capitalism on the world arena.
Afghanistan and Iraq were targeted to secure military dominance over two major
oil- and gas-producing regions on the planet, the Caspian Basin and the Middle
East.
This thoroughly
criminal enterprise, justified in the name of 9/11’s victims, has claimed the
lives of over 1 million Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Afghans and unleashed
the greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War.
The invocation of a “war on terror”—passed down from Bush to Obama
and now to Trump—to justify these crimes has become not only threadbare, but
patently absurd. The results of 16 years of uninterrupted US wars of aggression
have included an unprecedented growth of Al Qaeda and related Islamist
militias, largely as a result of US imperialism’s utilization of these elements
as proxy ground forces in wars for regime change in Libya and Syria.
Moreover, the
multiple wars and interventions conducted by the Pentagon and the CIA, from
North Africa to Central Asia, can quickly metastasize into a global
conflagration, with Washington simultaneously threatening nuclear war against
North Korea and pursuing increasingly dangerous confrontations with its
principal geo-strategic rivals, Russia and China.
September 11 did not
“change everything,” but it did mark the beginning of an escalation of what
George W. Bush called the “wars of the twenty-first century,” that is,
escalating imperialist aggression that is leading mankind toward a third world
war.
Bill Van Auken
September 11, 2017
Were
the Saudis Behind 9/11?
1. On September 9, 2017, Paul Sperry of the New York Post dropped
the biggest headline hint so far that, Yes, the Saudis plotted, trained,
funded, ordered, and covered up the assault on America on 9/11.
The headline does
not come out and actually say that
the Saudis committed the greatest anti-American civilian atrocity 16 years ago.
It just says that "the Saudis allegedly funded a "dry run" of
the 9/11/01 attack two years before it was actually executed. But by now we
know so much supportive evidence that we might as well tell the whole truth.
Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for
two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from
Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended
complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the
terrorist attacks 16 years ago."
Well, if you're a bank robber, and you go through a "dry
run" of the robbery two years before actually committing it, and
"somebody" then carries out the outrageous crime, chances are that
the dry runners and the perps are the same.
We have plenty of evidence of Saudi guilt for 9/11. We know that
the 17 Wahhabi (Saudi-indoctrinated) terrorists killed civilian cabin personnel
and pilots in those four "American" and "United" airplanes,
slitting their throats with utility knives, according to the ancient Koranic
war command, "you shall cut them at the neck."
We have seen plenty of actual beheadings on ISIS videos, and we
know that the Wahhabi priesthood in Saudi Arabia has endorsed ISIS for its
Nazilike murders, rapes, kidnappings, and sadistic treatment of innocent
children, women, and men wherever ISIS operate. It is vital for Americans to
understand that the war theology of "ISIS," "Al Qaida,"
"Al Nusrah", "Al Qaida in the Maghreb," on and on, are all
the same. The hierarchy that runs it from the Sunni Gulf States is the same,
the methodology is the same, the utter inhuman cruelty of killing innocents is
the same, the religious rationale is the same, on and on and on.
However, it should be understood that the Shi'ites of Iran run a
separate chain of command, with separate murderers, etc. We have two fanatical
enemies, both based in the war verses of the Koran, but they hate each
other to death. Donald Trump has just exploited that split between mass
murderers hailing from Sunni Islam, and the mass murderers coming from Shi'te
Islam. Trump is now in a formal alliance with the Saudis (and Israelis, and
other Sunni Gulf States) against Iran, the Shiite head of the monster.
During WW I the British brought the Saudis to power in order to
drive out the Ottoman Turks. British agent "Lawrence of Arabia" (T.E.
Lawrence) convinced the Arab speakers of the Arabia desert to rebel against the
Turks, supplying them with British arms and advice.
Lawrence
of Arabia described the exact tribal war activities we see today in ISIS,
including male rape. The Brits then brought the Saudi tribe to power.
Saudi Arabia is always on the edge of collapse, because it is not
a modern nation, but a desert tribal federation.
The war theology of desert Islam has been well-described by now,
in excellent, scholarly sources freely available on the web.
In human tribal history, war theologies are not unusual. Japanese
State Shinto, which led to WW II, was based on Bushido a debased version
of the Samurai code. The Teutonic Knights were a similar war cult that
eventually led to Bismarck's Prussia, which then forced the unification of
the German-speaking provinces in the 19th century in a single, top-down
controlled Reich. Hitler's war started as a revenge for losing World War I.
Hitler came to power by peddling the "stab-in-the-back" myth to
explain Austro-Hungarian defeat in WWI.
Human tribal warfare is very common, as shown by anthropologist
Napoleon Chagnon, based on his field work with the Yanamamo of South America.
In human tribal history, up to 30% of adult males die in intergroup violence.
So war cults and martyrdom cults are part of human history. The Kim dynasty in
North Korea has always prepared for and encouraged war. Today, the Iranian
Muslims (Shi'a) constantly chant, "Death to America! Death to
Israel!" Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizb’allah also raise their
children to kill any designated enemy, preferably through martyrdom. Successful
killer-martyrs are promised life eternal in Heaven, with all the virgins and
all that.
American liberals keep telling the world that such things could
not exist, because people are fundamentally good. They are utterly ignorant,
and "none so blind as will not see."
What happened on 9/11?
The attackers commandeered civilian passenger planes, and
suicidally flew them into the Twin Towers in Manhattan; a third passenger plane
was flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a fourth airplane crashed
when its passengers heroically rebelled against the throat-cutting murderers
and crashed in Pennsylvania. These assaults count as the biggest enemy attack
on American civilians in history. In the Geneva
Conventions, the politically
motivated murder of civilians is treated even more seriously than surprise
attacks on members of the military in uniform.
These are the most likely hypotheses based on the evidence. But
we will not know the full truth until the 28 censored pages from the 9/11
Report are published. The U.S. media, which evidently colluded in the greatest
national security coverup, must now tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. If any media outlet fails to cover this, American
patriots must simply boycott them and their owners and sponsors. This is a
question of national life or death.
2. Who did the coverup?
When the 9/11 attacks took place, none of our presidents, nor our
enormous Deep Government, nor any major news outlets told the truth.
As a result, even today, most Americans know little, except that
fake "Islamophobia" is a terrible thing. Americans need to learn the
truth and we must know the truth to understand that Jihad War that was launched
against us on that second Day of Infamy. No nation can protect itself against
future dangers if it only learns lies about previous acts of national
aggression.
3. Who ran the coverup and why?
The 9/11 attack was covered up.
a. 9/11/ was not the first attack by Al Qaida and
its militant networks against the Twin Towers. There was an amazingly similar
truck bomb attack in 1993 by the same network, and some of the perps were
caught and sentenced to jail terms.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review was the
federal prosecutor in that case, and has written extensively about it. McCarthy
has been one of the truth-tellers in a time of shameful lies and
coverups.
Bill and Hillary Clinton knew about the failed truck-bomb attack
on the Twin Towers in 1993. We know that Bill was offered Bin Laden's head on a
platter by four different Arab regimes, in secret, and that he refused four
times. There is no question that the Clintons knew about the danger ahead of
time, and utterly failed to pursue Bin Laden's AQ network when there was still
time to knock them out. That abject cowardice is interpreted in war theologies
like desert Islam as a plain and obvious sign of weakness, and it always
increases the chance of more attacks. This is elementary logic about
hyperaggressive regimes.
Instead of revealing and mobilizing American public opinion
against a clear and obvious danger, the Clintons made money off it. The fact
that Huma Abedin has become Hillary's closest friend and assistant over the
last 20 years, and that Huma comes from a Muslim Brotherhood family that runs a
"charity" in the UK to promote Jihad, makes Huma, Hillary, and Bill
criminally liable. They owe the American People an explanation, and instead,
they have been taking tens of millions of dollars from known Jihad
sources.
We do not know whether Bush-Cheney knew about the danger of attack
ahead of time, but it seems unlikely. The assault happened early in the Bush II
administration, possibly before they were warned.
We have to understand that after 9/11, every major intelligence
agency in the world must have known who the perps were.
Former UCMC Commandant Jim Mattis has often said "There is
always treachery." It is a basic rule of war in his lifelong teachings.
The fact that Mattis is now SecDec shows where Trump is moving -- against
Jihad, finally, after decades of Democrat and RINO betrayal of the American
people in their greatest danger.
If you do not believe we are in very great danger today, consider
that Kim III now has ICBMs and nuclear weapons, and that Kim always works in
collusion with Iranian Jihad. North Korea is thought to have gotten its latest
mass murdering toy with cooperation from Tehran. Although Pakistan, which also
follows a Jihadist war theology, is another candidate.
On the honorable side, Admiral James Lyon (USN, Ret) has been
publicly warning against the Jihad being obviously waged against the U.S. (and
other "Christian" countries) by Jihad, both the Sunni and Shi'ite
imperial aggressors. I believe Adm. Lyons risked his life to expose the truth,
the last time at the Press Club in Washington, DC.
I believe that Donald Trump guessed or knew the truth, as an
international businessman, with his own intelligence sources. When Trump ran
for office, the Deep State freaked out, in fear of exposure, along with the
mass media, which also understood what was going on. The Democrats, the mass
media, and the Deep State are basically one.
The Obama Administration was clearly penetrated by pro-Jihad,
anti-American forces from the beginning. Obama all but publicly endorsed the
Jihad against America. The flagrant use of an Arabic name, instead of his given
name Barry Soetoro, is only one little sign. Another is the
"disguised" Shahada ring he has worn ever since his trip to Pakistan
as a college student with his Pakistani roommate. The Shahada is the oath of
loyalty to Islam. Deception is a major war tactic in Islam. Yet a third sign of
Obama's Jihad loyalties is his symbolically vital visit to a Muslim Mosque in
the waning days of his presidency; the mosque had a prominent sign (shown in
the New York Times) that "nothing is achieved without struggle." (The
Arabic word for "struggle" is Jihad.) The Obama years constantly
played in Muslim Jihadist hints, knowing that most Americans are utterly
ignorant about all that. It is part of Obama's personality disorders.
Valerie Jarrett (Obama's "alter ego") was brought up in
Iranian-style Islam (Shi'ite). She sold out U.S. and Western safety to Iran in
the infamous nuclear agreement.
OIL, OIL, OIL.
The Saudis controlled OPEC, the oil cartel. That gave them
worldwide price control, a sword hanging over the heads of all modern nations.
Jimmy Carter's Arab oil embargo showed how much power the desert tribes of
Arabia had. That is probably why they took the risk of assaulting the United
States, and then serially Britain, France, Spain, on and on.
Please note a few bottom lines:
1. The U.S. was betrayed over and over and over again by our
political class, by our Deep State, and by our media oligopoly.
I think the Bushes are patriots, but they also have major oil
connections.
2. Donald Trump has been brilliant, and he certainly comes across
as a genuine patriot. That is why the corrupt Deep State, and the even more
corrupt Democrats and media, hate Trump. But slowly, slowly, the truth has been
emerging in the Trump campaign, and then in the first Trump year. Without American
leadership against evil, the world is full of cowards and traitors.
3. Saudi Arabia has now lost control of the price of oil. Trump's
vigorous opening up of U.S. energy has made a huge difference, because now we
have the biggest clout over the world price. That was a very deliberate move,
previously sabotaged by environmental fanatics who were probably bought off by
both kinds of Muslim oil regimes.
So yes, oil was a big part of the picture, but with the advent of
shale exploitation around the world, plus the American resurgence in domestic
energy production, we now have the upper hand.
September 11, 2017
Who are our Real Enemies?
A
good novel allows readers to learn and question, a gateway to world events.
Such is the case with Vince Flynn’s Enemy Of The State by
Kyle Mills. Flynn warned Americans on the dangers of Islamic terrorism in his
first CIA operative Mitch Rapp book, Transfer of Power, published
in 1999. This was two years before 9/11. Fast-forward eighteen years and Rapp
books still discuss the dangers of jihadists. Mills took the torch from the
late Vince Flynn, and has written a gripping novel about the Saudi involvement
with terrorism. This is where fiction blends with reality.
Mills
noted, “I thought about the redacted section from the 9/11 report that possibly
showed the Saudi involvement. After reading the book people will understand I
am not a big fan of the Saudis. Historically we have overlooked a lot of what
they do in order to keep alive our strategic relationship. They not only
support terrorism, but the schools that teach it. There is not much civil
liberties and human rights there. I always wanted to see them slapped down and
I enjoyed watching Mitch do it.”
It
is rumored that this portion of the report details contacts between Saudi
officials and some of the September 11 hijackers, checks from Saudi royals to
operatives in contact with the hijackers, and the discovery of a telephone
number in an Al Qaeda militant’s phone book that was traced to a corporation
managing an Aspen Colorado, home of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador
to Washington. The document is harsh in its criticism of Saudi efforts to
undermine American attempts to dismantle Al Qaeda in the years before the
September 11 attacks. Moreover, it portrays the F.B.I as generally in the dark
about the maneuverings of Saudi officials inside the United States during that
period.
In Enemy
of The State, the CIA operative Mitch Rapp is quoted, “How many times
are we going to have to go through this with them? We let them off the hook for
the most deadly terrorist attack in US history and now here we go again.” It
sure seemed that way when President Obama bowed before the Saudi King Abdullah
at the opening of the G20 meeting in London in 2009.
Even
President Trump seemed to be softening on his view of the Saudis. His speech in
Saudi Arabia this May called them friends and allowed them to buy a
$110-million-dollar defense purchase. This is a far cry when during the 2016
campaign he called on them to provide troops and funds to fight ISIS.
A
powerful quote in the book shows the two sides of the Saudi regime, “It was a
country with sufficient resources to provide prosperous lives for its citizens
and to be a force of good throughout the region. Instead, these resources had
been used to enrich a handful of monarchs and to promote the cycle of violence
and misery that the Middle East was currently mired in.”
On
the one hand it appears that they are now committed to fighting terrorism.
Isobel Coleman, a Saudi expert for the Council on Foreign Relations, felt they
had a change of heart. She noted, “For a long time the Saudi state encouraged
Saudi men to fight Jihad. It was a heroic thing to do. The Saudis had a
profound change after they had to deal with internal terrorism.”
During the May speech, President Trump announced
Saudi cooperation to fight terrorism, “Muslim nations must be willing to take
on the burden if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology
into oblivion. The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny
all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an
absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil… I am
proud to announce that the nations here today will be signing an agreement to
prevent the financing of terrorism called the Terrorist Financing Targeting
Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every
member of the Gulf Cooperation Council.”
Yet,
on the other hand, Saudi Arabia is still denying any involvement in the
September 11th attacks even though fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were
Saudis. They even threatened to sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if
Congress passes legislation allowing them to be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, a move that could destabilize the U.S. dollar.
Bob
Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, says ISIS "is a product
of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support." Graham
went on to say that ISIS represents a form of Wahhabi ideology, in which the
monarchy has lost control. He believes it is a cancer that now threatens the
kingdom, and that in order to stop ISIS the ideology must be dried up at the
source.
Nina
Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, wrote,
”The Saudi government has given over its textbooks to the clerical Wahhabi
extremists that it partners with to maintain control of the country.” She
explained, each year, these textbooks speak of direct religious hatred,
violence and indoctrinate a war mentality. Yet, their role in advancing
Islamist extremist ideology has not been taken seriously as a U.S. national
security concern. Since 9/11, regardless of which party is in power, the State
Department has barely raised the issue and at times has even worked to cover up
their toxic content.
As
President Trump stated, "Muslim nations must be willing to take on
terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion… Terrorists do not worship
God, they worship death.” Enemy Of The State shows how important it is for the
U.S. to make sure the Saudis continue to hold up their end of the relationship
by not promoting hatred against the West and stamping out the supporters of
terrorism. In a sense the book is a reminder to Americans that September 11th
should never be forgotten.
The author writes for American Thinker. She
has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national
security, political, and foreign policy articles.
House Votes to
'Enhance the Border Security' of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia--Not the
USA
The Democrat-controlled House of
Representatives has voted to fund
efforts to
"enhance the border security" of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia
while moving to deny all funding to build walls, fencing or any other
structures to enhance the border security of the United States.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and her lieutenants have their priorities.
To them, borders on the
other side of the world are more important than our own.
On June 19, the House approved a massive
spending bill. In an act of legislative polygamy, it "married" the
appropriations bill for the Department of Defense to the appropriations bills
for the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
The Congressional Budget
Office estimated this monstrosity would cost taxpayers $984.7 billion
in fiscal 2020.
Yet there is one thing
this bill would forbid the Trump administration from spending one penny to
accomplish.
On page 304 (of 650), it says: "None
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any prior
Department of Defense appropriations Acts may be used to construct a wall,
fence, border barriers, or border security infrastructure along the southern
land border of the United States."
A month later, the
House Appropriations Committee sent the full House a bill to fund the Department
of Homeland Security.
President Trump had
requested that it include $5 billion to use in constructing barriers at the
border.
How much did the
committee give him?
"No funding is
provided in the bill for new physical barriers along the southwest
border," said the committee
report.
It also said, "The
recommendation provides no funding for additional Border Patrol Agents."
Thus, the
Democrat-controlled House is advancing discretionary appropriations bills that
would spend more than $1 trillion in one year but provide zero dollars to build
physical barriers to stop illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers
from crossing our southern border.
Yet that does not mean
the Democrat-controlled House is not planning to spend some money to enhance
border security.
It just depends where
the border is.
In that 650-page
spending bill that prohibits Defense Department money from being used to defend
the southern border of the United States, there is a section that creates a
$1.295 billion fund for use by the secretary of defense.
"For the
'Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund', $1,295,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2021," says the bill.
"Provided, That such funds shall be available to the secretary of defense
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including
training; equipment; logistics support, supplies, and services; stipends;
infrastructure repair and renovation; and sustainment, to foreign security
forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating, or preparing to
participate in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and
their affiliated or associated groups."
"Provided
further," says the bill, "That these funds may be used in such
amounts as the Secretary of Defense may determine to enhance the border
security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon,
Egypt, and Tunisia resulting from actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria."
So, the secretary of
defense could take a chunk of this $1.295 billion and give it to the government
of Egypt to secure its border with post-Gadhafi Libya, where ISIS is
active.
And he could give a
chunk to Tunisia to secure its border with Libya.
Or he could give some
American tax dollars to unnamed "irregular forces, groups, or
individuals" who, someplace in this world, are "preparing to
participate in activities" to counter ISIS, or at least groups that are
"affiliated or associated" with ISIS.
But according to the
House appropriations bills, President Trump cannot spend a penny to build
structures at our own border to secure our own territory and our own people.
By contrast, the
Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a Homeland
Security spending bill that does include $5 billion to build "pedestrian
fencing" — to stop people on foot and in vehicles from crossing our
southern border. Also, that committee's defense spending bill does not prohibit
the president from using defense money to build barriers to defend our own
border.
It even includes a
larger fund ($1.8 billion) than the House bill that, among other things, can be
used "for enhanced border security" not only in Jordan, Lebanon,
Egypt and Tunisia but also in Oman.
We are now more than a
month into fiscal 2020. The government is running on a continuing resolution
that expires Nov. 21.
President Trump should
deliver a simple message to Speaker Pelosi: He is not going to sign a spending
bill that funds border security in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia but not
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
He should put America
first — even if Pelosi will shut down the government trying to stop him.
(Terence
P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSNews.com.)
US sends 3,000 more
troops to defend Saudi monarchy
The Pentagon confirmed Friday that
3,000 more US troops are being deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend the blood-soaked
monarchy led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and prepare for war against
Iran.
The deployment includes two fighter
squadrons, one Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW), two more Patriot missile
batteries, and one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD).
According to a Pentagon statement
Friday, the US Secretary of Defense phoned Crown Prince bin Salman (who also
holds the post of Saudi minister of defense) to inform him of the coming
reinforcements, which he said were meant “to assure and enhance the defense of
Saudi Arabia.”
The Pentagon also acknowledged that
the latest escalation brings the number of additional troops sent into the
Persian Gulf region since May to 14,000. They have been accompanied by an
armada of US warships and a B-52-led bomber task force. The Pentagon has also
announced that an aircraft carrier-led battle group will remain in the Persian
Gulf.
US soldiers deployed in the Middle
East (U.S. Army by 1st Lt. Jesse Glenn)
While initiated as a supposed
response to unspecified threats from Iran, the US buildup in the Persian Gulf
region has constituted from its outset a military provocation and preparation
for a war of aggression. This military buildup has accompanied Washington’s
so-called “maximum pressure” campaign of sweeping economic sanctions that are
tantamount to a state of war. The aim, as the Trump administration has stated
publicly, is to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero. By depriving Iran of
its principal source of export income, Washington hopes to starve the Iranian
people into submission and pave the way to regime change, bringing to power a
US puppet regime in Tehran.
The latest military buildup was
announced in the immediate aftermath of an attack on an Iranian tanker in the
Red Sea, about 60 miles from the Saudi port of Jeddah.
The National Iranian Tanker Co.
reported that its oil tanker, the Sabiti, was struck twice by explosives early
Friday morning, leaving two holes in the vessel and causing a brief oil spill
into the Red Sea.
While Iranian state news media blamed
the damage on missile attacks, a spokesman for the company told the Wall
Street Journal that the company was not sure of the cause.
Some security analysts have suggested
that the fairly minor damage to the vessel could have been caused by limpet
mines. Such mines were apparently used last June when two tankers—one Japanese
and one Norwegian-owned—were hit by explosions in the Sea of Oman. At the time,
Washington blamed the attacks on Iran, without providing any evidence. Tehran
denied the charge, saying that it sent teams to rescue crew member of the
damaged tankers.
The Iranian Students News Agency
(ISNA) quoted an unnamed Iranian government official as stating that the
Iranian tanker had been the victim of a “terrorist attack.”
“Examination of the details and
perpetrators of this dangerous action continues and will be announced after
reaching the result,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said.
The National Iranian Tanker Co.
issued a statement saying that there was no evidence that Saudi Arabia was
behind the attack.
The incident raised the specter of an
escalating tanker war that could disrupt shipping through the strategic Strait
of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil supply flows. News of
the attack sent crude oil prices spiking by 2 percent.
In addition to the June attacks on
the tankers in the Gulf of Oman, in July British commandos, acting on a request
from Washington, stormed an Iranian super tanker, the Grace 1, in waters off
the British overseas territory of Gibraltar. In apparent retaliation, Iranian
Revolutionary Guards seized the British-flagged Stena Impero for what Tehran
charged were violations of international maritime regulations as it passed
through the Strait of Hormuz. Both tankers were subsequently released.
Earlier this week, US Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo issued a statement charging that the Iranian super tanker,
renamed the Adrian Darya 1, had offloaded its oil in Syria in violation of
European Union sanctions and a pledge made by Tehran to the UK at the time of
the vessel’s release. He demanded provocatively that “EU members should condemn
this action, uphold the rule of law, and hold Iran accountable.”
The Trump administration, which in
May of last year unilaterally and illegally abrogated the 2015 nuclear
agreement between Tehran and the major powers has been pressuring the European
signatories to the deal—Germany, France and the UK—to follow suit.
While the respective governments of
the three countries have insisted that they still support the nuclear
agreement, they have repeatedly bowed to Washington’s war drive, while failing
to take any significant actions to counter the effects of the US “maximum
pressure” campaign and deliver to Tehran the sanctions relief and economic
normalization that it was promised in exchange for curtailing its nuclear
program.
Most recently, the three European
governments backed Washington in blaming Iran for a September 14 attack on
Saudi oil facilities that temporarily shut down half of the kingdom’s oil production
and sent crude prices spiraling by 20 percent—again without providing a shred
of proof.
Washington is seeking to topple the
Iranian regime or bully it into accepting complete subordination to US
imperialist predatory interests in the energy-rich and geostrategically vital
Middle East.
The US sanctions regime and military
buildup have placed the entire region on a hair trigger for the outbreak of a
catastrophic war that could engulf not only the Middle East, but the entire
planet.
All of the regimes involved in the
escalating conflict are gripped by crises that make the drive to war all the
more explosive.
The impact of the sanctions on Iran’s
economy has been devastating. It is estimated that oil exports last month fell
to just 400,000 barrels per day (b/d), compared to 1.95 million b/d in
September 2018. Left with little means of combating spiraling inflation and
growing unemployment, Iran’s bourgeois-clerical regime is caught between
intense pressure from imperialism on the one hand, and the growth of social
opposition among Iranian workers and poor on the other.
The Saudi monarchy is confronting the
debacle of its four-year-old and near genocidal war against the people of
Yemen, made possible by the weapons and logistical aid provided by Washington,
even as Prince bin Salman remains a global pariah for his ordering of the
grisly assassination of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year in
Istanbul.
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu,
incapable of forming a new government after two elections and confronting
criminal indictments, has grown increasingly concerned over the apparent lack
of appetite by the Persian Gulf Sunni monarchies for military confrontation
with Iran and Washington’s failure to carry out military strikes after the
downing of its drone in June and the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities last
month. Clearly, Tel Aviv, which has cast Iran as its strategic enemy, would
have a motive for attacking Iranian tankers in the hopes of provoking a
response that could lead to US military action.
And then there is Trump. He has
proclaimed his determination to halt the “endless wars” in the Middle East and
provoked a political firestorm by pulling back a relative handful of US troops
in Syria, allowing Turkey to launch a long-planned attack on the Pentagon’s
erstwhile proxy force, the Kurdish-dominated YPG militia.
Faced with an escalating political
crisis and growing social tensions within the US, along with an impeachment
investigation by the Democrats in Congress that is focused entirely on the
national security concerns of the CIA and the Pentagon, he has ample motive for
launching a new war.
While the Democrats’ exclusive focus
on Trump’s failure to pursue a sufficiently bellicose policy against Russia and
prosecute the war for regime change in Syria has allowed the US president to
absurdly posture as an opponent of war, the reality is that he has overseen a
staggering increase in military spending designed to prepare for “great power”
confrontations, particularly with China.
Meanwhile, whatever his political
pretense, Trump has done nothing to end any of the wars in the Middle East.
While he has ordered US troops to pull back, allowing the Turkish invasion,
none of them have been withdrawn from Syria.
With the latest buildup of US forces in
Saudi Arabia, Washington is preparing, behind the backs of the working class,
to launch a catastrophic military conflict with Iran. The most urgent task
posed by these developments is the building of a global antiwar movement led by
the working class. This movement must be armed with a socialist and
internationalist program to unify working people in the United States, Europe
and the Middle East in a common struggle against imperialist war and its
source, the capitalist system.
TRUMP AND THE
MURDERING 9-11 MUSLIM SAUDIS…
Why is the Swamp Keeper
and his family of parasites up their ar$es??
WHAT WILL TRUMP AND HIS
PARASITIC FAMILY DO FOR MONEY???
JUST ASK THE SAUDIS!
JOHN DEAN: Not so far. This has been right by the letter of the special counsel’s
charter. He’s released the document. What I’m looking for is relief and
understanding that there’s no witting or unwitting likelihood that the
President is an agent of Russia. That’s when I’ll feel comfortable, and no
evidence even hints at that. We don’t have that yet. We’re still in the process
of unfolding the report to look at it. And its, as I say, if [Attornery General
William Barr] honors his word, we’ll know more soon.
“Our entire crony capitalist system,
Democrat and
Republican alike, has become a
kleptocracy
approaching par with third-world
hell-holes. This
is the way a great country is raided
by its elite.” ---
- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER
PRESIDENT of the
UNITED STATES DONALD TRUMP: Pathological liar, swindler, con man, huckster,
golfing cheat, charity foundation fraudster, tax evader, adulterer, porn whore
chaser and servant of the Saudis dictators
THE TRUMP FAMILY FOUNDATION SLUSH FUND…. Will they see jail?
VISUALIZE REVOLUTION!.... We know where they live!
“Underwood is a Democrat and is seeking millions of dollars in
penalties. She wants Trump and his eldest children barred from running other
charities.”
Opinion: Trump And Pompeo Have Enabled A Saudi Cover-Up Of
The Khashoggi Killing
October
2, 201911:45 AM ET
AARON DAVID MILLER
RICHARD SOKOLSKY
In the
weeks following the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump
spent more time praising Saudi Arabia as a very important ally than he did
reacting to the killing.
Hasan
Jamali/AP
Aaron
David Miller (@aarondmiller2) is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and a former State Department Middle East analyst, adviser
and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations. He is the author
most recently of the End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want)
Another Great President.
Richard
Sokolsky, a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, worked in the State Department for six different
administrations and was a member of the secretary of state's Office of Policy
Planning from 2005 to 2015.
It has been a year since Saudi journalist
and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi entered
Saudi Arabia's Consulate in Istanbul where he was slain and dismembered. There
is still no objective or comprehensive Saudi or American accounting of what
occurred, let alone any real accountability.
The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman's admission in a recent CBS interview that
he takes "full responsibility," while denying foreknowledge of the
killing or that he ordered it, sweeps under the rug the lengths to which the
Saudis have gone to obscure the truth about their involvement in the killing
and cover-up.
The Saudi campaign of obfuscation, denial and
cover-up would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the Trump
administration's support over the past year. The president and Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo not only refused to distance themselves from the crown
prince, known by his initials MBS, but also actively worked to relegitimize
him. The Saudis killed Khashoggi but Trump acquiesced in the cover-up and
worked hard to protect the U.S.-Saudi relationship and soften the crown
prince's pariah status. In short, without Trump, the attempted makeover — such
as it is — would not have been possible.
The Saudis killed Khashoggi but Trump
acquiesced in the cover-up and worked hard to protect the U.S.-Saudi
relationship and soften the crown prince's pariah status.
Weak administration response
The administration's weak and feckless
response to Khashoggi's killing was foreshadowed a year before it occurred. In
May 2017, in an unusual break with precedent, Trump visited Saudi Arabia on his
inaugural presidential trip; gave his son-in-law the authority to manage the
MBS file, which he did with the utmost secrecy; and made it unmistakably clear
that Saudi money, oil, arm purchases and support for the administration's
anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli policies would elevate the U.S.-Saudi
"special relationship" to a new level.
Predictably, therefore, the
administration's reaction to Khashoggi's killing was shaped by a desire to
manage the damage and preserve the relationship. In the weeks following
Khashoggi's death, Trump spent more time praising Saudi Arabia as a very
important ally, especially as a purchaser of U.S. weapons and goods, than he did reacting to the killing. Trump
vowed to get to the bottom of the Khashoggi killing but focused more on
defending the crown prince, saying this was another example of
being "guilty before being proven innocent."
Those pledges to investigate and impose
accountability would continue to remain hollow. Over the past year, Trump and
Pompeo have neither criticized nor repudiated Saudi actions that have harmed
American interests in the Middle East. Two months after Khashoggi's death, the
administration, in what Pompeo described as an "initial step," imposed sanctions on
17 Saudi individuals implicated in the killing. But no others have been
forthcoming, and the visa restrictions that were imposed are meaningless
because none of the sanctioned Saudis would be
foolish enough to seek entry into the United States.
What's more, the administration
virtually ignored a congressional resolution imposing
sanctions on the Saudis for human rights abuses and vetoed another bipartisan
resolution that would have ended U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia's
inhumane military campaign in Yemen.
The Saudis opened a trial in January of
11 men implicated in the killing, but the proceedings have been slow and
secretive, leading the United Nations' top human rights expert to declare that
"the trial underway in Saudi Arabia will not deliver credible
accountability." Despite accusations that the crown prince's key adviser
Saud al-Qahtani was involved in the killing, he's still advising MBS, has not stood trial and
will likely escape punishment. A year later, there are still no reports of
convictions or serious punishment.
Legitimizing Mohammed bin
Salman
The Trump administration has not only
given the crown prince a pass on the Khashoggi killing, but it has also worked assiduously
to remove his pariah status and rehabilitate his global image. Barely two
months after the 2018 slaying, Trump was exchanging pleasantries with the crown prince at the
Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires and holding
out prospects of spending more time with him. Then this past June, at the G-20
in Osaka, Japan, Trump sang his praises while dodging questions about the
killing. "It's an honor to be with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, a
friend of mine, a man who has really done things in the last five years in
terms of opening up Saudi Arabia," Trump said.
And you can bet that when Saudi Arabia
hosts the G-20, scheduled to be held in its capital of Riyadh in November 2020,
the Trump administration will be smiling as its rehab project takes another
step in its desired direction.
What the U.S. should have done
Trump has failed to impose any serious
costs or constraints on Saudi Arabia for the killing of a U.S. newspaper
columnist who resided in Virginia or for the kingdom's aggressive policies,
from Yemen to Qatar. In the wake of the Khashoggi killing, the administration
should have made it unmistakably clear, both publicly and privately, that it
expected a comprehensive and credible accounting and investigation. It should have suspended high-level contacts
and arms sales with the kingdom for a period of time. And to make the point,
the administration should have supported at least one congressional resolution
taking the Saudis to task, in addition to triggering the Magnitsky Act, which
would have required a U.S. investigation; a report to Congress; and sanctions
if warranted.
Back to business as usual
The dark stain of the crown prince's
apparent involvement in Khashoggi's death will not fade easily. But for Trump
and Pompeo, it pales before the great expectations they still maintain for the
kingdom to confront and contain their common enemy, Iran, as well as support
the White House's plan for Middle East peace, defeat jihadists in the region
and keep the oil spigot open.
Most of these goals are illusory. Saudi
Arabia is a weak, fearful and unreliable ally. The kingdom has introduced
significant social and cultural reforms but has imposed new levels of
repression and authoritarianism. Its reckless policies toward Yemen and Qatar
have expanded, not contracted, opportunities for Iran, while the Saudi military
has demonstrated that, even after spending billions to buy America's most
sophisticated weapons, it still can't defend itself without American help.
Meanwhile, recent attacks on critical
Saudi oil facilities that the U.S. blames on Iran have helped rally more
American and international support for the kingdom.
When it comes to the U.S.-Saudi
relationship and the kingdom's callous reaction to Khashoggi's killing, the
president and his secretary of state have been derelict in their duty: They
have not only failed to advance American strategic interests but also
undermined America's values in the process.
The U.S. Military is Sending Thousands of Troops and Even B-1
Bombers into Saudi Arabia (To Counter Iran)
On October 6, around fifty U.S. commandos in northeastern Syria
tasked with hunting down ISIS forces were withdrawn from territory near the
Turkish border controlled by the Kurdish-Arab SDF faction.
The U.S. withdrawal was a prerequisite for a Turkish attack
against the SDF which subsequently took place. The remaining hundreds of U.S.
forces elsewhere in northeastern Syria were endangered in the crossfire and had
to be withdrawn a few days later.
The U.S. withdrawal was post-hoc justified on the basis that
they were no longer needed in the Middle East and it was time to “bring the
troops home.”
But in the weeks since, the United States has deployed over
3,000 more troops to the Middle East—including hundreds of National Guardsmen
in Syria, and thousands of soldiers and airmen deployed to Saudi Arabia.
While a companion article looks at the deployment of a
mechanized battalion to defend an oil field in southeastern Syria, this second
part looks at the rapid buildup of U.S. forces in the wealthy Kingdom in
response to intensifying clashes with Iran following the United State’s
withdrawal from a nuclear deal with Tehran.
Return to the Kingdom
The deployments to Saudi Arabia marks a dramatic turn around
from sixteen years earlier in 2003, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
pulled out thousands of U.S. troops. Their presence had long been cited as a
factor radicalizing Muslims across the planet who objected to the presence of
foreign troops so close to the holy city of Mecca.
Apparently, these concerns have since faded, despite political
headwinds from a U.S. Congress angered by Saudi Arabia’s grisly murder of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul.
The buildup has been prompted by Iranian harassment of shipping
in the Persian Gulf, the shootdown
of U.S. surveillance drone over the Persian Gulf in June, and a drone and
missile attack on Saudi oil refineries in September that was almost certainly
of Iranian origin but which Yemeni rebels took credit for.
First, following the loss of drones in June, that the Defense
Department announced it was doubling troop deployment to the Kingdom from 500
to 1,000 personnel.
No comments:
Post a Comment