[Marxism] A slightly different take on F-911: "...new film... a tremendous favor for...proponents of a war upon the Arabian Peninsula."
cuibono at rcip.com
Wed Jul 7 12:02:39 MDT 2004
Michael Moore and Richard Perle Combine Forces:
Who Really Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia, and Why?
By Tanya C. Hsu
Senior Political Analyst & Director of Program Development
Institute for Research: Middle East Policy
Part 1 of a Three Part Series 7/4/2004
"Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood,
constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which
views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.Any Muslim who is aware of his
teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Qur'an
and the Sunn'ah will never involve himself in such acts because they will
invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth."
-- Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulema, Sheikh
'Abdul-'Aziz Âlush, Sept. 15, 2001
Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" has done a tremendous favor for
some proponents of a war upon the Arabian Peninsula. The film achieves what
endless pages of conservative think-tank studies and panel discussions,
hours of PR time and books can not: spill gasoline on the anti-Saudi sparks
already ignited within the United States.
Moore's film lambastes the Saudis not only for their business relationships
but also for leaving the US after the attacks of September 11th 2001 as did
other non-Saudi officials on the same day when specific flights were
permitted. The overwhelming popularity of this documentary takes the
anti-Saudi message to a whole new market.
It is the latest manifestation of a rationale for war that could finally
execute a long-term plan to invade and occupy the Kingdom. In spite of its
progressive producer and target audience, "Fahrenheit 9/11" falls lock-step
in line with the stated agenda of neoconservative hawks: rid Arabia of the
House of Saud thereby granting the US and allies full access to the Middle
East's biggest prize.
There is a growing assumption on the part of members of the US Congress,
US-Saudi diplomats, and the American public that the Bush administration is
making a "turnaround" in US policy towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
because of neo-conservative and domestic interest group pressure. Those
opposed to the current administration accuse the White House of maintaining
ties to an enemy of America in exchange for lucrative business deals. In
contrast, those who support ties with Saudi Arabia maintain that the US has
no intention of severing relations with a regional stabilizing force and
with long term friends in the House of Saud. Who is correct?
The US has not had wholly "friendly" intentions towards the Kingdom for the
past 30 years. Any appearance of such is only the visible veneer of real US
military policy. Declassified documents reveal that there has been a
constant drumbeat to invade Saudi Arabia that has sounded behind the closed
doors of our government. The Pentagon, for three decades, has formulated and
updated secret plans to seize Saudi oil wells and rid the Kingdom of the
ruling House of Saud. This is not only a neo-conservative cabal. Time and
again plans have been made for an invasion of Saudi Arabia for a larger
purpose: US control of the global oil supply thereby dominating global
The most recent wave of charges that Saudi Arabia supports, condones, and
aids terrorism signify a secondary and more public attempt to gain support
to finally execute a thirty year old plan to occupy Saudi Arabia. Other
regional players' objectives, (securing oil supplies; the rationale of a
"war on terror") may add synergy and an unstoppable impetus for an American
This essay discloses and evaluates the motives and actions of those behind
the new drive to occupy Saudi oil fields.
Classified Plans Brought To Light
In 1973, the Nixon administration described a plan of attack against Saudi
Arabia to seize its oil fields in a classified Joint Intelligence Report
entitled "UK Eyes Alpha". British MI5 and MI6 were informed, and under
British National Archive rules the document was declassified in December of
2003. The oil embargo had been over for only three weeks but "Eyes Alpha"
suggested that the "US could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for
themselves and their allies by taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, and the Gulf State of Abu Dhabi". It followed that "pre-emptive"
action would be considered, and that two brigades could seize the Saudi
oilfields and one brigade each could take Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.
In February of 1975 the London Sunday Times revealed information from a
leaked and classified US Department of Defense plan. The plan, drawn up by
the Pentagon, was code named "Dhahran Option Four" and provided for an
invasion of the world's largest oil reserves, namely Saudi Arabia. See
Exhibit 1 The Take-Over Plan
(Source: London Sunday Times, February 1975, retouched by IRmep)
[note: cf. hurriyya at topica.com, issue #734, for link (dhe)]
Also in 1975, Robert Tucker, US intelligence and military analyst, wrote an
article for "Commentary" magazine, owned by the Jewish American Committee,
entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention". Tucker stated that,
"Without intervention there is a distinct possibility of an economic and
political disaster bearing . resemblance to the disaster of 1930s.The Arab
shoreline of the Gulf is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." And
this was followed in February of the same year by an article in Harper's
Magazine by a Pentagon analyst using a pseudonym, Miles Ignotus, emphasizing
the need for the US to seize Saudi oilfields, installations and airports
entitled "Seizing Arab Oil". According to James Akins, former US diplomat,
the author was probably Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time.
Kissinger has neither confirmed nor ever denied the charge.
Further, in August of 1975, a report entitled, "Oil Fields as Military
Objectives: A Feasibility Study", was produced for the Committee on Foreign
Relations. In this report, the CRS stated that potential targets for the US
included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria. "Analysis
indicates . [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and
qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed."
The real premise of an attack against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been
around since the Cold War. The idea was, however, revived under the aegis of
a new "war against terrorism" on the charge of that the Saudi state
supported such against the west. One nexus of this drive is Richard Perle.
Neo-conservative Designs on Saudi Arabia
Richard Perle is an outspoken critic of any Americans doing business with
the Kingdom, despite his own attempt to secure $100 million in Saudi
investment for his private venture capital firm. His ill-fated attempt to
become a power-broker with one foot on in the door of the US Defense Policy
board of the Department of Defense and another foot in the door of Trimeme
capital investments is well documented. He has since become more hard-line,
telling the National Review, "I think it's a disgrace. The Saudis are a
major source of the problem we face with terrorism. " (Perle had to resign
from the Defense Policy Board when his secret and extortive fundraising
meetings with Saudi Arabian businessmen became public.)
Perle's efforts to rearrange the dynamics of the region, including Saudi
Arabia, have gone on for many years. Incoming Israeli Likud Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu asked Perle to draft a regional strategy paper for
Israel. The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies, a think
tank based in Washington DC and Jerusalem published the completed paper, " A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ", emphasized the need to
overturn the Oslo Accords and Middle East peace process. It demanded
Chairman Yasser Arafat be blamed for every act of Palestinian terror;
required the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq
and Syria; and the force of democracy foisted upon the entire Arab world
plus Iran. One senior Israeli intelligence officer stated the goal was to
make Israel the dominant power in the region and expel the Palestinians.
Perle's efforts to neutralize international funding for the Palestinian
resistance and support of Palestinians have driven his policy
recommendations ever since.
Another author of "A Clean Break" was David Wurmser. In September of 2003
Wurmser was moved to the US State Department to work directly under Vice
President Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. David Wurmser's
wife, Meyrav, ran MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) alongside
Colonel Yigal Carmon, of Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI specializes in
selective retrieval, searching and translating especially plucked Arab
language documents that confirm MEMRI's bias that the Arab world despises
the West. Meyrav Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington
University on the life of Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist
Zionism and declared fascist, and hero of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and
the Likud Party.
Saudi Arabia was again declared an enemy of the United States on July 10th,
2002, when RAND Corporation's Laurent Murawiec gave a PowerPoint
presentation to the Defense Policy Board at the invitation of Perle Like
Meyrav Wurmser, Murawiec is also from George Washington University and
listed as a past faculty member. He was also a follower of the Lyndon
LaRouche cultist organization. This group indoctrinates its members to
abandon their homes because "family values are really immoral", according to
those who left the group. (Lyndon LaRouche is a convicted felon, conspiracy
theorist and UFO believer.) [ compare with LaRouche defense atty. Ramsey
Clark's filed brief, also his press statements in support of his
Entitled "Taking Saudi Out Of Arabia" the PowerPoint presentation states
"Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot" and declared that the Kingdom is an enemy
of the USA. It advocated the US seize the Kingdom and its oil fields, invade
Mecca and Medina, confiscate Saudi Arabian financial assets unless the
Kingdom stop supporting anti-Western terrorist activities.
Saudi Arabia was declared as the "kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most
dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. Murawiec claimed, "Since
independence, wars have been the principal output of the Arab world" and
that "plot, riot, murder, coup are the only available means to bring about
change.Violence is politics, politics is violence. This culture of violence
is the prime enabler of terrorism. Terror as an accepted, legitimate means
of carrying out politics has been incubated for 30 years." James Akins
explained the overall plans thusly: "It'll be easier once we have Iraq.
Kuwait, we already have. Qatar and Bahrain too. So it's only Saudi Arabia
we're talking about, and the United Arab Emirates falls into place."
The connections between individuals pressing for a US invasion of Saudi
Arabia run deep. Richard Perle's lifelong mentor was the RAND corporation's
late Albert Wohlstetter, the grandfather of neo-conservative analysts.
Wohlstetter also was a Ahmed Chalabi's classmate at the University of
Chicago. Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and the
protagonist of the information provided to the US government regarding the
thus far non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, is an indicted
criminal in Jordan where he has been sentenced to more than 20 years' hard
labor for currency manipulation and embezzlement through Jordanian Petra
The analytical and populist groundswell of denunciation against Saudi Arabia
as a state sponsor of terrorism from progressive and conservative circles
alike may culminate in an invasion sooner rather than later. Supporters
within the current US administration can use this unity to execute another
"blueprint" for US policy. It can follow as easily as Saddam Hussein's
"imminent threat towards America" and Iraq's Wads served as the principle
rationale for the US invasion of Iraq.
Target Saudi Arabia: Taking the Case from Think Tank to Theater
In reality there has been no hard evidence linking Saudi Arabian leaders and
officials to terrorism, little evidence of Saudi subjects playing a mindful
role, and far less financial ties to terrorism than could be found in most
nations with a banking system. In fact, the US State Department lists the
Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Australia and indeed the United
States itself as having Al Queda financial ties and connections. However,
facts may not be enough to stem rising anti-Saudi sentiment among policy
makers and average Americans.
The Murawiec PowerPoint indictment continued, stating that Saudi Arabia is
"[a]n instable group: .Wahhabism loathes modernity, capitalism, human
rights, religious freedom, democracy, republics, an open society" and that
"Wahhabism is spreading world-wide" [sic] based upon Iran's Revolution led
by Shi'ite Ayatollah Khomeini; that "Wahhabism moves from Islam's lunatic
fringe", and that there was a "[s]hift from pragmatic oil policy to
promotion of radical Islam.. [Saudi Arabians are] treasurers of radical,
fundamentalist, terrorist groups."
Saudi Arabia is then charged with being "the chief vector of the Arab crisis
. active at every level of the terror chain.[it] supports [US] enemies [and
has] virulent hatred against US.. There is an "Arabia" but it need not be
"Saudi".[US must] stop any funding and support for any fundamentalist
madrasa, mosque, ulama, predicator anywhere in the world.Dismantle, ban all
the kingdom's "Islamic charities", confiscate their assets... [and] What the
House of Saud holds dear can be targeted - Oil...the Holy Places.Saudi
Arabia [is] the strategic pivot".
Were these presentations not heard by top-level Bush administration
officials they would be dismissed as simplistic absurdity. However, the
sparks of a mass movement to demonize Saudi Arabia had already begun to
ignite, and on June 6th 2002 the right wing Hudson Institute held a seminar
called "Discourses on Democracy: Saudi Arabia, Friend or Foe?", Laurent
Murewiec and Richard Perle in attendance.
Of even further interest is the ironic and direct link between Richard Perle
and terrorism. A recent fundraiser in support of the victims of the Iranian
earthquake in Bam, sponsored by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, asked Richard Perle
to be their keynote speaker. Despite rejections by other groups to speak at
the event, based upon the US state department's official designation that
the MEK is an officially designated "foreign terrorist organization",
Richard Perle knew of the designation, ignored it, and was happy to oblige
and raise monies - monies which were immediately seized after the event by
U.S. Treasury agents. The MEK is the same terrorist organization that
attempted to assassinate Richard Nixon in 1972.
Two weeks after the PowerPoint presentation to the Pentagon's Defense Policy
Board, the American Enterprise Institute held yet another seminar by Dore
Gold, former UN Ambassador from Israel to promote his new book, "Hatred's
Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism". Having never
visited the country, Gold has been promoted on broadcast television networks
as an "expert" on Saudi Arabia when not introduced as "an advisor of Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon".
Gold claims that the al-Haramain group has channeled massive funding to
Al-Qaeda whilst omitting that Saudi Arabia shut down the organization and
froze its assets. Gold's strongest claim is an Israeli document claiming
funds to Hamas come from Saudi Arabia. Hamas has strongly denied the charge
of any Saudi government involvement and Saudi Arabia also dismissed the
charges as false. Gold uses the book to promote the Netanyahu/Perle/Bush
agenda to pursue Saudi Arabia "far more aggressively if Middle Eastern
security is to be protected" and argues that Israel has only a "minor role"
in Al-Qaeda related acts of terrorism because Saudi Arabia is to blame for
funding the "global jihad of Al Qaeda". Gold then testified before the
United States' Congress about the inherent evil of Saudi Arabia. Yet
throughout the book Gold only confirms that terrorism connections come from
foreigners who infiltrate the country, and non-Saudi governments. The book
provides no proof of official or unofficial support.
Hudson Institute co-founder and neoconservative Max Singer wrote a paper
sent to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment in May 2002 urging the
outside break up of Saudi Arabia. On Oct 7th 2003 fellow arch conservative
William Kristol, editor of Weekly Standard, stated that he was upset that
the US had not gone beyond the war on Iraq to the "next regime change" of
the "next horrible" Middle East dictator Bashar Assad of Syria.
Before publication of his book "Sleeping With The Devil" , Robert Baer,
ex-CIA officer, was ordered by the CIA to remove multiple passages claiming
special CIA knowledge of Saudi royals having funneled money to Al Qaeda for
terrorist funding, assassination plots, and even Chechen rebels. He asserts
that Saudi Arabia is a "powder keg waiting to explode", "the royal family is
"corrupt" ", "hanging on by a thread" and "as violent and vengeful as any
Mafia family". Baer, filled with loathing towards the Saudis, relies upon a
tacit, yet rejected CIA stamp of approval, but also shows little hard
evidence. Baer refused to comply with the CIA's request "just [to] defy
them". The CIA is considering filing a lawsuit against Baer, who, like Gold,
has also never personally visited Saudi Arabia.
Another author who has made the best-seller list is Gerald Posner, who wrote
"Why America Slept" which implicates Osama bin Laden and the Saudi
government. In Posner's opinion the rulers have been paying hush money to
bin Laden for years in order to prevent terrorist attacks upon the Kingdom.
One might consider it strange that there have been multiple fatal attacks
upon civilians in Saudi Arabia if bin Laden receives such bribes. And how
was Posner able to create a book with such a detailed indictment within a
few months when US intelligence has taken years? Posner presents no
The US government itself not only unknowingly harbored and sponsored
terrorists (9/11 Al-Qaeda members, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation,
Mujahedin-e-Khalq [MEK], IRA, etc.) it consciously negotiated with Iranian
terrorist groups to secure US troop safety from attack in Iraq from Iranians
in exchange for Iraqi weapons. Up until 2001 and since the mid-nineties the
US dealt directly with the Taliban for oil pipeline rights, agreeing to pay
the Taliban tax on every one of the million cubic feet of fuel that would
have passed through Afghanistan daily. Vice President Dick Cheney,
Halliburton CEO at the time, stated, "Occasionally we have to operate in
places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go.
But we go where the business is." During this timeframe Hamid Karzai was the
Taliban's deputy foreign minister and a former UNOCAL consultant (UNOCAL
leading these negotiations along with Paul Wolfowitz aide Zalmay Khalilzad).
On November 9th 2003 Israel confirmed that it had failed in secret
negotiations with Hezbollah, sleeping with their own devil. (In January 2004
the Israeli negotiations with their designated terrorist group Hezbollah
bore fruit, when a prisoner swap became actuality.) Gerald Posner writes in
his book that terrorists had been set up by the US posing as Saudi
interrogators, releasing a flood of information under excess cruelty. This
charge would mean that the US was in violation of international law by using
torture on terror suspects.
Whatever inconsistencies exist between US public relations and the "war on
terror", the efforts to tie the Saudi government or "Saudis" in general to
terrorism is taking effect. Merit or evidence is not the issue. Passion and
mobilization is. The movie "Fahrenheit 9/11", true to its title, turns up
the heat through an entirely new American audience: Democrats and
The Approaching Decision
On June 25, 2004, Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened to 500
screens and insatiable crowds. The film's message to audiences is clear and
simple: the US-Saudi relationship must end. However, Americans should take
time to go beyond the film, books, and talk-show pundits to re-examine the
complicated history between the US and Saudi Arabia and real motives of
parties pushing for war. By understanding the motives and histories of the
driving personalities new and old, we can uncover and more fully comprehend
an growing case for war in Arabia.
Americans will soon be asked to make a decision about whether invasion is
the proper course for American policy. But unlike the build up to a war in
Iraq, an informed decision will serve America in a way that hidden plans,
rationales and one-sided messages on sale at the box-office cannot.
If Americans Knew
3284 Adeline St., Suite B, Berkeley, CA 94703
Copied from the listserve: hurriyya at topica.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:52:41 -0700
From: "Alison Weir" <alisonweir at yahoo.com>
Subject: Who wants to invade Saudi Arabia, and why?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/04
More information about the Marxism