portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

imperialism & war

Saudi Arabia in US Sights?

In a recent posting to PDX indymedia ( http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/274322.shtml) People speculated about whether the US may be planning to attack Syria soon. Perhaps Syria is not the destination, though?
I first read about the reported mass movement of US warplanes over Scotland here:  http://global-elite.org/ on Nov 05 2003. I was informed today that there was a posting and thread covering this story here on pdx indymedia that started on Nov 03 2003.

An interesting development today has been the widespread reports of the US removing diplomatic personnel from Saudi Arabia, because of perceived "threats of terrorism" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3212769.stm)

Mike Ruppert of  http://fromthewilderness.com reported and predicted that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants to see the US occupying Saudi Arabia quote: "... CFR is anxious to pursue an agenda that will likely result in the demise of the Saudi kingdom and the division of that country, with the U.S. simultaneously occupying both Iraq and the oil producing regions of Saudi Arabia. FTW predicted this scenario last month. The significance of a move that would give the U.S. military control of 36 percent of the world's oil is not lost on the rest of the world and it suggests the presence of a much deeper reality." ( http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101802_the_unseen.html)

The excuse to invade Saudi Arabia may come in the form of a series of terror attacks in that country, followed "by a cry of help" from the ruling regime of Saudi Arabia. This grab for oil may be one of the reasons that Russia, China, and India are talking about forming an alliance ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=266105)

Further developments:

Although this source seems to me at first glance to be a race-baiting and fear mongering of supposed "Zionist domination" schemes, they do seem to have many obscure details nailed about the current situation and recent meeting between Israel's Sharon and the Russian government:

 http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon/countdown_to_armageddon.html

or

 http://tinyurl.com/u5h4

Sam Rose

 samuel.rose@voyager.net
uh, no... 07.Nov.2003 19:51

apocalypso

bombing saudi arabia = attacking mecca.
during ramadan, no less.

i think not.

nah 07.Nov.2003 21:04

ed harley

we already have their oil..... that makes them a democracy, so we don't need to liberate them.

My Take 08.Nov.2003 06:22

x

Syria and Iran are indeed a target. What is happening is the implementation of the Zionist "A Clean Break" plan. It essentially calls for attacks on Iran, Syria, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries and the installation of Israel as the dominant force in the region.

 http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3040cleanbreak.html

Where does Saudi Arabia fit in? Saudi Arabia is a Pro-American state--in terms of the House of Saud--but it is faced with internal rebellion and anti-American opposition.

The USA is positioning to move on Saudi Arabia--just in case the House of Saud is overthrown, and an anti-American government comes to power. The USA may also move on Saudi Arabia to prevent such an overthrown from happening before it does. Call it a strategy of Preemption if you will.

Moreoever, there are reports I have read that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been collarborating on providing Saudi Arabia with a nuclear deterrent against future US attack. Indeed, there are reports that Bush's "We will democratize the Middle East" speech is not merely blather but is part of a broader strategy to wage war against the entire Arab and Muslim world in order to "democratize" (i.e. colonize) them--including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan eventually. Israel of course figures prominently into these anti-Muslim plans, as well as perhaps India.

Indeed, there are reports that the USA, Israel, and India are creating a possible strategic axis. Call this a verson of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations Axis pitting the Christian-Zionist-Hindu world against the Muslim and Confucian (i.e. China) worlds.

 http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0305india.html

Its all very confusing, I know to figure out what the REAL AGENDA is.

Is it about oil? Yes.

But ultimately is about creating an Anglo-American (and Zionist) world Empire.

The long and short of these geopolitical twists and turns and confusing agendas can be understood by one little phrase: The Project for a New American Century.


 http://www.pnac.info

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1544.htm

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

 http://www.pnacrevealed.com


This is the Best Analysis of the American Agenda 08.Nov.2003 06:35

x

The "Rupe" site is by far the best and most comprehensive analysis of the real US gameplan: global hegemony first in the Middle East, and then the world. Here is an excerpt:

Real Reasons for the US Invasion:
The Current Strategic Agenda of the United States

To sum up the following account: The US plans a massive expansionist drive around the world (and indeed even in outer space). In this it plans to take full advantage of its overwhelming military supremacy, including hitherto impermissible means, with inevitably terrible effects on the targeted populations. Not only inconvenient regimes but even certain US client regimes (such as Saudi Arabia) may be targeted. These countries are slated for direct rule by the American military, or rule under close and detailed direction by US monitors—encompassing not only foreign policy and economic policy, but political, social and cultural institutions as well. Direct control of oil will pass into American hands. Importantly, this drive is intended to prevent the emergence of rivals to American worldwide hegemony.

The first part of the following account draws on reports produced by private US bodies as well as press reports. We do not suggest that all the "grand strategies" and schemes mentioned therein have been finalised. The US ruling classes generally adopt a drawn-out process in the course of which they reconcile and resolve the often conflicting demands of their own various sections. Typically, apart from legislators and the press, a proliferation of research institutes, semi-governmental bodies, and academic forums circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby (leaving the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy). These proposals elicit objections from other sections, through similar media; other powerful countries too press their interests, directly or indirectly; and the entire discussion, in the light of the strength of the respective interests, helps shape the course of action finally adopted, and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it. (This process of course has nothing to do with democratic debate, since the people are excluded as participants, and are included only as a factor to be taken into account.)

The welter of 'secret' reports, private discussions and briefings by unnamed official sources being reported in the press are part of this process. Keeping these qualifications in mind, these reports offer an invaluable window into the current policy of the American ruling classes.

[ .... ]

The US as agent provocateur

Leading political circles in the west are well aware of the US gameplan. Mo Mowlam, a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001, lifted the curtain in an article bluntly titled: "The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil. Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region." (The Guardian, 5/9/02). She describes how the US plans to spread the war beyond Iraq:

"What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem....

"The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled.... If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged." (emphasis added)

A sober gathering of eminent academics, historians, economists, global strategists and other experts came to a similar consensus at the Oxford Analytica conference in September 2002. The conference predicted that with the invasion of Iraq,

"At the very least, violent anti-American street demonstrations in Cairo, Alexandria and other Egyptian cities could be expected — perhaps erupting also in Saudi Arabia and maybe Jordan. These would be forcibly suppressed, but if they should threaten a number of Middle East regimes, this might not necessarily be outside of the US game plan, some experts suggested.... To clean out such regimes and install others that are not just friendly to the US in foreign policy terms but which also subscribe to American mores would further the cause of the Bush administration's neo-imperialism and also secure the future integrity of energy supplies for the US. Such aims might be achieved as part of the greater Iraq campaign—protracted and expensive though this might prove to be — or by using Iraq as a jumping off point for future regime-destabilising actions once Saddam Hussein has been subdued." ("More to Iraq war than just Saddam? US has wider strategic aims, says an international conference", Anthony Rowley, Business Times, 25/9/02; emphasis added)

Israel to play key role

Apparently Israel is accorded a key role in US plans for occupying and policing the region.

According to the leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan is to forcibly "transfer" the two million Palestinians living in the occupied territories to neighbouring Jordan—a move opinion polls indicate has the support of 44 per cent of Israelis. No doubt this would spark a response from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (popular sentiment in those regions would irresistibly force the hands of the regimes), but that would merely provide an occasion for Israel to employ once more its overwhelming (American-built and American-funded) military might on them and crush their armies:

"Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity — such as an American offensive against Iraq... An uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime, would also present such an opportunity—as would a spectacular act of terrorism inside Israel that killed hundreds.

"Should such circumstances arise, then Israel would mobilise with lightning speed—even now, much of its male population is on standby. First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government. A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.

"The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison.

"Any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. In 1982, the last time it engaged in large-scale operations, it destroyed 19 Syrian anti-aircraft batteries and shot down 100 Syrian aircraft against the loss of one. Its advantage is much greater now than it was then and would present an awesome threat to any Syrian armoured attack on the Golan Heights. As for the Egyptians, they are separated from Israel by 150 miles or so of open desert. Judging by what happened in 1967, should they try to cross it they would be destroyed.

"The Jordanian and Lebanese armed forces are too small to count and Iraq is in no position to intervene, given that it has not recovered its pre-1991 strength and is being held down by the Americans.... Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States. The US, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson—particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long.

"Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed." ("Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan", Daily Telegraph, 28/4/02)

Israel's attack on the Palestinians and then the Arab states would thus complement the US invasion of Iraq and some other state(s). Israel would hold military sway in the region as the local enforcer of American power.

This explains the unstinted support Sharon has received from Bush for his assault on the Palestinians. The day after his December 3, 2001, meeting with Bush, Sharon besieged Arafat in Ramalla and began the bombing and bombardment of the West Bank. Since then Sharon has not only unleashed death and terror in the occupied territories, but deliberately attempted to humiliate Arafat and discredit him even further among the Palestinians. The attack on Arafat has two objectives: first, to discredit Israel's only existing negotiating party, and thus eliminate the obstacle of negotiations altogether; second, to provoke a reaction from the Palestinians such as can be the excuse for their mass eviction from the occupied territories, just as they were driven out in 1948 from the land that now constitutes Israel. (Van Creveld points out that Sharon has always referred to Jordan as a Palestinian state, the obvious implication being that Palestinians in the occupied territories belong there.)

This entire scenario is perhaps what Cheney had in mind when he said, in his address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would enhance US ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Colonial-style carve-up
One analyst (Eric Margolis, "Bush's Mideast Plan: Conquer and Divide", Toronto Sun, 8/12/02) rightly compares American plans for the region to the carving-up of the region by Britain and France in the Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916. He lists "Possible scenarios under review at the highest levels":

"Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and [Tariq] Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts-martial and firing squads.3

"The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify [other] Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

"Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and `regime change'. The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits....

"Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programmes or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.4

"Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate."

And so on, with Libya's Gaddafi "marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged."

While the apparent targets of the US assault are the regimes of these countries, that would hardly make sense, since none of them poses a threat to the US, and in fact some of them, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are its client states. Rather the real targets are the anti-imperialist masses of the region, whom certain regimes are unwilling, and others are unable, to control. It is these anti-imperialist masses of West Asia, not their rulers of whatever hue, who have always constituted the real threat to US domination. The US appears to believe that its overwhelming and highly sophisticated military might can tackle the masses effectively if they come out into the open. That is why it even contemplates provoking mass uprisings so as to have occasion to crush them.

 http://www.rupe-india.org/34/agenda.html