Saudi Arabia/ United States: A masochistic Sado relationship
The alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia is strictly speaking an unnatural alliance, in that it seals, on the basis of oil, an antinomic alliance between one of the oldest democracies in the world and a theocratic kingdom, the most obscurantist on the planet.
Worse still, this alliance will lead to a triangulation between the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia of a great perversity in that the smallest state of the trio, Israel, will constantly dictate its will to the United States, the first military power on the planet, which, by complying, will pass on its oukases to the leader of the Muslim world, a community of 1.5 billion people of faith.
Seemingly parity-based, materialized by the Quincy pact, the American Saudi alliance actually reflects a masochistic Sado relationship, in that “the guardian of the holy places of Islam” subscribes without blinking at the orders of his American master, while the leader of the Free World, failing to subscribe secretly to all the turpitudes of the tanker, exonerates him at least publicly from his direct responsibility, as was the case during the raid of 11 September 2011 against the symbols of American hyperpower.
To go further about the Quincy Pact, see this link:
A – Bandar Bush
As an illustration of this singularity, two Saudi leaders have distinguished themselves over the past quarter of a century in Washington’s diplomatic cenacle with the two American presidents who are most openly open to the arguments of the Saudis:
Bandar Ben Sultan, the son of the irremovable Saudi Defence Minister for a quarter of a century, Sultan Ben Abdel Aziz, with George Bush Jr., so intimate with the American President, who was also the heir to the great Texas oil dynasty, that he was nicknamed “Bandar Bush”.
So intimate that the “Great Gasby” of Washington’s diplomatic cenacle will take the liberty of sitting on the elbow of an oval office couch to collect, well before the other coalition allies, the United States’ decision to invade Iraq on March 20, 2003, when American troops had already launched their offensive. A photograph by his personal photographer and not by the White House photographer will capture this moment of complicity.
Among the Bushes, Arab oil is a family affair, see this link:
The invasion of Iraq in 2003, presented as a retaliation operation for the Taliban raid of 11 September 2001 against the symbols of the American hyperpower, will appear retrospectively in international records as the first case of reprisals by substitution of Saudi Arabia, of which Iraq will be the collateral victim of a three-band pool game in that the terrorist commando was composed of 15 members of Saudi nationality out of a total of 19.
His brother, General Khaled Ben Sultan, interface of General Norman Scwharzkoff, commander in chief of the international coalition during the 1990-1991 desert storm operation against Iraq, punished the Western Expeditionary Force’s stewardship of $4 billion with impunity as retro commissions on troop supply.
Bandar will settle for less. He will receive a tithes of one billion dollars in his country’s military transactions with Western powers (the Toronado contract with the United Kingdom). Undoubtedly, as a counterpart to the sacrifice of Western troops in the defence of the Kingdom and as a contribution to the luxuriant life of the Saudi ambassador in Washington.
When the “born again” went into political oblivion, at the end of a double mandate that was calamitous for the United States, the Saudi dandy, propelled at the head of global jihadism, poured into alcoholism, before sinking into ethylism, defeated by his regional rival in the war in Syria, the Lebanese Hezbollah.
The confrontation between the cappo di tutti cappi and Hassan Nasrallah, on this link
B – Khaled Ben Salmane, the 2nd size: the king’s own son, a pilot member of the anti-Daech coalition
Fifteen years later, under Donald Trump, the King of Saudi Arabia chose his own son, Prince Khaled Ben Salmane Ben Abdelaziz (28), an air force pilot and member of the squadron who bombarded the positions of the Islamic group Daech as ambassador during the strikes organized by the international coalition led by the United States.
Better Donald Trump booked his first trip abroad, to the Kingdom, on May 19, 2017, marking the dubbing of the “Muslim Ban” artisan by Sunni petromonarchies. The “Muslim Ban”, the administration’s flagship measure, is the anti-immigration decree signed by the US President on 30 January 2017 prohibiting refugees and seven Muslim countries from entering the United States.
The guarantor of the Holy Places of Islam’s support for the US President’s xenophobic policy, in a move that goes against the outcry caused by this measure both domestically and internationally, was accompanied by an abdication of petromonarchies towards the Palestinian question and its replacement by a tacit pact between the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel against Iran.
It should be noted that Prince Khaled will be exfiltrated from the Saudi Embassy in Washington and appointed Deputy Minister of Defence, whose incumbent is none other than his elder brother Crown Prince Mohamad Ben Salmane, for his probable involvement in the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and replaced by Princess Rim Bint Bandar, Bandar Bush’s own daughter.
A triangulation of great perversity
The ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are therefore the two diplomats who have the easiest access to the White House, under the presidency of Donald Trump, even enjoying a kind of precedence over NATO representatives and are located just behind the Israeli ambassador.
The Hebrew state is in fact an impassable glass ceiling, despite all the curves of the monarchs’ petroleum companies, despite all the snakes they swallow on a daily basis.
Their primacy ends where the Israeli right-wing pass begins because of the power of the American Jewish lobby, the most powerful in the world within the most powerful country in the world. Never before has lobbying exercised its hold on a state so much better in international annals that the American Jewish lobby is a case in point of an absolute capture of power.
Saudi Arabia thus lives under a regime of “limited sovereignty” invariably under the caudine forks of the United States, beyond Israel, conditioned by the strategic imperatives of the United States, itself conditioned by Israeli hegemonic imperatives in the area. A triangulation of great perversity.
The American disjunctive speech
Saudi Arabia is certainly the architect of two peace plans for the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the United States has never deigned to put pressure on Israel to take into account Saudi peace offers and thus save the face of the United States’ best Arab ally.
It was Israel that introduced the atomic arms race in the Middle East seventy years ago and refuses to submit to the controls provided for by International Law. But it is Iran that constitutes the only nuclear danger in the area. Throughout this period, Saudi Arabia has never complained about Israel’s possession of the atomic weapon, nor has it sought to impose international control over its use.
The same is true of the Shia peril, created by the Americans by decapitating the two ideological opponents – and Sunnis – of revolutionary Shia Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s Baathist and secular Iraq in 2003. Iran has thus become a feared regional power not so much because of a proactive policy, but because of the windfall effect of the erratic American policy.
The United States’ cross wars in Iraq on behalf of Israel since 2003, the Israeli war in Lebanon against Hezbollah on behalf of America in 2006, are perfect illustrations of Israel’s involvement in American strategy.
The most striking example is the major military contract worth some $300 billion over ten years, concluded in 2017 between the United States and the Saudi Kingdom to strengthen the Saudi Kingdom’s ballistic and naval capabilities against Iran, while “preserving Israeli military superiority in the area” according to a member of the American administration. Three hundred billion without being able to achieve parity with Israel.
The second example is the transaction on the supply of nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes to Saudi Arabia. Promised by Donal Trump to King Salman, this transaction on 18 reactors worth 150 billion dollars nevertheless meets with strong opposition in Congress from the American Jewish loby, even though the Wahahbite dynasty has sealed an underground alliance with the Hebrew State against Iran, the Arabs’ millennial neighbour.
The 3rd example: The unilateral US withdrawal of the international agreement on Iranian nuclear power
The American withdrawal from the international agreement on Iranian nuclear power is not the result of a strategic decision by Donald Trump, but largely responds to his concern to honour an election debt, to pay a debt of sorts, towards three hyper pro-Israeli American billionaires: the casinotier Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, (real estate) and Paul Singer, founder of the “Elliot Management Corporation” fund, known for its rapacity to the point of being called “vulture funds”. Sheldon Adelson, a close relative of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his two other colleagues largely financed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Eli Clifton argues that Donald Trump faced strong resistance from prominent figures in his immediate circle (Defense Minister James Mattis, Chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Ross-Republican of California, as well as America’s three main European allies (Germany, France, United Kingdom), and more than 2/3 of Americans who did not think the president would withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement, according to a CNN poll conducted on Tuesday, May 8, 2018, the very day the US withdrawal was announced.
Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus are two members of the Republican Party’s Likud coalition, i. e. members of the far-right Israeli party within an American party.
Their bet on Donald Trump generated substantial benefits for them: the total alliance of the United States with Israel, the transfer of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, the prelude to the officialization of the death of the project to create two States: Israel-Palestine.
In this context, it is important to recall the position of the Adelson Marcus tandem on Iran: The casinotier advocated a preventive nuclear bombing with a threat of regime change in Tehran, as a prelude to negotiations on Iran’s definitive renunciation of its nuclear programme.
Bernard Marcus, for his part, summarized his position in an interview with Fox Business in 2015 with this lapidary formula: “Iran is the devil”.
CF Eli Clifton: Follow The Money-Three Billionaires paved way to Trump’s Iran deal withdrawal. Mays 8 2018
The Saudi argument and the Saudi lobbying network in the United States
The basic argument: The Arabian Gulf, whose subsoil contains two thirds of the world’s known oil reserves, remains for a long time a key geostrategic area that must be kept under control at all costs.
As a leitmotif, this argument, repeated tirelessly by the Saudi lobby, ended up carrying, going right to the heart of the supporters of a belligerent foreign policy, thereby justifying the absence of an alternative to the partnership between Washington and Riyadh.
The pro-Saudi lobby is taking full advantage of what anthropologist Janine Wedel calls the advent of the “shadow government”.
Since the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s-1990s, she observes in her book Shadow Elite (Basic Books, 2009), successive administrations have meticulously privatized government functions by outsourcing them to “companies, consulting agencies, think tanks and other non-governmental providers”. “These private stakeholders, she adds, are stakeholders in government work, involved in all aspects of governance and in the design, adoption and implementation of laws.” Whereas in the past the implementation of federal decisions was almost exclusively the responsibility of public servants, now three-quarters of this work, measured in terms of employment, is carried out by external contractors.
The practice had been known for a long time, but it has spread like wildfire since the early years of Mr. William Clinton’s presidency (1993-2001).
General David Petraeus, Anthony Cordesman, and Brooking Institution among the American beneficiaries of monarchical oil subsidies:
The Center for American Progress (CAP) received a $1 million grant from Abu Dhabi. This Think Thank was founded by Hillary Clinton’s former campaign director, John Podesta, whose brother Tony is duly registered as a pro-Saudi lobbyist. The two brothers now operate in tandem within the “Podesta Group”.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius is a good example of a conduit between interest groups and the media. His critics call him “the chief apologist of the CIA” and “the cheerleader of Saudi Arabia”.
The Atlantic Council received $2 million in 2015 from the United Arab Emirates and benefactors close to Riyadh. General David H. Petraeus, former commander of Centcom, is a member of its executive board.
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) received $600,000 in 2015 from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Anthony Cordesman, one of the CSIS figures, is a tenor of the pro-Saudi network in Washington. A former advisor to Republican Senator John McCain, this veteran of the Pentagon, State Department and Ministry of Energy is best known as a serious scientist whose work in the international energy market is widely respected. So he’s a great recruit.
It should be noted that during the final phase of the JASTA bill, i.e. after its passage by the US Congress and pending the veto of President Obama, the Centre for Media Studies and Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court signed a contract with Squire Patton Company Boggs LLP for legal services, amounting to $100,000 per month. This contract provided for the company to offer its legal services, between September 19, 2016 and September 30, 2017, in addition to “strategic and legal assistance on foreign policy and US government matters
A similar statement was signed with “SRG LLC, Government Relations and Lobbying”, worth $45,000 per month, from September 18 to December 18, 2016, to convince US policy makers to appreciate “the value of the private American-Saudi partnership and the importance of Arabia in securing the sensitive economic and security interests of the United States”.
The list would be incomplete if we forgot to mention the Brookings Institution ($21.6 million in donations from Qatar since 2011, and at least $3 million from the Emirates since mid-2014), two of the most bellicose states in the area.
Finally, a special mention for the New York Times, which for 70 years played a leading role in favour of the Saudi kingdom, constantly swooning before all the reforms, even the most insignificant, decided upon by the most obscurantist regime on the planet.