The empire of Saudi Arabia is the West’s real enemy

[JustJohn or JJ]

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Alastair Crooke
Fmr. MI-6 agent; Author, 'Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution'

BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da'ish (ISIS) -- and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia's direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "


Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."


But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

[JustJohn or JJ]

German intel warns Saudi Arabia is shifting to ‘impulsive interventionist policy’

Published time: 3 Dec, 2015 12:14
Edited time: 3 Dec, 2015 13:07




In a rare case, German foreign intelligence BND warns that Saudi Arabia, one of the West’s closest allies, is tempted to play a destabilizing role in the Middle East, pursuing its "increasingly aggressive foreign policy."

Germany’s Federal Security Service (BND) has issued a policy paper that outlines the immediate risks coming from Saudi Arabia’s strong desire to become a dominant power in the Middle East, according to Der Spiegel's story.

The memo widely quoted by the Germany’s top newspapers says the “increasingly offensive foreign policy” has come in since the new Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz, was crowned in January 2015. It reportedly says internal power struggles in the royal family and the ambition to unilaterally rule the whole region threaten to make the key Western ally a frequent source of instability in the Arab world.

“The current cautious diplomatic posture of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive interventionist policy,” the BND memo was quoted by Der Spiegel as saying.

Within Saudi ruling circles, the BND singles out the king’s son, deputy crown prince and defense minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud as among those who are pushing for a new, far more aggressive and dangerous course, which explains the emerging threats coming from the new Saudi Arabian regime. Prince Mohammad bin Salman is believed to play a central role in Saudi Arabia’s move to invade neighboring Yemen, but he has also seized control over the kingdom’s economic assets, BND says.

The concentration of so much power in his hands “harbors a latent risk that in pursuit for establishing himself in the line of succession in his father’s lifetime, he may overreach,” Der Spiegel quotes the memo as saying. If that happens, “relations with friendly and above all allied countries in the [Middle East] could be more than worsened,” while the US influence over the region “will be neglected,” the memo says.

Both the ruling King Salman and his son, Prince Mohammad, are desperate to become “dominant rulers of the Arab world” through building up ”a strong military component and new regional alliances,” German intelligence agency’s memo reads. Mohammad, aged 30, is also described by BND as being keen to seize the throne after his father’s passing, though he is only second in the succession line behind the King’s nephew, 80-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef.

If that becomes a reality, the BND analysts write, the whole region would also face constant unrest because of a mounting rivalry with Iran. “Strategic struggle between the two countries based on religious and ideological hostility” is likely to unleash conflicts across neighboring Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain, with Riyadh not fearing to take “serious military, financial and political risks,” the memo warns. In Syria, it is a top priority for Saudi Arabia’s new royal family to make President Bashar Assad go, along with adding fuel to ongoing Syrian war, according to BND’s assessment.

[Jaga]

John,

good series of articles about Saudis. They are wealthy, but undemocratic, women cannot even drive, do not help immigrants and attacked Yemen... still they are so lucky that even Israel does not try to attack them choosing Iran with Shiites instead. We need to dig it more against them!

[JustJohn or JJ]

What Stinks in Saudi Ain’t the Camel Dung


In recent weeks one nation after another is falling over themselves, literally, to join the turkey shoot known, erroneously, as the war in Syria, ostensibly against the Islamic State or Daesh. The most wanted but most feared question is where will this war frenzy lead, and how can it be stopped short of dragging the entire planet into a world war of destruction?

On September 30, responding to a formal invitation or plea from the duly-elected President of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Federation began what was an initially highly effective bombing campaign in support of the Syrian Government Army.

On 13 November following the terror attacks claimed by ISIS in Paris, the French President proclaimed France was “at war” and immediately sent her one and only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, to Syria to join the battle. Then on December 4, the German Parliament approved sending 1,200 German soldiers and six Tornado jets to “help” France. Reports out of Germany say the Germans will not work with Russia or the Assad regime, but with CentCom command in Florida and coalition headquarters, not in Damascus, but in Kuwait. The same week the UK Parliament approved sending British planes and forces to “fight ISIS” in Syria. Again we can be sure it’s not to help Russia’s cause in cooperation with the Syrian Army of Assad to restore sovereignty to Syria.

Then Turkey’s hot-head President Recep Erdoğan, fresh from his criminal, premeditated downing of the Russian SU-24 in Syria, orders Turkish tanks into the oil-rich Mosul region of Iraq against the vehement protests of the Iraqi government. And added to this chaos, the United States claims that its planes have been surgically bombing ISIS sites for more than a year, yet the result has been only to expand the territories controlled by ISIS and other terror groups.

If we take a minute to step back and reflect, we can readily realize the world is literally going berzerk, with Syria as merely the ignition to a far uglier situation which has the potential to destroy our lovely, peaceful planet.

Something major missing

In recent weeks I have been increasingly unsatisfied by the general explanations about who is actually pulling the strings in the entire Middle East plot or, more precisely, plots, to the point of reexamining my earlier views on the role of Saudi Arabia. Since the June, 2015 surprise meeting in St Petersburg between Russian President Putin and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman, the Saudi monarchy gave a carefully cultivated impression of rapprochement with former arch-enemy Russia, even discussing purchase of up to $10 billion in Russian military equipment and nuclear plants, and possible “face time” for Putin with the Saudi King Salman.

The long procession of Arab leaders going to Moscow and Sochi in recent months to meet President Putin gave the impression of a modern version of the walk to Canossa in1077 of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to Pope Gregory VII at Canossa Castle, to beg revocation of Henry’s ex-communication. This time it looked like it was the Gulf Arab monarchs in the role of Henry IV, and Vladimir Putin in the role of the Pope. Or so it seemed. I at least believed that at the time. Like many global political events, that, too, was soaked in deception and lies.

What is now emerging, especially clear since the Turkish deliberate ambush of the Russian SU-24 jet inside Syrian airspace, is that Russia is not fighting a war against merely ISIS terrorists, nor against the ISIS backers in Turkey. Russia is taking on, perhaps unknowingly, a vastly more dangerous plot. Behind that plot is the hidden role of Saudi Arabia and its new monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, together with his son, the Defense Minister, Prince Salman.

Saudi ‘impulsive intervention policy’

German media has widely reported a leaked German BND intelligence estimate. The BND is Germany’s version of the CIA. The BND report, among other things, concentrates on the rising role of the King’s son, 30-year-old Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Referring to the child prince’s important role the BND states, “The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy.”

Prince Salman is Defense Minister and led the Kingdom, beginning last March, into a mad war, code-named by Salman as “Operation Decisive Storm,” in neighboring Yemen. Saudis headed a coalition of Arab states that includes Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. The Prince is also head of the Saudi Economic Council which he created.

The new King, Salman, is not the benign sweet guy his PR staff try to paint him.

As my soon-to-be-released book, The Lost Hegemon: Whom the gods would destroy, documents in detail, ever since CIA Cairo Station Chief Miles Copeland organized the transfer of the Muslim Brotherhood, banned in Egypt for an alleged assassination attempt against Nasser, to Saudi Arabia in the early 1950’s, there has existed a perverse marriage of the Saudi monarchy and radical “Islamic” terrorist organizations. As described by John Loftus, a former US Justice Department official, by the joining of Egypt’s Muslim Brothers and Saudi strict Islam, “they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.”

Allen Dulles’ CIA secretly persuaded the Saudi monarchy in 1954 to help rebuild the banned Muslim Brotherhood, thereby creating a fusion of the Brotherhood with Saudi ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam and, of course, backed by the vast Saudi oil riches. The CIA planned to use the Saudi Muslim Brothers to wield a weapon across the entire Muslim world against feared Soviet incursions. A fanatical young terrorist named Osama bin Laden was later to arise out of this marriage in Hell between the Brotherhood and Wahhabite Saudi Islam.

King Salman was in the middle of creating Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda as it was later dubbed in the media. His involvement goes back to the late 1970’s when he, as Governor of Riyadh, was named head of major conservative Saudi charities later discovered financing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Bosnia. Salman worked intimately as the financial funding conduit for what became Al Qaeda together with bin Laden’s Saudi intelligence “handler,” then-head of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Turki Al-Faisal and the Saudi-financed Muslim World League.

King Salman in those days headed the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia-Herzegovina, a key front for al-Qaeda in the Balkans in the 1990s. According to a United Nations investigation, Salman in the 1990s transferred more than $120 million from commission accounts under his control — as well as his own personal accounts — to the Third World Relief Agency, an al-Qaida front and the main pipeline for illegal weapons shipments to al-Qaida fighters in the Balkans. Osama bin Laden was directly involved in those operations of Salman.

During the US invasion of Iraq in 2003-4, Al Qaeda entered that country, headed by Moroccan-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had pledged allegiance to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, creating Al Qaeda in Iraq, later calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq, the Saudi-financed forerunner of ISIS. A declassified Pentagon DIA document shows that in August 2012, the DIA knew that the US-backed Syrian insurgency was dominated by Islamist militant groups including “the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq.” According to author Gerald Posner, Salman’s son, Ahmed bin Salman, who died in 2002, also had ties to al-Qaida.

A Saudi Oil Imperium

If we look at the emergence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its transformation into the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), it all traces back to the Saudi operations going back to the late 1970’s involving now-King Salman, Saudi Osama bin Laden, together with Saudi intelligence head, Prince Turki Al-Faisal.

Washington and the CIA worked intimately with this Saudi network, bringing bin Laden and other key Saudis into Pakistan to train with the Pakistani ISI intelligence, creating what became the Afghan Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were created by Saudi, Pakistani and US intelligence to defeat the Soviet Red Army in the 1980’s Afghanistan war, the CIA’s “Operation Cyclone.” Cyclone was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan to lure Moscow into an Afghan “Bear Trap” and give the Soviet Union what he called their “Vietnam.”

The so-called ISIS today in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Al Qaeda Al-Nusra Front in Syria and various other Jihad terror splinter gangs under attack from Russia and the Damascus government of Assad, all have their origins in Saudi Arabia and the activities of King Salman.

Has the King undergone a Saul-to-Paul conversion to a pacific world view since becoming King, and his son, Prince Salman as well? Despite signals in recent months that the Saudis have ceased financing the anti-Assad terror organizations in Syria, the reality is the opposite.

The Saudis Behind Erdoğan

Much attention of late is given, understandably, to the Turkish dictatorship of the thug, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is especially so since his Air Force deliberately shot down the Russian SU-24 jet over Syrian territory, an act of war. What few look at are the ties of Erdoğan and his AKP to the Saudi monarchy.

According to a well-informed Turkish political source I spoke with in 2014, who had been involved in attempts to broker a peace between Assad and Erdoğan, Erdoğan’s first Presidential election campaign in August 2014 was “greased” by a gift of $ 10 billion from the Saudis. After his victory in buying the presidential election, Erdoğan and his hand-picked Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu opened the doors wide to establish secret training centers for what was to be called ISIS. Under supervision of Hakan Fidan, Erdoğan’s hand-picked head of the Secret Services (MIT), Turkey organized camps for training ISIS and other terrorists in Turkey and also to provide their supplies in Syria. The financing for the Turkish ISIS operation was arranged apparently by a close personal friend of Erdoğan named Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi banker close to the Saudi Royal House, member of the Muslim Brotherhood, financier of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda since Afghanistan in the 1980’s. x

Erdoğan’s US-sanctioned and Saudi-financed terrorist training camps have brought an estimated 200,000 mercenary terrorists from all over the world, transited by Turkey in order to wage “jihad” in Syria.

But that jihad, it is now clear, is not about Allah but about Moola—money. The Saudi monarchy is determined to control the oil fields of Iraq and of Syria using ISIS to do it. They clearly want to control the entire world oil market, first bankrupting the recent challenge from US shale oil producers, then by controlling through Turkey the oil flows of Iraq and Syria.

Saudi TOW missiles to ISIS

In May 2014, the MIT transferred to ISIS terrorists in Syria, by special train, a quantity of heavy weapons and new Toyota pick-ups offered by Saudi Arabia.

Now a detailed investigation of the Turkish shoot down of the Russian SU-24 jet reveals that the Turkish F-16 jet that shot down the jet was supported by two AWACS reconnaissance planes that enabled the Turkish F-16 exact hit, a very difficult if not impossible feat against a jet as agile as the SU-24. One of the AWACS planes was a Boeing AWACS E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force which took off from the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia airbase.

Then, as a Russian rescue helicopter rushed to the scene of the SU-24 crash, Saudi TOW anti-aircraft missiles shot the Russian helicopter down. The Saudis had sent 500 of the highly-effective TOW missiles to anti-Assad terror groups in Syria on October 9.

What we have, then, is not an isolated Russian war against ISIS in Syria. What lies behind ISIS is not just Erdoğan’s criminal regime, but far more significant, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and her Wahhabite allies Kuwait, UAE, Qatar.

In the true sense, ISIS is simply a “Saudi army in disguise.”

If we strip away the phony religious cover, what emerges is a Saudi move to grab some of the world’s largest oil reserves, those of the Sunni parts of Iraq, and of Syria, using the criminal Turkish regime in the role of thug to do the rough work, like a bouncer in a brothel. If Moscow is not conscious of this larger dimension, she runs the risk of getting caught in a deadly “bear trap” which will more and more remind them of Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

What stinks in Saudi Arabia ain’t the camel dung. It’s the monarchy of King Salman and his hot-headed son, Prince Salman. For decades they have financed terrorism under a fake religious disguise, to advance their private plutocratic agenda. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and oil. A look at the ISIS map from Iraq to Syria shows that they precisely targeted the oil riches of those two sovereign states. Saudi control of that oil wealth via their ISIS agents, along with her clear plan to take out the US shale oil competition, or so Riyadh reckons, would make the Saudi monarchy a vastly richer state, one, perhaps because of that money, finally respected by white western rich men and their society. That is clearly bovine thinking.

Don’t bet on that Salman.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

First appeared: journal-neo.org/2015/12/08/what-stinks-in-saudi-aint-the-camel-dung/

[JustJohn or JJ]

Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

Kevin Hulbert is the Founder and President of XK Group, LLC. Prior to that, Mr. Hulbert held a variety of high-level jobs in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), becoming an expert on counterterrorism, counter proliferation, non-traditional operations, and covert action. He finished his career as Senior Advisor for Counterterrorism at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As an accomplished senior leader in the Directorate of Operations at the CIA, he served around the world and worked with many foreign liaison partners, leading some of the most complex counterterrorism operations abroad. He holds an MBA degree from Georgetown University.

E. Tavares: Kevin, thank you for being with us today. It is difficult to discuss terrorism these days without talking about Islam, or better put, how it is being used for certain political purposes. This has become a hot topic in the West, even featuring in US immigration and presidential debates.

We recently watched a video clip from 1958 of Gamal Abdel Nasser, then President of Egypt, laughing with a large audience at the idea of forcing women to wear the hijab. In the decades that followed, this has become common practice in many Middle Eastern countries as stricter Muslim leaders rose to power. The once secular societies of Afghanistan and Iran have become just a footnote of history. In fact the more extreme versions of Islam now constitute its mainstream orthodox ideology.

We in the West believe that the march towards secularism and freedom is inevitable, and yet for the most part the Muslim world is going the other way. What do you make of this?

K. Hulbert: I think you are right, the march towards secularism and freedom is not inevitable. In fact, it’s problematic because we have a situation where every year the West becomes more secular, open, tolerant and liberal while many parts of the Muslim world, as you say, are going the other way. So it would seem that we might be moving towards a head-on collision of some sort.

As to what I make of it, in most Muslim countries the majority of people are tolerant. They want to live in a more inclusive society and have a more liberal religious doctrine. The problem is that Islam seems to have been hijacked by a vocal minority of people who are prepared to use violence to advance their very intolerant and conservative version of Islam.

ET: It appears that the spread of that version of Islam across the Middle East has two similar Islamist ideologies at the core: the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt and Wahhabism out of Saudi Arabia. They propose an Islamic version of society which in a sense is remarkably similar to fascism, regulating every aspect of people’s lives.

Over the last decade our Western leaders have given space for that movement to expand as a consequence of taking out the most prominent secular leaders who had been fighting against it in the Arab world. The US State Department even endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood when it rose to power in Egypt after the Arab Spring. The West’s close business and political ties with Saudi Arabia are well documented (even if some prominent Western politicians have recently started to question the Saudis’ support of terrorism in public).

Are we inadvertently helping to spread the most radical versions of Islam through our foreign interventions and policies? Do our leaders really understand what they are dealing with here?

KH: That’s the million dollar question. There’s a lot of shared credit for bad policies that created bad outcomes both in the Western world and in the Muslim world. And yes, Saudi Arabia is more responsible than anyone for the spread of Wahhabism over the last couple of decades. As you know, that doctrine is considered to be the most conservative form of Islam. While the majority of their followers want to live peacefully with their families, you have a minority that don’t necessarily believe in these things.

And so we have a conundrum in that while every conservative, Salafist, or Wahhabist is not a terrorist – and the vast majority aren’t – But, on the other hand, we have had a lot of terrorist acts committed by guys who are self-proclaimed Muslims who invoke religion to justify their actions. This presents us with some challenges, I think, in the West.

ET: Why then do we seem so keen to repeat the same mistakes in Syria? After seeing what happened in Iraq and Libya, it should be abundantly clear that the resulting power vacuum will likely be filled by radical Islamists, unless we are willing to put boots on the ground in large numbers. Instead, could we not use the war in Syria as an opportunity to shift policy towards a more constructive and sustainable strategy and dialogue across the Region?

KH: You raise a very good point because our policies seem to have taken out more secular regimes in places like Iraq and Libya, and then these places morphed into very intolerant, conservative regimes where the rule of law and a lot of other things went by the wayside.

One thing that many people don’t understand is that the conflict in Syria started as a very simple civil war. Many people were not content with the government of Bashar al Assad and the Alawites and emboldened by things they saw in the Arab Spring, rebelled against them, with the hope that they perhaps could change their own destiny. The Alawites after all only make up 10-15% of Syria’s population and yet they have ruled that country for decades.

But now that situation has deteriorated into about five different wars: You have the civil war that I just talked about, then you have the broader Shi’ite versus Sunni conflict, now you have Hezbollah drawn into the conflict via Iran, in the north you have the Kurds fighting the Islamic State and on top of all that you have Saudi Arabia which is very concerned about the expanding reach of Iran and so this has turned into a huge proxy war between Saudi-backed Sunni forces against Iranian-backed forces. In short, it’s a mess and there are not any easy solutions.

ET: We know people who died on 9/11. The headquarters of our employer at the time were obliterated. The US government put the blame on Al Qaeda and spent hundreds of billions of dollars chasing them out of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the loss of many brave soldiers and countless civilians.

So we were shocked to hear General Petraeus advocating this past summer that the US should be arming Al Qaeda to fight the Islamic State. As a former senior CIA operative, how did you react to that? Does this reveal a lack of strategic options on the ground in Syria? Or have we completely lost focus and objectivity in the war on terror?

KH: That’s a good, but complicated question. I am not intimately familiar with General Petraeus’ comments and the context in which they were made so I really don’t feel comfortable commenting on them.

But, I think his comments do possibly reflect a real lack of good options forcing us to choose between a bunch of less than perfect options. It also reflects the fact that the US has a big reluctance to again deploy any sort of a “boots on the ground” type of approach to these conflicts, where you have a really slippery type of enemy, radical Muslim extremism, and no clear idea of what might constitute success. We definitely do not want to be in the business of nation building again.

So, I think we are looking at different types of options and General Petraeus surfaced that one. He’s certainly no apologist for Al Qaeda and in fact there aren’t many people in the US who have done more than him in the fight against terrorists and extremism. He spent years of his life in harm’s way doing important work all over the Middle East.

Again, I don’t know the context when he made that statement, but there’s that old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

ET: As a result of this radicalization, minorities across the Middle East are being persecuted, even annihilated in some regions. The president of the Europarliament recently stated that Christians are now the most persecuted group in the world. That is a stunning revelation. We are also seeing a new wave of anti-Semitism raging across Europe, largely as a result of Muslim immigration. What do you make of all of this?

KH: This goes back to what we discussed earlier, the spread of Salafism, Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and so forth. This has led to a loss of tolerance all across the Muslim world. But again this is a perversion of Islam because the vast majority of Muslims believe in tolerance and history is full of examples of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities living together in peace.

Islam has never condoned the killing of non-Muslims simply because they are not Muslim. Unfortunately you have some radicals that have perverted some verses of the Quran to justify their actions, but that is not right.

I think everybody has to do a better job in confronting this sort of thing. Muslim countries in particular probably need to do a better job in promoting inclusiveness and tolerance, because this isn’t a concept that lands well when it’s an ideal thrust upon them by the West or the US. They also need to do a better job internally because the level of sectarian violence within some countries has nothing to do with the West. When you look at the Sunni on Shia violence, as well as Sunni on Christian violence, it is staggering. So, yes, it’s a big issue.

ET: You talked about the Middle East by we are dealing with that radicalization in the West. How can we counter this? France has finally decided to close radical mosques – up to 160, a shocking number – but in the digital age there is an abundance of internet and TV alternatives to promote a radical message. What will happen in the decades ahead to the West, moderate Muslims and lovers of freedom if we fail here?

KH: You are right, this is a complicated issue because we in the West believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech-- but we don’t believe in terrorism and someone’s right to incite violence. We will have to confront these issues.

Like I said, everybody is entitled to worship as they see fit. Most thinking people believe in freedom of religion. But, if a mosque, or madrassa or a website encourages a rejection of these ideals and is contrary to our laws and our constitutions then the West will have to stand up and defend themselves. And that’s a tricky balance because while we believe in free speech, that doesn’t mean you have the right to promote terrorism. Individual countries will have to draw that line as they see fit.

ET: Speaking of individual countries, the San Bernadino shooters seem to have been radicalized in the US or at least despite living seemingly normal American lives. Are you aware of any radical mosques being shut down by the US government in order to stop the promotion of their ideology? It seems to us that the government is very reluctant even to use the word “radical Islam”…

KH: I have not heard of any discussion of closing any mosques in the US. But, there are some efforts underway to address radicalization on line. For example, there was language introduced by Senator Feinstein in the 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act that would have required social media companies to report “any terrorist related activity on their sites”. That shockingly passed by an 8-0 vote – and I say “shockingly” because you don’t find many bipartisan things happening in the US Congress, so very little passes by a unanimous vote. But, then the proposed legislation got derailed when it came to a vote in the broader Congress because some social media companies and others spoke up to note that the language was very vague and the line was unclear as to what might constitute free speech and what might constitute terrorist activity. The sheer volume of social media postings also made people unsure of how to implement the proposed legislation and so, for now, the proposed legislation was withdrawn.

There is the recognition that we have a serious issue with radicalization on the internet and we need to do something to address it, but there is great debate on how to do it. In the future, we are going to have to do something to confront this radicalization head-on. We cannot afford to cede this social media space to the Islamic State.

ET: Let’s go back to the Middle East. With Russia getting deeply involved in the Syrian conflict, on top of the skirmishes already taking place in the Ukraine, can this signal the start not of a new Cold War but of a full blown World War III? In the nuclear age great powers cannot face each other directly, but terrorism and proxy conflicts could be with us for many years. It is hard to see how anyone can emerge victorious here, especially as innocent civilians become the primary targets. Do you think we are at the start of a global conflict?

KH: I don’t think that Syria will approach anything on the scale of a world war, even by proxy as you mentioned. That said, it is a conflict that will be with us for many years and it is probably going to get bigger. You may even see expanding theaters of conflict – whether that’s in Western Europe, the US, or parts of the Middle East. So it’s yes and no; it’s likely to become a bigger conflict, but not really something I’d characterize as on the scale of a world war.

Interestingly, right after 9/11, former Director of the CIA James Wolsey compared the fight against Al Qaeda to World War IV. He referred to the Cold War as World War III and suggested that the next one would be fought against three enemies: Iran, the fascists of Iraq and Syria and Islamic elements like Al Qaeda. I thought that his characterization was pretty solid in describing that conflict, although I differ on it being called a world war.

The short answer is that there will be a long twilight struggle and you can call it what you want, but it probably doesn’t rise to the level of engagement of World War II, for example.

ET: So a more prolonged but less intensive conflict…

KH: Exactly. There’s no silver bullet to this. You will not be able to eliminate terrorism by putting boots on the ground in Syria, or pacifying Afghanistan, or fixing Pakistan, or anything like that. It’s complicated.

ET: Last question. You worked for the CIA for many years. What would have happened if you had used your personal email to, say, share sensitive information…?

KH: Well, we had certain structures so that nobody could use personal emails to correspond with others in the Agency. So, that would have been impossible…

ET: … But if that had been found out, would you still have a job?

KH: Probably not…

ET: Thanks again for being with us today and sharing your valuable insights. All the best and Happy Holidays!

KH: Thank you, it was a pleasure.

[JustJohn or JJ]

Sept 29, 2015 7:21:08 GMT -7 kaima said:

Sept 29, 2015 6:16:53 GMT -7 karl said:

It is good some one finally figured this out. For the Saudies have been conducting this business for many years, what the West have done is condone the activity of the Saudies for the sake of oil. The Saudies know this and have used this as their trump card all along.


Karl

To second that opinion, Karl, I recently read where "the greatest diplomatic mistake the British made was to chose the Saudies with thier Wahabi extremism to rule what is now Saudi Arabia."

It appears others have a similar opinion of the Saudies.





Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:18

Iran Blasts Wahhabism as Mother of ISIL

TEHRAN (FNA)- Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani
 lashed out at the extremist ideology of Wahhabism, arguing that it is what created the
ISIL terrorist group in the first place.

"ISIL is the spawn of the Takfiri ideology of Wahhabism, created for the political and security objectives of the hegemonic system," Shamkhani added, addressing the forum of 'Coalition of Elites against Terrorism' in Tehran on Tuesday.

He underlined that ISIL is deisgned to promote the Takfiri ideoloy, its threat is not limited to the region, and the fight against it should never be limited to the region.

"All terrorist outfits are created to serve the interests of certain powers and their regional minions. They all also have an expiry date." Shamkhani noted.

According to the Iranian official, some of the countries which advocate the ongoing war on ISIL are also the ones that support certain terrorist outfits, inlcuding the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO also known as MEK, PMOI, NCRI).

In relevant remarks last year, Commander of Iran’s Basij Volunteer Force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi had underlined the necessity for plans to confront Wahhabism as an immediate danger threatening the region.

"The arrogant world, headed by the US, has resorted to deception to undermine unity among the Muslim Iranian nation by creating rifts and differences to stir Shiite-Sunni strife and war to destroy the united lineup of the Ummah standing against it," he said.

He also described Takfiri groups as the result of the penetration of the western spy agencies, specially from Britain, and said, "Takfir is the result of a London-created religion which eventually ends up in Wahhabism, Bahai'sm and religious hereditary."

[JustJohn or JJ]

I am not posting this on a whim. This is so critical to our surviving radicalism. We are in bed with the devil !!!

You can't understand ISIS if you don't know the 'History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia'.
June 3, 2016


www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html?utm_hp_ref=world


Part 2:

Middle East Time Bomb: The real aim of ISIS is to rplace the Saud Family as the new Emirs of Arabia
www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html



Jun 26, 2015

A look at the root and ideology of Wahhabism. Founded by Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahab who was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah. This documentary studies their teachings and why so much hatred is seen towards other religions and sects because of their teachings.

[karl]

It would so appear, the Saudis have enough issues upon their plate of troubles. To add to the hot coals upon their heads is the impending law suites of approximately 3000 families for their losses in the 9-11 situation.

The Saudis attempted to wiggle out of this with a trade of for guaranteed purchase of US made Armes deal. But the spanner was tossed into the gear box or works with The US congress ok of the law suit to precede.

sptnkne.ws/chpM


Karl

[JustJohn or JJ]

Mohammad Javad Zarif: Let Us Rid the World of Wahhabism



Oliver Munday

Tehran — Public relations firms with no qualms about taking tainted petrodollars are experiencing a bonanza. Their latest project has been to persuade us that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, is no more. As a Nusra spokesman told CNN, the rebranded rebel group, supposedly separated from its parent terrorist organization, has become “moderate.”

Thus is fanaticism from the Dark Ages sold as a bright vision for the 21st century. The problem for the P.R. firms’ wealthy, often Saudi, clients, who have lavishly funded Nusra, is that the evidence of their ruinous policies can’t be photoshopped out of existence. If anyone had any doubt, the recent video images of other “moderates” beheading a 12-year-old boy were a horrifying reality check.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, militant Wahhabism has undergone a series of face-lifts, but underneath, the ideology remains the same — whether it’s the Taliban, the various incarnations of Al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, which is neither Islamic nor a state. But the millions of people faced with the Nusra Front’s tyranny are not buying the fiction of this disaffiliation. Past experience of such attempts at whitewashing points to the real aim: to enable the covert flow of petrodollars to extremist groups in Syria to become overt, and even to lure Western governments into supporting these “moderates.” The fact that Nusra still dominates the rebel alliance in Aleppo flouts the public relations message.

Saudi Arabia’s effort to persuade its Western patrons to back its shortsighted tactics is based on the false premise that plunging the Arab world into further chaos will somehow damage Iran. The fanciful notions that regional instability will help to “contain” Iran, and that supposed rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are fueling conflicts, are contradicted by the reality that the worst bloodshed in the region is caused by Wahhabists fighting fellow Arabs and murdering fellow Sunnis.

While these extremists, with the backing of their wealthy sponsors, have targeted Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Shiites and other “heretics,” it is their fellow Sunni Arabs who have been most beleaguered by this exported doctrine of hate. Indeed, it is not the supposed ancient sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites but the contest between Wahhabism and mainstream Islam that will have the most profound consequences for the region and beyond.

While the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq set in motion the fighting we see today, the key driver of violence has been this extremist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia — even if it was invisible to Western eyes until the tragedy of 9/11.

The princes in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have been desperate to revive the regional status quo of the days of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, when a surrogate repressive despot, eliciting wealth and material support from fellow Arabs and a gullible West, countered the so-called Iranian threat. There is only one problem: Mr. Hussein is long dead, and the clock cannot be turned back.

The sooner Saudi Arabia’s rulers come to terms with this, the better for all. The new realities in our region can accommodate even Riyadh, should the Saudis choose to change their ways.

What would change mean? Over the past three decades, Riyadh has spent tens of billions of dollars exporting Wahhabism through thousands of mosques and madrasas across the world. From Asia to Africa, from Europe to the Americas, this theological perversion has wrought havoc. As one former extremist in Kosovo told The Times, “The Saudis completely changed Islam here with their money.”

Though it has attracted only a minute proportion of Muslims, Wahhabism has been devastating in its impact. Virtually every terrorist group abusing the name of Islam — from Al Qaeda and its offshoots in Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria — has been inspired by this death cult.

So far, the Saudis have succeeded in inducing their allies to go along with their folly, whether in Syria or Yemen, by playing the “Iran card.” That will surely change, as the realization grows that Riyadh’s persistent sponsorship of extremism repudiates its claim to be a force for stability.

The world cannot afford to sit by and witness Wahhabists targeting not only Christians, Jews and Shiites but also Sunnis. With a large section of the Middle East in turmoil, there is a grave danger that the few remaining pockets of stability will be undermined by this clash of Wahhabism and mainstream Sunni Islam.

There needs to be coordinated action at the United Nations to cut off the funding for ideologies of hate and extremism, and a willingness from the international community to investigate the channels that supply the cash and the arms. In 2013, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, proposed an initiative called World Against Violent Extremism, or WAVE. The United Nations should build on that framework to foster greater dialogue between religions and sects to counter this dangerous medieval fanaticism.

The attacks in Nice, Paris and Brussels should convince the West that the toxic threat of Wahhabism cannot be ignored. After a year of almost weekly tragic news, the international community needs to do more than express outrage, sorrow and condolences; concrete action against extremism is needed.

Though much of the violence committed in the name of Islam can be traced to Wahhabism, I by no means suggest that Saudi Arabia cannot be part of the solution. Quite the reverse: We invite Saudi rulers to put aside the rhetoric of blame and fear, and join hands with the rest of the community of nations to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and violence that threatens us all.

Mohammad Javad Zarif is the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[karl]

Interesting issue as presented, and not as complicated as popular western thought. It is all about power and dominance between Riyadh and Tehran of which has the most bragging rights. It is a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the Gulf region, and for good reason. For many years, the Saudis domination of the Arab world using religion as their hammer, has been blocked by both Iran and Syria. For in past, Syria has been the hammer that keeps these two apart, now with Syria weaken by several years of civil war, the Saudis are sneaking in to take part of this possible defeat of Assad with backing the Americans with proxy armies. The use of proxy armies for the Americans is to keep the promise at least until after their election time, to keep American boots off the ground in this proxy war.

The following is perhaps a bit of rehash of the religion topic of this primary presentation but perhaps may toss a bit of further understanding of the foundation that is to the Saudis in their quest of domination of what is not theirs to take.


The two governments are also ideological rivals:• Wahabism: Saudi royals have spent vast amounts of money funding the spread of the (Sunni) Wahabi school, an ultra-conservative, literal interpretation of Islam, which is the state religion in Saudi Arabia. The official title of the Saudi King includes the duty of the "Guardian of the Two Holy Places", Mecca and Medina, suggesting a degree of a divine authority.

• Supreme Leader: The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, has promoted its version of political Islam, a combination of elected republican institutions under the guidance of a Muslim cleric, the Supreme Leader. The founder of the Iranian regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, condemned the Saudi monarchy as a tyrannical, illegitimate clique that answers to Washington, rather than God.

Karl

[JustJohn or JJ]

World Middle East

Kingdom Comedown: Falling Oil Prices Shock Saudi Middle Class


Lower revenue hurts economy, prompting government to withdraw some benefits; as cost of living rises, consumers cut back on spending




By Ahmed Al Omran in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and

Nikhil Lohade in Dubai
Sept. 23, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET


Mohammed Idrees used to travel to London once or twice a year, but these days the Saudi civil servant is asking his wife and children to cut back on using the family car to save fuel and has installed a solar panel for the kitchen to reduce electricity costs.

For decades, Saudi nationals such as Mr. Idrees enjoyed a cozy lifestyle in the desert kingdom as its rulers spent hundreds of billions of dollars of its oil revenue to subsidize essentials such as fuel, water and electricity.

But a sharp drop in the price of oil, Saudi Arabia’s main revenue source, has forced the government to withdraw some benefits this year—raising the cost of living in the kingdom and hurting its middle class, a part of society long insulated from such problems.

Saudi Arabia heads into next week’s meeting of major oil producers in a tight spot. With a slowing economy and shrinking foreign reserves, the kingdom is coming under pressure to take steps that support the price of oil, as it did this month with an accord it struck with Russia.

The sharp price drop is mainly because of a glut in the market, in part caused by Saudi Arabia itself. The world’s top oil producer continues to pump crude at record levels to defend its market share.

One option to lift prices that could work, some analysts say, is to freeze output at a certain level and exempt Iran from such a deal, given that its push to increase production to presanction levels appears to have stalled in recent months. Saudi Arabia has previously refused to sign any deal that exempts arch rival Iran.

As its people start feeling the pain, that could change.

The kingdom is grappling with major job losses among its construction workers—many from poorer countries—as some previously state-backed construction firms suffer from drying up government funding.

Those spending cuts are now hitting the Saudi working middle class.

Saudi consumers in major cities, the majority of them employed by the government, have become more conscious about their spending in recent months, said Areej al-Aqel from Sown Advisory, which provides financial-planning services for middle-class individuals and families. That means cutting back on a popular activity for most middle-class Saudis: dining out.

“Most people are ordering less food or they change their orders to more affordable options,” she said.

To boost state finances, Saudi Arabia cut fuel, electricity and water subsidies in December, after posting a record budget deficit last year. It also plans to cut the amount of money it spends on public wages and raise more nonoil revenue by introducing taxes.

But in response to these moves, inflation more than doubled from last year to about 4% now, crimping consumers even more.

The government doesn’t have much choice. Saudi Arabia’s real growth in gross domestic product slowed to 1.5% in the first quarter from the year-earlier period, according to its statistics office, and Capital Economics says data suggest it may have contracted by more than 2% in the second quarter. Much of that slowdown is related to consumer-facing sectors, which have struggled since the start of 2016 as rising inflation has eroded household incomes.

The political stakes for managing this slowdown are high. Saudi Arabia survived the Arab Spring unrest that toppled several autocratic leaders across the region and forced some others to change, largely by offering cash handouts and more government jobs to placate its people. About two thirds of Saudi workers are employed by government related entities.

Besides cushy jobs, such middle-class Saudis also received substantial overtime payments and regular bonuses. At the time of his ascension to the throne early last year, King Salman ordered a hefty bonus payment to government employees.

Such largess is looking like a thing of the past.

Besides cutting state handouts such as subsidized electricity and water, the government also plans to reduce money it spends on public wages to 40% of the budget by 2020 from 45% as part of its ambitious plan to transform the oil-dependent economy. It aims to cut one-fifth of its civil service as well.

Saudis are beginning to speak out about a sense of anxiety about the economy. “I think we are going through a difficult period,” said Emad al-Majed, a Riyadh-based pharmacy technician. There will be suffering.”

Mr. Majed, who has two children, took a bank loan to purchase an apartment last year, a decision he said made him reconsider his spending habits.

“If you are used to a certain level of spending, how can you be told to limit your expenses and cancel some stuff?,” he asked. “It is a good idea, but in practice it will be difficult for so many people.”

Saudi nationals are reluctant to gripe about rising costs, but there is clear discontent, some analysts say. In a region engulfed in political and sectarian strife, Saudi Arabia can ill-afford similar turmoil.

“Discontent so far has been mildly expressed,” said Robin Mills, chief executive at Qamar Energy, a Dubai-based consulting firm. “If the slowdown continues and starts affecting local jobs, that could change.”

For the kingdom’s fiscal position to improve significantly, analysts say oil prices would need to rise to $70 a barrel, up from about $46 now.

Saudi Arabia and the other large producers failed to reach a production-freeze deal in April, but its people are now increasingly jittery over their future. That has made people like Mr. Idrees, the civil servant, more cautious about spending because he sees people like him bearing the brunt of efforts to offset slipping oil revenue.

“I have become more diligent about spending because my view of the future is pessimistic,” he said. “There is a lot of talk about diversifying the economy, but the focus seems to be solely on increasing taxes.”

[Jaga]

John, I hope that the falling gas prices would shock the kingdom enough to force the kingdom to do some positive changes in their policies, treatment of women and immigrants.

[JustJohn or JJ]

10 Facts About The Arab Enslavement Of Black People Not Taught In Schools

Published on Sep 28, 2016

The number of people enslaved by Muslims has been a hotly debated topic, especially when the millions of Africans forced from their homelands are considered.

Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world.

________________________________________________________________________________

Saudi Arabs Are Still Selling Castrated Black Slaves TODAY

[Jaga]

John,

the history of Arab- slave traders is real and it is not very well known in US and European history books. I would read what you submitted with interest. Still, I don't think it should be used to deny Arabs from embattled countries status of immigrants.