Perhaps at the beginning, when the Saudis were the most prolific user of dollars in world trade, there was some truth to the belief that they were capable of aiding the ailing dollar. But recall that at the time the deal was concluded, the Saudis and their allies had an oil embargo in place and were playing games with oil prices and hence with the US economy. Simply dropping this tampering may in fact have been sufficient to save the dollar. In fact, I have pointed out that, as of now, as the Saudi star fades, the Japanese and Chinese each hold over twice as much cash in Treasuries as the Saudis, and besides, Saudi oil reserves may be nearing their end, as witnessed by the fact that they tried to sell stocks in their oil business to raise money (but failed). SRSrocco Report, reposted at New Silk Strategies with permission, stated ominously:
“QUOTE: Saudi Arabia’s cash reserves are in free-fall and the country could have only five years of financial assets remaining due in large part to the fall in oil prices, according to a report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”
Never before has Saudi Arabia been in a weaker position to serve as a prop for the USD. The notion that the Saudis are suitable for this mission is looking more and more like a false myth, the true underlying motive of which must be sought.
Of course, you might retort that the Chinese are building up structures such as the Shanghai gold exchange and the Shanghai oil futures market, which are not trading in dollars, so they are working against, not for, the dollar. But I would remind the reader that China’s (and Russia’s) de-dollarization campaign is relatively new and for many years, the Chinese have held – and still hold –staggering amounts of cash in Treasuries – this chart shows China held about a half trillion in 2008 and 1.5 trillion by 2014 and today, holds well over a trillion USD. And a chart compiled by the Federal Reserve in 2012 shows, at the top of page 21, that in 2010 – during the decades-long period when the biggest investors in the world believed, or more accurately, behaved as if they believed, that the Saudis and Gulf statelets were propping up the dollar (and, BTW, China was not talking about de-dollarization then), Europe held more reserves in Treasuries than the oil exporters, while China and Japan each held over a trillion and the oil exporters held just a tad more than Japan’s 3 trillion plus. Further, as stated above, China and Japan now hold over twice as much in Treasuries as Saudi. Finally, Social Security contributors hold – albeit involuntarily – several times the amount of Treasuries as any country. The fact is, the measly half-trillion dollars in Saudi Treasuries amounts to only less than about one-fortieth of the US sovereign debt. So why are US presidents still bowing to the Saudi royals with their increasingly anemic contribution to the USD? Don’t you smell a rat here?
Every president has treated the Saudis with an inordinate, unmerited, amount of respect. Trump tops them all, having gone to Saudi on his very first state visit, dancing a diabolical-looking sword dance with the royals, and recently having, absurdly, practically blamed Iran (the no. 1 enemy of Saudi Arabia and its de facto ally Israel) for the grisly killing of WaPo journalist Jamal Kashoggi by Saudi operatives, even though the evidence has convinced much of the world that the top-ranking Saudi royals ordered the killing. Iran, of course, had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. But Saudi is more important than truth in amoral Washington.
But surely you will have noticed that the behaviour of Washington officials from the White House on down in no way reflects the Christian principles that most Americans still profess to adhere to, while oddly, generally supporting a foreign policy that has gotten the majority of Middle East Christian communities killed or banished ever since the start of the Bush wars, and has caused a mass exodus of mostly Muslims to Europe, which diluted, and is diluting, Western – particularly Christian – culture in Europe. (An article in TheGuardian details this phenomenon).
Of course, you may well have been steeped in the belief that the US government has no business supporting Christianity or any other religion, and this is essentially true. It is true in the sense that Reagan, for example, should not have supported militarily the Christian minority in Lebanon over all other factions in the complex struggle there in the 80s because this had all the appearances of anti-Muslim support on the basis of his personal religion alone, with little thought given to the complexity of the socio-political situation on the ground – and that policy had no chance of survival in the Arab world. The upshot was a tragic loss of American lives when a Marine barracks was blown up and Reagan had to walk away from the conflict, defeated. His support for the relatively small Christian faction at the expense of all the others was simply inappropriate (as he later realized). The only sensible approach would have been to use diplomacy to bring all factions together, treating each of them with equal respect (the kind of diplomacy that is working beautifully for the Russians. BTW, it would be much more effective for the US to imitate Russian diplomacy than to engage in an arms race with Russia).
But that situation in Lebanon has nothing in common with, say, the policy of waging war on Iraq, which, before the war, had a functioning government that respected both branches of Islam as well as the Christians and other minorities (with the exception of the rebellious Kurds, who were considered terrorists). After the war, it had ISIS.
GW Bush and his cabinet had to know that by invading Iraq, he was going to upset a delicate balance that had kept the Assyrian Christians (and other minorities) safe for millennia. After all, the world already knew that the Arab world banished their Jews when Israel was declared a state in 1948, even though these indigenous Jews bore no responsibility for the removal of the Arabs from the future Jewish state by the Zionists and British do-gooders. One could therefore have expected the Christians in Iraq to suffer an analogous fate for analogous reasons, as indeed they did. Ironically, Iraqi Islamists blamed Christianity for a disaster caused by a Deep State that in fact despises Christianity. Though the Bush policy seemed on its face to be religion-neutral, it had the immediate effect of causing the persecution, murder and banishment of many of these indigenous Christians. Likewise, since it was well known that the ruling Assad family was one of the most tolerant governments in the Middle East, the anti-Assad hysteria that led to the Syrian war, which was instigated by the US support for the “moderates,” who were all radical Islamists, could have been expected to lead to the killing, persecution and banishment of Syria’s indigenous Christian population, as indeed it did. Ditto the Libyan government, which was also more religiously tolerant than most Middle Eastern Sunni-majority countries. Further, the instigators of the Middle East wars had to know that their attacks on mostly civilian populations would cause a mass exodus of Muslims to Europe, with the foreseeable disastrous effects on Western culture there. My firm conviction is that the people behind these conflicts did not accidentally cause the social chaos that emptied the countries in question of their Christian population, thrusting hordes of Muslims into Europe -- and not the more responsible and peace-loving ones, most of whom sayed behind hoping for better times and willing to help build their countries back up. Many of those who fled to Europe were in trouble wih the law back home or had participated in terror acts and were no longer welcome there.
Thus I strongly suspect that the myth of the Saudis as props for the US dollar was devised by people – whom we call the Deep State for want of a better term – whose underlying motive was not so much to shore up the USD as it was to rid the world of Western, and more specifically Christian, culture.
So who might some of these anti-Christian activists be?
Global Research drops a familiar name in the context of the Arab Spring that led to the wars:
“None [of the Arab Spring movements] were spontaneous – all required careful and lengthy (5+ years) planning, by the State Department, CIA passing through foundations, George Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby.”
Nor am I ignoring the fact that Israel and Saudi share the same interests (eg, anti-Iran racism) in the Middle East, and this fact will be further discussed as I continue to research this issue. I would also like to analyse for you the Russian response to the Kashoggi affair and to MBS following the grisly killing in the Turkish embassy.
Meanwhile, I would be grateful if readers could share their thoughts on this topic by posting in our forum. Your input will help me refine our analysis. Thanks for reading.
Definition of 4-D chess: The strategy of calling people stupid when they fail to see the genius behind behaviour that really is stupid.