|
First posted at Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-US-and-Wests-interests-for-the-removal-of-Mr-Bashar-al-Assad-and-the-funding-and-arming-of-the-groups-that-opposed-him
By Vince Dhimos The US government is not only a force working in the hire of the Saudis but also, incredibly, a missionary for the gospel of Wahhabism. I am amazed that there is anyone on this planet who has not come to this same conclusion. Let’s look at the facts. Bloomberg recently published some details of a secretive agreement signed between President Nixon and King Faisal in the early 70s which is sometimes called the petrodollar agreement. Nixon did this out of desperation because he had just taken the US off the gold standard, which had existed since the Bretton Woods agreement that made the US dollar the world reserve currency. It was a breach of a sacred promise to back the dollar with gold at a standard price per ounce. The trouble is, foreign governments were demanding that the US actually provide them with the physical gold instead of the dollar denominated paper, eventually making it infeasible to continue keeping this promise. Now whenever you make a deal with someone out of desperation, you lose big time. But Nixon felt cornered. What if the dollar collapsed on his watch? We have long known that the petrodollar agreement with the Saudis was a promise that the US would defend the Saudi royal family in exchange for their accepting only payments in dollars for their oil. This was intended to peg the dollar to the oil price, hopefully keeping it stable. But the hitch was that this enabled the Saudis to blackmail the US, and judging by US military and foreign policies since then, it ought to be clear to anyone that this is exactly what happened. Contrary to reports, the US military is not just defending the royal family from their enemies. They are involved in some sinister machinations and it is obvious. The document published by Bloomberg was harmless enough. After all, if the Saudis were willing to backstop our unbacked dollar, the US should be willing to protect them and defend their oil fields. But there was nothing stopping them from going much further and demanding of an amoral government that they betray their own people. They went further. A lot further. And the US became their vassal. And so did the rest of the West, as pointed out here. Thus the amoral clique in Washington and Wall Street did the unthinkable. All evidence shows that they secretly agreed to help the Saudis export Sunni Wahhabism (Salafism), the most vicious, intolerant and dangerous religious sect on the planet in exchange for propping up the dollar. The evidence is everywhere. It’s been hiding out in the open for over 40 years. Yet people everywhere have been pulling theories out of their hats that ignored the evidence. No one had the heart to confront the truth head on, even if they had the grey matter needed for the task. Now, of course, Obama’s foreign policy was a mess – because, like Nixon, he was at the mercy of the Saudis – and Americans expected Trump to fix it. But his supporters had no idea that Trump was over the same barrel as all previous presidents and for the same reasons. Trump has no policy whatsoever, and this is all understandable if you realize that the Saudis have the US by the short hairs over this petrodollar agreement. Thus no US president would ever dream of telling Christian America the truth: “Fellow Americans, sorry but the Saudis control our money. We are therefore obliged to support Wahhabist terrorism to keep the dollar from crashing. Thank you for understanding.” So each president must think up a new excuse for supporting the Saudis, who have, as we know, founded and funded all three of the world’s most dangerous terror groups, all Wahhabists, every single one. Each president must pretend to fight terror to keep the public on the string, but at the same time, support the Saudis’ Frankenstein. After all, no one wants to preside over a collapse of the currency that would make the fall of the Soviet Union look like a dress rehearsal. And American citizens wanted to do their part, so they made up theories (oil for blood, etc.). However, ever since Bloomberg uncovered details of the Nixon-Faisal agreement, forums and web sites have started chattering about the petrodollar agreement as the real motivator for war, theorizing that the US has been fighting proxy wars for the Saudis in exchange for the Saudis charging only dollars for their oil and also investing the profits in US sovereign bonds to maintain the value of the USD. Indeed, such a conclusion is compelling and judging by the opinions appearing on news and financial web sites, a growing number of knowledgeable Americans now accept it. Those who take an interest in world politics also note that the theory is gaining ascendency in Europe and elsewhere as well. They are now a step closer to the ugly truth. But until now, no one has taken the last step. As accurate as these theories are, they miss the astounding and sickening fact that the US is a mercenary and a missionary for Wahhabism. To understand that every war (outside the New World) waged by the US since the conclusion of the Nixon-Faisal petrodollar agreement has only benefitted the Saudis and not the US people (it brought on unpayable debt and endless wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and also US service men and women) and their intolerant Wahhabism/Salafism, we need to know what kind of states and leaders, particularly in the Muslim world, the Saudis cannot tolerate. Remember that the two main branches of Islam are Shiite and Sunni, and there are also sects that to the Saudis are important, notably the Wahhabist (also called Salafist) sect that the Saudis support. This Saudi sect is the most brutal, intolerant, warlike, and anti-Christian sect of Islam and, ironically, the once-Christian (but now “Christian” Zionist) US has pledged to help spread this anti-Christian poison, thereby becoming the enemy of its own people. To understand how we can confidently state that the US is a mercenary on behalf of the Saudis, we need to know what kind of states and national leaders the Saudis cannot tolerate, either because of their own deeply held beliefs, or more likely, because they need to please their intolerant and fanatical populace. Firstly, being Sunnis, they hate Shiites, and since Iran is a Shiite-majority state with a Shiite style government, Iran is at the top of their enemy list. (BTW, since Iran also officially does not recognize Israel, Saudi is also a de facto ally of Israel). Secondly, given the religious fanaticism of the Saudi regime, they also are generally opposed to secular governments, although note that this depends on how powerful the state is and whether or not it is supported by the US. Turkey, for example, is off limits because it has a powerful military and is part of NATO. Egypt is also too powerful for Saudi to oppose. Thirdly, because the Saudis have made a pact with the US to protect the dollar, they also rabidly attack governments, like Ghadaffi’s, that threaten the dollar and the US by promoting the use of non-dollar currencies in international trade. Fourthly, the Saudi royals (but not the Saudi grassroots) hate states that oppose Israel, for two reasons: Their unholy alliance with the US, and the fact that Israel also opposes Iran and is willing to collaborate with the Saudi royals. Fifthly, the Saudi royals fear those who oppose them. This is why they cooperated – cautiously -- with the US in opposing Osama bin Laden, who hated the royals for cooperating with the US. I said above that the US involvement in its wars was due in large part to its obligations to its Saudi allies, and that the petrodollar agreement went far beyond what was set forth on paper. I say that because it is obvious that the Saudis and only the Saudis benefitted from those wars (outside the New World, that is, ie, excluding Granada and Panama). Let’s look how the leaders the US attacked meet the criteria detailed above: The wars against Saddam Hussein. Saddam’s government was secular (no. 2 above), with both Sunnis and Shiites roughly equally represented in his government, and even one Christian in his cabinet. It was also anti-Israel (no. 4 above) and was opposed to the Saudi dictatorship (no. 5 above). The Taliban in Afghanistan. The Saudis cut ties with the Osama bin Laden-led Taliban in 2001 claiming the groups terrorized “the innocent,” but underlying reason was that Osama and his group were intent on bringing down the Saudi royals (no. 5 above). The Taliban also is rabidly anti-Jewish (no. 4 above). Assad’s Syria. The US was the instigator of the Syrian Spring movement to replace Assad with an Islamic government satisfactory to the Saudi Kingdom and has been working feverishly from the start. The US was even involved in a pseudo-government, a certain “National Salvation Fron” in Syria back in 2007, which was supposed to save the Syrians from the "bloody Bashar Assad”! Assad meets several of the above-listed criteria. He is Shiite (no. 1 above) (his Alawite sect is generally recognized as Shiite, but is even more tolerant of other religions than most Shiites, and that infuriates the Saudis). He also runs a secular government (no. 2 above) based on Western-style laws and justice. Further, he does not recognize Israel’s claim to the land they occupy (no. 4 above). Finally, his alliance with Russia means that he opposes the dollar and the US hegemony (no. 3 above). Iran. Iran is not only majority Shiite, with a Shiite oriented religious government, but is also anti-Israel (no. 4) and anti-Saudi (no. 5). It also is currently engaged in the Russian/Chinese led de-dollarization movement and charges currencies other than the dollar for its oil (no. 3). Although the US is not yet at war with Iran, Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric is preparing for a possible confrontation with the country. On behalf of the Saudi dictatorship. Libya’s Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi led what’s been called the most prosperous state in Africa and was the driver of the African Union and worked toward a gold-backed currency intended to challenge the US dollar (no. 3 above). Ghadaffi was at times anti-Israel, at times friendly with Israel. Further, though he had promised to introduce Sharia law, his rule favoured Western-style justice (no.2). Egypt’s Mubarak. Mubarak was generally considered a secular leader (though some contest that) (no. 2 above), and he banned the Muslim Brotherhood, considering them terrorists. So of course, the Saudis wanted him gone. They wrote the policy, the US enforced it. Clearly, from the above, we can see that US military policy has done more to support the Saudis and their repressive Wahhabism than it did to support the security and way of life of Americans, who paid for the wars with their blood and treasure while the Saudi royals sat on their comfy thrones. But the Saudi grassroots is restless. And the free money is running low. And the Jamal Khashoggi case is not going away.
Comments
|
