Making Saudi Arabia great again. Part 1
Washington as a Wahhabi missionary team
copyright@ New Silk Strategies
Let me just say it, no apologies either: For years I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about the Saudis and each news report convinces me further that the US government is not only a mercenary for 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 gray matter needed for the task.
There was the popular oil for blood theory that emerged after the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, according to which the US fought to acquire or maintain interests in oil fields. Yet no one ever paid with oil for the loss of US blood and treasure. In Syria, despite the US’s huge investments in guns for “moderate” terrorists and the cost of aerial bombing raids, many of the oil fields soon found themselves in the hands of ISIS and for many years, ISIS terrorists sold the oil to finance their slaughter of innocents. The US did nothing to stop these monsters – after all, they were the Saudis’ monsters – until Russia intervened and then, suddenly, to save face, they showed intensified interest in defeating them in certain areas, but continued to show little or no interest in the oil fields until Russia bombed ISIS oil trucks headed for markets in Turkey, after which the US reluctantly followed suit to save face. And by the way, the Russians knew exactly what the US Deep State was up to. Even as they called the US “partners.” They were playing a cat and mouse game with Washington.
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 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 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.
Another popular theory was that the US government was in the hands of madmen who simply took a sadistic pleasure in sowing chaos and destruction. This theory was at least plausible because chaos was always the main result of US-waged wars. But the theory raised more questions than answers.
Still another theory was that the US military suppliers had an unscrupulous alliance with the government and needed a constant supply of hostilities of any kind to maintain their wealth. This too was plausible but it failed to address the fact that the outcome of US wars always benefitted the Saudis and their infernal religion, causing their influence to expand at the expense of hapless Shiites, Yazidis and Christians.
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 this theory is, it misses the fact that the US is a mercenary and a missionary for Wahhabism. There are three issues that must be addressed.
1—Although the agreement unearthed by Bloomberg provided insight, actual fine points of the agreement may never come to light and they must not be sought by exploring for more paper copies with juicy details. Based on a cursory examination of US wars and their outcomes, the US obviously goes much further than just defending the royals and it is these outcomes that must be explored to reach conclusions. Most likely the agreement is still evolving and the US is periodically agreeing to new terms to meet new Saudi demands. To find out what these terms are, assuming they were either never set down on paper or the relevant documents are veiled in perpetual secrecy, one must examine closely what the US has done militarily to the benefit of the Saud family since the signing of that agreement, things that have nothing to do with the safety and security of this family (nor with the interests of the American people, of course) – because only US military policies and the fruits of these policies can shed light on what was actually hammered out between the Sauds and the US.
Unfortunately, an in-depth discussion of the US-invented “rebel” or “moderate” groups and their ancillary groups such as the White Helmets falls outside this discussion. We more or less assume that the reader is sufficiently well informed to know that these groups are US and Saudi creations indistinguishable from ISIS in theology and, to a significant extent, terror methods, that the Syrian people generally reject them, and that many of their members have passed US weapons on to ISIS or have even ultimately joined ISIS. The deconstruction of these groups is fully documented in both the msm and the alternate press, but for those who have missed the details, here is a brief reading list to update you:
How US and Saudis-Israelis create and fund terrorist plots:
Wikileaks as quoted by Mint Press: http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia-planned-overthrow-of-syrian-govt-in-2006/221784/
Please see this video of a clear and straightforward expose by Ben Swann on Reality Check showing that the West was behind the terrorism in Syria that spilled over into Europe (Swann was almost fired for presenting this but the information came from the Pentagon itself and was leaked to Judicial Watch):
The CIA origin of ISIS (the US equipped them):
And those White Helmets you are led to believe are heroes?
They are in fact a Western creation and are allied with terrorists:
2—The monetary theory that increased use of the dollar in world trade would inevitably bolster the value of the currency had no precedence and was really only a theory that needed, and still needs, testing. Donald Trump seemed to have swallowed this theory unquestioningly when he made the decision to promise sale of $400 billion worth of arms to the people who seem intent on perpetrating genocide against the Houthis and the world’s persecuted Shiite population. And yet, amid the declining oil prices and Saudi Arabia’s inability to keep investing US dollars (as detailed here), or even remotely maintain the former US-debt backed portfolio, we are now in the midst of a momentous test of that theory. The outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. Why would Trump be so unconditionally supportive of the Saudis? Because he is their hostage: either do as they say or the US economy dies.
3—While the petrodollar agreement and the policies based on it are naturally dependent on the Saud family’s continued internal stability and their support by the local population, there are signs that the Sauds are in trouble. A US professor with insider insight (he had worked for the Saudis on a high advisory level) recently stated in an interview that the arms sale bonanza that the Saud family is poised to receive from the US is in fact insurance against a possible revolt within the kingdom. This interview appeared at New Silk Strategies on May 26. Further, The Atlantic had reported back in 2003 on troubles within the Saud family, none of which have since been resolved as far as we know.
The CFR reported on May 15:
“…the latest Fragile States Index in 2017, a commonly cited assessment of weak and unstable states produced by the Fund for Peace, a nongovernmental organization, ranked Saudi Arabia 101st out of 178 countries.”
In assessing the way the royals are perceived by their fanatical fundamentalist Muslim populace, details of their personal lives are of interest. As it turns out, many of the Saudi royals may not be as devout as they pretend to be for their subjects and their efforts to spread Wahhabism may be driven in large part by a fear of their own people rather than by their own personal piety. Indeed there are several problems with the royal family from the standpoint of devout Muslims, namely, their coziness with the US and Israel, and their lack of devotion to Islam in their private lives (as reported by Time, for example).
Indeed, Saudi officials’ cooperation with the US pursuit of Osama bin Laden was undoubtedly due mostly to the fact that Al-Qaeda was targeting the royal family for ouster in his native Saudi Arabia. Yet for the royals, reports of their cooperation with the US had to be muffled for local consumption.
The Muslim opposition from a moral standpoint is understandable. Indeed, there have been numerous reports of Saudi officials running amok in the US, for example, here.
Elsewhere, devout Muslims have been outraged by the royal family’s lack of devotion to Islamic rules, as detailed here.
The story of a Saudi Princess ordering her body guards to beat up a painter in Europe, as reported here, clearly shows a lack of the humility required of Muslim women.
Saudi diplomats misbehaving in Australia, as reported here, would also have sullied the Muslim sensibilities of many Saudi Sunnis.
The result of the Saudi royal family’s perceived lack of devotion to Sunni Islam is an undercurrent of resentment that occasionally surfaces in the form of violent plots, for example, as described here. In view of Saudi misbehavior abroad it is amazing that there is some semblance of stability at all in the ultraconservative kingdom. The royals have kept a lid on discontent by generously sharing oil revenues with their subjects, but in recent years, due to the collapsing oil prices, there has not been as much money with which to buy the subjects into restfulness.
But supposing the Sauds overcome the unrest both in the royal family and among Saudi citizens. There is still a problem that seems to have no solution in the immediate future, and that is the bottom line of Saud Incorporated. An article in the oil-market site SRSRocco Report shows that Saudi investments in foreign reserves intended in part to support the US dollar have fallen drastically in recent years and the oil market does not hold much hope for recovery in the foreseeable future.
All in all, this does not bode well for the future of the House of Saud on which the fate of the US dollar rests.
Thus the petrodollar agreement could have been aimed in large part at projecting an image of devotion to Islam and a perception that the Saudi government was capable of spreading violent Wahhabism (also called Salafism) throughout the world. Whatever the case may be, it is almost certain that some of the fine details of the agreement first forged between President Richard Nixon and King Faisal and/or subsequent related agreements were conveyed purely orally because should they ever come to light, the embarrassment to both countries would be devastating and the whole sickening plot of US bureaucrats signing away all the sacred values of the American people would be exposed. Indeed, the Saudis typically keep their dealings with the West secret, as we can read, for example, here, here (Britain-SA) and here (Israel-SA).
Let’s look at my “blood for religion” theory, in light of an analogy to help you understand that we do not need to see the agreement itself if we closely examine the fruits it has borne in US foreign and military policy.
To be continued.
All three parts of this article copyright@ New Silk Strategies
Your comments in our Disqus discussion forum below can help us improve our communication with readers. For example, if you happen to think of a US military policy or action whose outcome you believe did not benefit the Saudis and the spread of their Wahhabist religion, please let us know and we will respond. If you enjoyed this article, let us know that too. We receive a lot of emails from readers expressing their views but we would encourage you to post in this forum as well. Disqus lets you sound off and also lets you make friends online.