Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Michael Moore & Richard Perle

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Who Really Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia, and Why? Michael Moore and Richard Perle Combine Forces by Tanya C. Hsu http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HSU407A.html
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 14, 2004
      Who Really Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia, and Why?

      Michael Moore and Richard Perle Combine Forces
      by Tanya C. Hsu

      "Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood,
      constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam,
      which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts…Any Muslim who is
      aware of his teachings of his religion and who adheres to the
      directives of the Qur'an and the Sunn'ah will never involve himself
      in such acts because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and
      lead to harm and corruption on earth." Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia
      and Chairman of the Senior Ulema, Sheikh `Abdul-`Aziz Âlush, Sept.
      15, 2001

      Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" has done a tremendous
      favor for some proponents of a war upon the Arabian Peninsula. The
      film achieves what endless pages of conservative think-tank studies
      and panel discussions, hours of PR time and books can not: spill
      gasoline on the anti-Saudi sparks already ignited within the United
      States. Moore's film lambastes the Saudis not only for their business
      relationships but also for leaving the US after the attacks of
      September 11th 2001 as did other non-Saudi officials on the same day
      when specific flights were permitted. The overwhelming popularity of
      this documentary takes the anti-Saudi message to a whole new market.
      It is the latest manifestation of a rationale for war that could
      finally execute a long-term plan to invade and occupy the Kingdom. In
      spite of its progressive producer and target audience, "Fahrenheit
      9/11" falls lock-step in line with the stated agenda of
      neoconservative hawks: rid Arabia of the House of Saud thereby
      granting the US and allies full access to the Middle East's biggest

      There is a growing assumption on the part of members of the US
      Congress, US-Saudi diplomats, and the American public that the Bush
      administration is making a "turnaround" in US policy towards the
      Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of neo-conservative and domestic
      interest group pressure. Those opposed to the current administration
      accuse the White House of maintaining ties to an enemy of America in
      exchange for lucrative business deals. In contrast, those who support
      ties with Saudi Arabia maintain that the US has no intention of
      severing relations with a regional stabilizing force and with long
      term friends in the House of Saud. Who is correct?


      The US has not had wholly "friendly" intentions towards the Kingdom
      for the past 30 years. Any appearance of such is only the visible
      veneer of real US military policy. Declassified documents reveal that
      there has been a constant drumbeat to invade Saudi Arabia that has
      sounded behind the closed doors of our government. The Pentagon, for
      three decades, has formulated and updated secret plans to seize Saudi
      oil wells and rid the Kingdom of the ruling House of Saud. This is
      not only a neo-conservative cabal. Time and again plans have been
      made for an invasion of Saudi Arabia for a larger purpose: US control
      of the global oil supply thereby dominating global economic markets.

      The most recent wave of charges that Saudi Arabia supports, condones,
      and aids terrorism signify a secondary and more public attempt to
      gain support to finally execute a thirty year old plan to occupy
      Saudi Arabia. Other regional players' objectives, (securing oil
      supplies; the rationale of a "war on terror") may add synergy and an
      unstoppable impetus for an American invasion.

      This essay discloses and evaluates the motives and actions of those
      behind the new drive to occupy Saudi oil fields.

      Classified Plans Brought To Light

      In 1973, the Nixon administration described a plan of attack against
      Saudi Arabia to seize its oil fields in a classified Joint
      Intelligence Report entitled "UK Eyes Alpha". British MI5 and MI6
      were informed, and under British National Archive rules the document
      was declassified in December of 2003. The oil embargo had been over
      for only three weeks but "Eyes Alpha" suggested that the "US could
      guarantee sufficient oil supplies for themselves and their allies by
      taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf State of
      Abu Dhabi". It followed that "pre-emptive" action would be
      considered, and that two brigades could seize the Saudi oilfields and
      one brigade each could take Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

      In February of 1975 the London Sunday Times revealed information from
      a leaked and classified US Department of Defense plan. The plan,
      drawn up by the Pentagon, was code named "Dhahran Option Four" and
      provided for an invasion of the world's largest oil reserves, namely
      Saudi Arabia. See exhibit #1

      Exhibit 1 The Take-Over Plan
      (Source: London Sunday Times, February 1975, retouched by IRmep)

      Also in 1975, Robert Tucker, US intelligence and military analyst,
      wrote an article for "Commentary" magazine, owned by the Jewish
      American Committee, entitled "Oil: The Issue of American
      Intervention". Tucker stated that, "Without intervention there is a
      distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing …
      resemblance to the disaster of 1930s…The Arab shoreline of the Gulf
      is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." And this was
      followed in February of the same year by an article in Harper's
      Magazine by a Pentagon analyst using a pseudonym, Miles Ignotus,
      emphasizing the need for the US to seize Saudi oilfields,
      installations and airports entitled "Seizing Arab Oil ". According to
      James Akins, former US diplomat, the author was probably Henry
      Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time. Kissinger has neither
      confirmed nor ever denied the charge.

      Further, in August of 1975, a report entitled, "Oil Fields as
      Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study", was produced for the
      Committee on Foreign Relations. In this report, the CRS stated that
      potential targets for the US included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
      Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria. "Analysis indicates … [that military
      forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively
      inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed."

      The real premise of an attack against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has
      been around since the Cold War. The idea was, however, revived under
      the aegis of a new "war against terrorism" on the charge of that the
      Saudi state supported such against the west. One nexus of this drive
      is Richard Perle.

      Neo-conservative Designs on Saudi Arabia

      Richard Perle is an outspoken critic of any Americans doing business
      with the Kingdom, despite his own attempt to secure $100 million in
      Saudi investment for his private venture capital firm. His ill-fated
      attempt to become a power-broker with one foot on in the door of the
      US Defense Policy board of the Department of Defense and another foot
      in the door of Trimeme capital investments is well documented . He
      has since become more hard-line, telling the National Review, "I
      think it's a disgrace. The Saudis are a major source of the problem
      we face with terrorism. " (Perle had to resign from the Defense
      Policy Board when his secret and extortive fundraising meetings with
      Saudi Arabian businessmen became public.)

      Perle's efforts to rearrange the dynamics of the region, including
      Saudi Arabia, have gone on for many years. Incoming Israeli Likud
      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Perle to draft a regional
      strategy paper for Israel. The Institute for Advanced Strategic &
      Political Studies, a think tank based in Washington DC and Jerusalem
      published the completed paper, " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
      Securing the Realm ", emphasized the need to overturn the Oslo
      Accords and Middle East peace process. It demanded Chairman Yasser
      Arafat be blamed for every act of Palestinian terror; required the
      overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq and
      Syria; and the force of democracy foisted upon the entire Arab world
      plus Iran. One senior Israeli intelligence officer stated the goal
      was to make Israel the dominant power in the region and expel the
      Palestinians. Perle's efforts to neutralize international funding for
      the Palestinian resistance and support of Palestinians have driven
      his policy recommendations ever since.

      Another author of "A Clean Break" was David Wurmser. In September of
      2003 Wurmser was moved to the US State Department to work directly
      under Vice President Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby.
      David Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, ran MEMRI (Middle East Media Research
      Institute) alongside Colonel Yigal Carmon, of Israeli Army
      Intelligence. MEMRI specializes in selective retrieval , searching
      and translating especially plucked Arab language documents that
      confirm MEMRI's bias that the Arab world despises the West. Meyrav
      Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington University on the
      life of Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism and
      declared fascist, and hero of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the
      Likud Party.

      Saudi Arabia was again declared an enemy of the United States on July
      10th, 2002, when RAND Corporation's Laurent Murawiec gave a
      PowerPoint presentation to the Defense Policy Board at the invitation
      of Perle Like Meyrav Wurmser, Murawiec is also from George Washington
      University and listed as a past faculty member. He was also a
      follower of the Lyndon LaRouche cultist organization. This group
      indoctrinates its members to abandon their homes because "family
      values are really immoral", according to those who left the group.
      (Lyndon LaRouche is a convicted felon, conspiracy theorist and UFO

      Entitled "Taking Saudi Out Of Arabia" the PowerPoint presentation
      states "Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot" and declared that the
      Kingdom is an enemy of the USA. It advocated the US seize the Kingdom
      and its oil fields, invade Mecca and Medina, confiscate Saudi Arabian
      financial assets unless the Kingdom stop supporting anti-Western
      terrorist activities.

      Saudi Arabia was declared as the "kernel of evil, the prime mover,
      the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. Murawiec
      claimed, "Since independence, wars have been the principal output of
      the Arab world" and that "plot, riot, murder, coup are the only
      available means to bring about change…Violence is politics, politics
      is violence. This culture of violence is the prime enabler of
      terrorism. Terror as an accepted, legitimate means of carrying out
      politics has been incubated for 30 years…" James Akins explained the
      overall plans thusly: "It'll be easier once we have Iraq. Kuwait, we
      already have. Qatar and Bahrain too. So it's only Saudi Arabia we're
      talking about, and the United Arab Emirates falls into place."

      The connections between individuals pressing for a US invasion of
      Saudi Arabia run deep. Richard Perle's lifelong mentor was the RAND
      corporation's late Albert Wohlstetter, the grandfather of neo-
      conservative analysts. Wohlstetter also was a Ahmed Chalabi's
      classmate at the University of Chicago. Chalabi, the leader of the
      Iraqi National Congress and the protagonist of the information
      provided to the US government regarding the thus far non-existent
      Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, is an indicted criminal in Jordan
      where he has been sentenced to more than 20 years' hard labor for
      currency manipulation and embezzlement through Jordanian Petra Bank.

      The analytical and populist groundswell of denunciation against Saudi
      Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism from progressive and
      conservative circles alike may culminate in an invasion sooner rather
      than later. Supporters within the current US administration can use
      this unity to execute another "blueprint" for US policy. It can
      follow as easily as Saddam Hussein's "imminent threat towards
      America" and Iraq's Wads served as the principle rationale for the US
      invasion of Iraq.

      Target Saudi Arabia: Taking the Case from Think Tank to Theater

      In reality there has been no hard evidence linking Saudi Arabian
      leaders and officials to terrorism, little evidence of Saudi subjects
      playing a mindful role, and far less financial ties to terrorism than
      could be found in most nations with a banking system. In fact, the US
      State Department lists the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Germany,
      Australia and indeed the United States itself as having Al Queda
      financial ties and connections. However, facts may not be enough to
      stem rising anti-Saudi sentiment among policy makers and average

      The Murawiec PowerPoint indictment continued, stating that Saudi
      Arabia is "[a]n instable group: …Wahhabism loathes modernity,
      capitalism, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, republics, an
      open society" and that "Wahhabism is spreading world-wide" [sic]
      based upon Iran's Revolution led by Shi'ite Ayatollah Khomeini;
      that "Wahhabism moves from Islam's lunatic fringe", and that there
      was a "[s]hift from pragmatic oil policy to promotion of radical
      Islam…. [Saudi Arabians are] treasurers of radical, fundamentalist,
      terrorist groups."

      Saudi Arabia is then charged with being "the chief vector of the Arab
      crisis … active at every level of the terror chain…[it] supports [US]
      enemies [and has] virulent hatred against US…. There is an "Arabia"
      but it need not be "Saudi"…[US must] stop any funding and support for
      any fundamentalist madrasa, mosque, ulama, predicator anywhere in the
      world…Dismantle, ban all the kingdom's "Islamic charities",
      confiscate their assets... [and] What the House of Saud holds dear
      can be targeted – Oil...the Holy Places…Saudi Arabia [is] the
      strategic pivot".

      Were these presentations not heard by top-level Bush administration
      officials they would be dismissed as simplistic absurdity. However,
      the sparks of a mass movement to demonize Saudi Arabia had already
      begun to ignite, and on June 6th 2002 the right wing Hudson Institute
      held a seminar called "Discourses on Democracy: Saudi Arabia, Friend
      or Foe?", Laurent Murewiec and Richard Perle in attendance.

      Of even further interest is the ironic and direct link between
      Richard Perle and terrorism. A recent fundraiser in support of the
      victims of the Iranian earthquake in Bam, sponsored by the Mujahedin-
      e-Khalq, asked Richard Perle to be their keynote speaker. Despite
      rejections by other groups to speak at the event, based upon the US
      state department's official designation that the MEK is an officially
      designated "foreign terrorist organization", Richard Perle knew of
      the designation, ignored it, and was happy to oblige and raise
      monies - monies which were immediately seized after the event by U.S.
      Treasury agents. The MEK is the same terrorist organization that
      attempted to assassinate Richard Nixon in 1972.

      Two weeks after the PowerPoint presentation to the Pentagon's Defense
      Policy Board, the American Enterprise Institute held yet another
      seminar by Dore Gold, former UN Ambassador from Israel to promote his
      new book, "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global
      Terrorism". Having never visited the country, Gold has been promoted
      on broadcast television networks as an "expert" on Saudi Arabia when
      not introduced as "an advisor of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon".

      Gold claims that the al-Haramain group has channeled massive funding
      to Al-Qaeda whilst omitting that Saudi Arabia shut down the
      organization and froze its assets. Gold's strongest claim is an
      Israeli document claiming funds to Hamas come from Saudi Arabia.
      Hamas has strongly denied the charge of any Saudi government
      involvement and Saudi Arabia also dismissed the charges as false.
      Gold uses the book to promote the Netanyahu/Perle/Bush agenda to
      pursue Saudi Arabia "far more aggressively if Middle Eastern security
      is to be protected" and argues that Israel has only a "minor role" in
      Al-Qaeda related acts of terrorism because Saudi Arabia is to blame
      for funding the "global jihad of Al Qaeda". Gold then testified
      before the United States' Congress about the inherent evil of Saudi
      Arabia. Yet throughout the book Gold only confirms that terrorism
      connections come from foreigners who infiltrate the country, and non-
      Saudi governments. The book provides no proof of official or
      unofficial support.

      Hudson Institute co-founder and neoconservative Max Singer wrote a
      paper sent to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment in May 2002
      urging the outside break up of Saudi Arabia. On Oct 7th 2003 fellow
      arch conservative William Kristol, editor of Weekly Standard, stated
      that he was upset that the US had not gone beyond the war on Iraq to
      the "next regime change" of the "next horrible" Middle East dictator
      Bashar Assad of Syria.

      Before publication of his book "Sleeping With The Devil" , Robert
      Baer, ex-CIA officer, was ordered by the CIA to remove multiple
      passages claiming special CIA knowledge of Saudi royals having
      funneled money to Al Qaeda for terrorist funding, assassination
      plots, and even Chechen rebels. He asserts that Saudi Arabia is
      a "powder keg waiting to explode", "the royal family
      is "corrupt" ", "hanging on by a thread" and "as violent and vengeful
      as any Mafia family". Baer, filled with loathing towards the Saudis,
      relies upon a tacit, yet rejected CIA stamp of approval, but also
      shows little hard evidence. Baer refused to comply with the CIA's
      request "just [to] defy them". The CIA is considering filing a
      lawsuit against Baer, who, like Gold, has also never personally
      visited Saudi Arabia.

      Another author who has made the best-seller list is Gerald Posner,
      who wrote "Why America Slept" which implicates Osama bin Laden and
      the Saudi government. In Posner's opinion the rulers have been paying
      hush money to bin Laden for years in order to prevent terrorist
      attacks upon the Kingdom. One might consider it strange that there
      have been multiple fatal attacks upon civilians in Saudi Arabia if
      bin Laden receives such bribes. And how was Posner able to create a
      book with such a detailed indictment within a few months when US
      intelligence has taken years? Posner presents no clarifications.

      The US government itself not only unknowingly harbored and sponsored
      terrorists (9/11 Al-Qaeda members, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation,
      Mujahedin-e-Khalq [MEK], IRA, etc.) it consciously negotiated with
      Iranian terrorist groups to secure US troop safety from attack in
      Iraq from Iranians in exchange for Iraqi weapons. Up until 2001 and
      since the mid-nineties the US dealt directly with the Taliban for oil
      pipeline rights, agreeing to pay the Taliban tax on every one of the
      million cubic feet of fuel that would have passed through Afghanistan
      daily. Vice President Dick Cheney, Halliburton CEO at the time,
      stated, "Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things
      considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the
      business is." During this timeframe Hamid Karzai was the Taliban's
      deputy foreign minister and a former UNOCAL consultant (UNOCAL
      leading these negotiations along with Paul Wolfowitz aide Zalmay

      On November 9th 2003 Israel confirmed that it had failed in secret
      negotiations with Hezbollah, sleeping with their own devil. (In
      January 2004 the Israeli negotiations with their designated terrorist
      group Hezbollah bore fruit, when a prisoner swap became actuality.)
      Gerald Posner writes in his book that terrorists had been set up by
      the US posing as Saudi interrogators, releasing a flood of
      information under excess cruelty. This charge would mean that the US
      was in violation of international law by using torture on terror

      Whatever inconsistencies exist between US public relations and
      the "war on terror", the efforts to tie the Saudi government
      or "Saudis" in general to terrorism is taking effect. Merit or
      evidence is not the issue. Passion and mobilization is. The
      movie "Fahrenheit 9/11", true to its title, turns up the heat through
      an entirely new American audience: Democrats and Progressives.

      The Approaching Decision

      On June 25, 2004, Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened to
      500 screens and insatiable crowds. The film's message to audiences is
      clear and simple: the US-Saudi relationship must end. However,
      Americans should take time to go beyond the film, books, and talk-
      show pundits to re-examine the complicated history between the US and
      Saudi Arabia and real motives of parties pushing for war. By
      understanding the motives and histories of the driving personalities
      new and old, we can uncover and more fully comprehend an growing case
      for war in Arabia.

      Americans will soon be asked to make a decision about whether
      invasion is the proper course for American policy. But unlike the
      build up to a war in Iraq, an informed decision will serve America in
      a way that hidden plans, rationales and one-sided messages on sale at
      the box-office cannot.

      For media inquiries: editor@...



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.