The Use of The Moslem brotherhood (Ikhwan al-muslimun) by M16 and The CIA in Egypt, Syria and Iran

Egypt, the world’s most populous Arab country, is suddenly roiling with a wide-open, combative election that seems certain to end with the country’s main Islamic group, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, as a big winner.

The country’s rulers, longtime American allies, are starting to show signs of panic: Police have barred voters from polls and thugs have attacked Brotherhood supporters in recent days in an apparent effort to blunt the group’s growing momentum.

Even before the final round of voting Thursday, Brotherhood loyalists have increased their seats in parliament fivefold. That’s not enough to unseat the ruling party, but is still seen as a slap to President Hosni Mubarak.

The following is taken from

Prior to World War II British Intelligence cultivated ties with the Brotherhood through agent Freya Stark, the British adventurer and writer (1). These covert connections were used to keep track of the growing German presence in North Africa and to stay informed of the many different political movements that were springing up. The Muslim Brotherhood spread throughout the Muslim world and has evolved into something like a Muslim equivalent of the West’s Masonic brotherhood. It became one of the first Islamic Fundamentalist terror organizations…

“According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955… When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East… This signalled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces.” (1)

The CIA was following the example of British Intelligence and sought to use Islam to further its goals. They wanted to find a charismatic religious leader that they could promote and control and they began to cooperate with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. With the rise of Nasser the Brotherhood was also courted more seriously by the pro-Western Arab regimes of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They needed all the popular support that they could muster against the rise of Nasser-inspired Arab nationalism to keep their regimes intact.

The Muslim Brotherhood was an obvious ally against Nasser, because he had abolished it from Egypt after it was involved in a failed assassination attempt on his life in 1954. The Brotherhood rejected Nasser’s policy that, for the most part, kept religion out of politics. Officially the Brotherhood was an outlawed organization, but it remained influential and active within Egypt working against the secular regime, often hand-in-hand with British Intelligence. In June of 1955 MI6 was already approaching the Brotherhood in Syria to agitate against the new government that showed strong left-wing tendencies and a desire to merge with Egypt (2). The Brotherhood became an even more important asset after Nasser announced the Egyptian takeover of the Suez…

In Syria, in 1982, there was a major conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian government at the city of Hamma that resulted in 20,000 casualties. In the aftermath Syria’s President Asad revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood forces were armed with US-made equipment…

Israel, forever inclined to back divisive movements, surfaced as another supporter of Islam and began to fund the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.” (8)
The most noteworthy success of the Islamic movement during this time was of course the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini as the Islamic dictator. British Intelligence had used their contacts with Iran’s mullahs and ayatollahs to help overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah back in 1953, and these contacts were maintained and used again to overthrow the Shah when his regime fell out of favor.

The Establishment history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution is that Khomeini’s revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people but supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah’s government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah the government of the Shah was loved by the vast majority of the population.

After taking over from Mossadegh the Shah began to push forward a number of nationalist policies that increased his popularity at home but, in some cases, worried the Anglo-American Establishment. First, he signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company. Then in 1963 he pushed forward on a series of popular reforms that became known as the White Revolution. The Shah evolved into a nationalist whose path paralleled that of Nasser far too much for the Establishment’s liking:

– He bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown’s own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers, allowing over one a half million people to become land owners and ending the old feudal system.

– He allowed women the right to vote, and brought an end to the wearing of the veil, which were “Westernizing” moves unwelcomed by the religious sector.

– He pushed forward on a $90 billion nuclear power program.

– He moved to shut down the lucrative opium industry that had been created during the days of British Empire control that had been running for a hundred years. (9)…

The attack on the Shah’s government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence…

Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent… states in his report on Iran’s Islamic Revolution (11) that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by “the great names of British Middle East intelligence” …and that their mission was to “keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted…”

Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories: 1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet, 2. The CIA’s network of agents, 3. The feudal landowners, 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).

In his report Dr. Coleman writes that in Iran, “At one time there was even a joke about the mullahs being stamped ‘made in Britain.'” When the Shah introduced his plan for modernization in 1963 the Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as the leader of the religious opposition. Up until his exile from Iran in 1964, Khomeini was based at the religious city of Qom. Dr. Coleman relates that Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom Khomeini received a “monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British.”


Why the Iraq War is Destroying the US Economy?

The cost of Bush’s war on Iraq war has surpassed one trillion dollars but there is no evidence of it benefiting the US economy. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of the malicious lie that wars are good for the economy. Only the Military/Industrial complex benefits from war and what is good for the MIC is NOT good for the country.

The MIC is a drag on the economy, an economic black hole into which is drained the economic and creative resources of the nation. War itself is a Faustian bargain. The hour of midnight is approaching.

The economic benefits of building a tank are temporary. Once built, the tank is a drag, requiring more to upkeep than war booty can justify. It returns absolutely nothing for the investment. In the end, only the military contractors building the tank or maintaining it have benefited and they will have done so at taxpayer expense. On a larger scale, the Pentagon is an economic black hole, having sucked the life blood from the US economy.

One of the most pernicious economic myths is the idea that war helps the economy. In reality, war is destructive and it always results in economic retrogression and misery.

The US economy didn’t really recover until 1946, when the immediate postwar period witnessed the dismantling of the command economy in favor of a much more liberalized market economy. Peace brought military demobilization, deregulation, and perhaps most importantly, a seventy-five percent reduction in government spending. This was a genuine peace dividend and it set the stage for America’s legendary post-war economic boom.

War and Economic Decline

The idea that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy is sold and promoted. In fact, new studies now confirm what I have always believed and what Gore Vidal had stated in his classic: The Decline and Fall of th American Empire.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has blamed the Iraq war for sending the United States into a recession. On Wednesday, he told a London think tank that the war caused the credit crunch and the housing crisis that are propelling the current economic downturn. Testifying before the Senate’s Joint Economic Committee the following day, he said our involvement in Iraq has long been “weakening the American economy” and “a day of reckoning” has finally arrived.

Is the Economy a Casualty of War?

Now –war critics have the economic data and models proving that military spending ‘diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.’ This thesis is likewise confirmed in a paper by Thomas E. Woods at:

The obvious lies about the war have been exposed. Not enough attention has been focused on the one of the biggest con jobs of them all —right up there with WMD.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an “upper bound” estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, “The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion

It has been a state of near perpetual war since the so-called Spanish-American war that have made of this nation an empire. But it was, specifically, according to Gore Vidal in The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, the moment at which the US became a net debtor nation that the US empire ceased to be an ’empire’. Americans are led to believe that the US can simply ‘war’ its way out of economic disaster. In fact, the US has been fighting wars with monies it doesn’t have. The Iraq war may, indeed, finish us off before Bush even has a chance to compound his idiocy against Iran.

For Immediate Release: May 1, 2007

Contact: Lynn Erskine, 202-293-5380 x115

Washington, DC: The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report today estimating the economic impact of increased US military spending comparable to the spending on the Iraq war. The report, presenting the results of a simulation from the economic forecasting company Global Insight, shows the increased level of military spending leads to fewer jobs and slower economic growth.

For the report, The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending, by economist Dean Baker, CEPR commissioned Global Insight to run a simulation with its macmacroeconomic del. Global Insight’s model was selected for this analysis because it is a commonly used and widely respected model. It estimated the impact of an increase in annual US military spending equal to 1 percent of GDP (approximately equal to the military spending increase compared with pre-September 11th baseline).

The projections show the following:

— After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline scenario with lower defense spending.

— Inflation and interest rates are considerably higher. After 5 years, the interest rate on 10-Year Treasury notes is projected to be 0.7 percentage points higher than in the baseline scenario. After 10 years, the gap would rise to 0.9 percentage points.

— Higher interest rates lead to reduced demand in the interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. After 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200 in the high military spending scenario. After 10 years, the drop is projected to be 323,300 and after 20 years annual sales are projected to be down 731,400.

— Construction and manufacturing are the sectors that are projected to experience the largest shares of the job loss.

“It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy,” said Baker. “In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.”

The report recommends that Congress request the Congressional Budget Office produce its own projections of the economic impact of a sustained increase in defense spending. If wars are disastrous for the economy, then why does government insist upon fighting them when clearly ‘national security’ is simply not at risk?

Report Shows Increased US Military Spending Slows Economy

America’s ruling elite have found nirvana –a war which need never end, a war in which victory is impossible to define and would not be recognized if it occurred. A war in which victory is, in fact, impossible. A war which achieves precisely what it was intended to achieve: the enrichment of a tiny ruling elite for whom your rights mean absolutely nothing.

For big government we now have “The Perfect War,” everywhere and nowhere, secret and interminable. The war will justify ever expanding police powers, higher taxes, and more controls over the citizenry. You can see easily how Washington thrives on war. Since Sept 11th, there have been no nasty challenges to government spending and waste, no tedious debates over things like social security “lockboxes,” nor “political” attacks upon the Presidency. Congressmen and Think Tank experts get lots of TV time and most everyone jumps to obey government orders and support more regulations. Any groups opposed to American military interventions overseas appear unpatriotic and are marginalized, while press coverage of the war is restricted, using the last Gulf War as a model. Big Government, as Orwell wrote, thrives from unwinnable wars; it doesn’t get any better than this.

–John Basil Utley, Alternative to Unending War, Ludwig von Mises Institute

War is no longer waged by nations. War is waged by huge multi-national corporations hijacking the apparatus of nations for the purposes and aims of war. Simply, the big corporations make their ‘living’ killing people. The most obvious beneficiaries are gun and armament manufacturers and the hired killers of Blackwater, Bush’s Praetorian Guard. The manner in which John McCain has whored himself out to various huge corporation –all benefiting from Iraq –is a case worthy of careful study. The amount of money that McCain has raised by selling out to the war lobbies is enough to make true patriots puke.

If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.

A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.

Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ??of America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:

These giveaways are just one part of McCain’s doubling of the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy which would create the largest deficits in 25 years and drive the United States into the deepest deficits since World War II.

A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.

Over the past eight years, under George W. Bush, American workers have seen their wages stagnate as corporate profits have skyrocketed. John McCain’s misguided priorities show he’s more of the same: the same $45 billion in tax cuts for America’s 200 largest companies could be used to lift over 9 million Americans out of poverty

NEW REPORT: McCain Would Give America’s 200 Largest Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Breaks»

The fact that the MIC is enriched by a war that depresses, in fact, destroys the economy is the picture of a parasite which kills its host! It’s also the very image of tyranny.

A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who place their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials get accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.


One is reminded of John Maynard Keynes’ prescription for full employment.

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

Certainly –there are more productive, meaningful and creative ways of keeping the genius and labor of good people employed for the greater good of our species and the precious earth we live on. Keynes was correct, however, when he proposes that just ‘digging’ up bank notes in a landfill beats the destructive and insidious ‘industry of war’!

Who Really Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia, and Why?

“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 prize.

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)

d_option_4.jpg (22522 bytes)

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 believer.)

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 Americans.

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 Khalilzad).

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 suspects.

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.

Clinton, Obama, Mc Cain support the Difference

“Hillary Clinton has issued a stark warning to Iran, as Democrats in Pennsylvania vote to choose between her and Barack Obama to run for president.

“She said the US would attack, and could ‘obliterate’ Iran, if it launched a nuclear strike on Israel.”Clinton’s poll day threat to Iran

Mrs. Clinton’s maternal grandmother, Della, married Max Rosenberg in 1933, seven years after she and Mrs. Clinton’s grandfather, Edwin Howell, divorced, according to a weekly Jewish newspaper, The Forward. – Hillary Has Jewish Roots, Second Husband Of Grandmother Was Jewish …

“The Jewish Daily Forward has openly identified ‘some of’ Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors as a ‘cadre’ of Jews with the power to ‘influence’ the Democratic Party’s decision to prolong the fight between her and Obama until the convention, or not.Mondoweiss: Jewish Press Is Honest About Hillary’s Jewish Money …

“Hillary Rodham Clinton might have the endorsement of two of the top Jewish names in Pennsylvania politics — Governor Ed Rendell and Rep. Allyson Schwartz of Philadelphia — but 70 other leading Jewish professionals from the Keystone State would rather see Barack Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket.

“Josh Shapiro, the deputy speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, drafted an open letter to the state’s Jewish community on behalf of Mr. Obama, the candidate who boasts what Mr. Shapiro calls a ‘100 percent voting record on Israel issues.’

“In an interview, Mr. Shapiro said it’s time to, ‘as Jews, stand up and say how much we admire Senator Obama for condemning the words of his pastor and making sure he is Israel’s ally in the Middle East.'”Pa. Jewish Leaders Praise Obama in Letter

“Lieberman … says that McCain understands how significant the establishment of the state of Israel was. He is an avid reader of history and also has ‘a sense of history.’ He is familiar with the story of the country. He will not do anything that will ‘compromise Israel’s security.'” – Why lovers of Israel should vote for McCain (according to …

The Zionist are in Bed with The Nazis

Zionist Menachem Begin became chief of the Zionist youth movement Betar in Poland.

Reportedly, Begin and his Betar members wore brown shirts and used the fascist salute. (Cached )
 Menachem Begin

Hitler came to power in 1933 and he had the support of Zionist Jews.

It has been argued that Hitler may have been Jewish. (Hitler was Jewish? )

In 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum of support to the Nazi Party.

The World Zionist Organization Congress in 1933 defeated a resolution calling for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43.

The World Zionist Organization ‘became the principal distributor of Nazi goods throughout the Middle East and Northern Europe’. (Cached)

Both Hitler and the Zionists believed:

1. There should be a homeland for the Jews

2. Might was right.

Many German Jews disagreed with the Nazis and the Zionists. Many German Jews were liberals and they wanted to stay in Germany.


Heydrich, a leading Nazi, supported the idea of a homeland for the Jews.

Heydrich may have been Jewish (Reinhard Heydrich who masterminded the Holocaust ).

In May 1935, Reinhardt Heydrich wrote an article, ‘The Visible Enemy’, for Das Schwarze Korps, the SS official organ.

He wrote:

“The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.”

(Karl Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, pp. 193-4 – A NAZI TRAVELS T0 PALESTINE AND TELLS ABOUT IT IN THE ASSAULT …)

In 1934, SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler toured Palestine.

(Jacob Boas, “A Nazi Travels to Palestine,” History Today, London, January 1980, pp. 33-38.)

Von Mildenstein wrote a series of articles for the Berlin daily Der Angriff that were printed in 1934 under the heading “A Nazi Travels to Palestine.”

The articles praised the pioneering spirit and achievements of the Jews who had left Europe and settled in Palestine.

Der Angriff issued a medal, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other, to commemorate the joint SS-Zionist visit.

The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in a May 1935 front-page editorial:

“The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them.”


Four months later, a similar article appeared in the SS paper.

(The Order of the Death’s Head, Ballantine, 1971, 1984, p. 377. Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: FZ-Verlag, 1988, p. 184. Das Schwarze Korps, Sept. 26, 1935. Quoted in: F. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question,1985, pp. 56-57. Zionism and the Third Reich)


In his book The Order of the SS (1981), Professor Frederic Reider explains how the Nazi Third Reich and Zionist Haganah worked together to encourage Jews to move to Palestine. (National Medical Association).

“At the time when Eichmann took over the Sub-department IV B4 in the R.S.H.A., which had been established to settle the Jewish question, he (Eichmann) was not himself anti-Semitic.

“His functions led him to collaborate closely with the World Zionist Organisation and to make contact with the leaders of the secret Zionist organisation, Haganah.

“He even went himself to Palestine in 1937, in the company of Oberscharfuhrer S.S. Sergeant Hagen, the successor to Leopold von Midenstein, to examine the problem….

“By the end of 1939, 150,000 Austrian Jews had left, by choice, to go to live in Palestine, as had also 120,000 German Jews and 78,000 from Bohemia/Moravia. This emigration had been organised by the S.D., with Haganah’s approval, and was carried out clandestinely by boat, despite the draconian measures taken by Britain to stop it…”

Eichman also had the Madagascar Plan, whereby a national Jewish homeland would be set up in Madagascar.

Himmler and Heydrich approved, and on 18th June 1940 Hitler himself told Mussolini ‘an Israeli state might be set up in Madagascar’. The project came to nothing. (National Medical Association)

Jewish historian David Cesarani, in Eichmann: His Life and Crimes, states that as a child Eichmann was persecuted because he looked Jewish.

Eichmann’s stepmother had Jewish relations and Eichman associated with Jews. Eichmann learned Hebrew, visited Palestine and worked closely with Zionists preparing Jews for emigration. (eichmann was jewish hurricane katrina was a regional)


Himmler’s SS cooperated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military organization in British -run Palestine.

Reportedly, Himmler’s grandfather was Jewish. (Himmler relative marries Israeli – Israel News, Ynetnews / eichmann was jewish hurricane katrina was a regional )

The German SS secretly supplied weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs. (F. Nicosia, Third Reich (1985), pp. 63-64, 105, 219-220.)

The CIA and MOSSAD, Friends of Sudan and Zimbabwe

“The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has found a new African best friend in the head of Khartoum’s national security agency, Saleh Gosh, someone who is notorious for human rights abuses and who has been accused of war crimes.

“Among the ‘successes’ attributed to Gosh and Khartoum’s intelligence bodies by Steve Paterno in an article published in the Sudan Tribune on 18 September 2007 are:

“the provision of security to Osama Bin Laden during his stay in Sudan prior to 9/11.” – Institute for Security Studies – Institut d’Études de Sécurité

“The Zimbabwean reports that, according to highly placed government sources, a list of names has been given to Mossad for monitoring. These include people who control key positions in airports, government offices and the finance and banking sectors. It is reported that Mossad agents have brought with them spying equipment for which the Zimbabwean regime is paying huge sums of foreign currency.”Institute for Security Studies – Institut d’Études de Sécurité

The Muslims Brotherhood and The CIA in Indonesia

When the CIA was trying to frustrate democracy in Central America, they used Moslem money, from the Saudis. (Cached)

In Indonesia, money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf has been financing mosques and preachers demanding a ‘purer’ form of Islam. (Indonesian Democracy’s Enemy Within)

Beginning in the 1970s, “activists linked to the Saudi-sponsored Islamic World League began indoctrinating small groups at the prestigious Bandung Institute of Technology with Brotherhood materials”. (Indonesian Democracy’s Enemy Within)

In 1998, there was the possibility that Indonesia would change its government and become a democracy like Malaysia, where there is no miserable poverty.

Unfortunately, Indonesia’s American-trained military hijacked the 1998 protest movement.

The May 1998 riots which toppled Suharto were organised by the military; certain Chinese people were made the scapegoats for all of Indonesia’s problems; most of the old elite, consisting of generals, Chinese-Indonesian businessmen, religious leaders and politicians, remained in power; certain factions within the elite lost out.

Now sections of the elite are using Islam to frustrate democracy.

Indonesia’s Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) ‘is Indonesia’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood’. (Playing with Fire in Indonesia). It does not support Sharia law but supports ‘Moslem values’.

“According to CIA agent Miles Copeland… the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood… This signalled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces.” (aangirfan: The use of the Muslim Brotherhood by MI6 and the CIA in …)

In the 2004 national elections, the PKS won 45 out of 550 seats in the Indonesian lower house (DPR). They also got 3 seats in the cabinet. (Playing with Fire in Indonesia)

At the local level, the PKS has won 88 out of 149 elections.

In April 2008, PKS candidates won the Governorships of West Java and North Sumatra.

West Java has a population of 40 million people and is home to Jakarta.

Why do poor Indonesians vote for the PKS? They are fed up with “corruption, poor public services, poverty, and the perceived lack of real political choice.” (Playing with Fire in Indonesia)

The PKS may form an alliance with Indonesia’s president Yudhoyono, a former Suharto general. Alternatively, the PKS might form an alliance with Suharto’s old party called Golkar, the largest party in parliament; or with one of the Moslem parties such as the PPP or PAN.

Reportedly, the “founding manifesto” of the Justice Party that went on to become the PKS, called for the creation of an Islamic caliphate. (Indonesian Democracy’s Enemy Within)

According to Walter Lohman, “The Indonesian political elite… believe they can turn the PKS’s success to their own advantage…” (Playing with Fire in Indonesia)

Why might the CIA be helping the PKS?

Walter Lohman (Playing with Fire in Indonesia) reminds us of “the threat of a burgeoning Chinese presence in Asia.”

A Saudi-style Indonesia will have no love for China, and may side with the USA in countering it.

An independent-minded democratic Indonesia might not side with the USA.