Oil Profits for Protection: US Extorts Saudi Arabia

April 18, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Legislation circulating in the US Congress threatens to withdraw military support from Saudi Arabia.

This is not because Saudi Arabia is an absolute dictatorship which still severs heads off in public. It is not because Saudi Arabia arms and funds some of the worst terrorist organizations on Earth - including Al Qaeda, its Syrian franchise Tahrir al-Sham - previously known as Jabhat Al Nusra, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

And it's not even because of Saudi Arabia's years of committing war crimes in neighboring Yemen.

These are all aspects of modern Saudi Arabia the US has in fact aided and abetted.

Instead, US representatives are threatening to withdraw US military support from Saudi Arabia for allegedly lowering energy prices by flooding markets with Saudi oil. 

Reuters in its article, "Bill would remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia in 30 days," would claim:

A Republican U.S. senator introduced legislation on Thursday to remove American troops from Saudi Arabia, adding pressure on the kingdom to tighten its oil taps to reverse the crude price drop that has hurt domestic energy companies.

The threat of yanking out military support from Saudi Arabia undermines decades of propaganda attempting to justify US military support for the Saudi regime.

According to the US State Department's own website under a section titled, "U.S. Relations With Saudi Arabia," the US supports Saudi Arabia because (emphasis added):

The United States and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region and consult closely on a wide range of regional and global issues.  Saudi Arabia plays an important role in working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the region and is a strong partner in security and counterterrorism efforts and in military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation.  Its forces works closely with U.S. military and law enforcement bodies to safeguard both countries’ national security interests.

If anything the US State Department says about US-Saudi relations is true - "preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region" must surely come first and foremost - especially ahead of something as trivial as oil profits for America's domestic shale industry.

Of course, very little the US State Department says is ever true. US ties with Saudi Arabia have helped drive precisely the opposite of stability, security, and prosperity for both the Persian Gulf region as well as the wider Middle East and even as far as North Africa and Central Asia - with both nations playing leading roles in destabilizing and destroying nations, fueling extremism, separatism, and terrorism, and even engaging in direct military aggression.

Because of the dubious nature of US-Saudi ties and the true agenda of money and power that defines them - there should be little surprise that at moments of opportunity, these two "allies" draw geopolitical and economic daggers against one another.


The US threatening to withdraw military support from Saudi Arabia would leave Riyadh particularly vulnerable in the many proxy wars it wages on Washington's behalf against Iran, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. Of course - the ultimate loser would be Washington itself - which would be further isolating itself in a region increasingly slipping out from under its control.

The US finds itself trying to prioritize its various rackets - its domestic shale gas industry versus its protection rackets abroad, versus its profitable and endless wars, versus maintaining a collection of obedient client regimes around the globe.

But by threatening Saudi Arabia - whether the threat is empty or not - Washington once again reveals to the world that it maintains an international order exclusively serving special interests - using platitudes like "preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region" as an increasingly tenuous facade behind which it advances its self-serving agenda.

Saudi Arabia - despite its many, many sins and from a realist point of view - must begin seriously thinking about a major overhaul of its economic, political, diplomatic, and military alignment within the region and world. As multipolarism moves forward and the tired unipolar order Riyadh belongs to - subordinated to Washington - continues to fade, the threats Riyadh faces will increase as will the cost of being an American "ally."

When Washington begins turning the screws on Riyadh, it does however open a window of opportunity for nations like Russia and China who are looking to improve and expand ties with Saudi Arabia and lead it toward a more constructive role upon the international stage.

It also opens a window of opportunity for nations like Iran - who are perceived as enemies of Saudi Arabia - but who would benefit greatly from a Saudi Arabia that no longer serves US interests and instead truly seeks to preserve "the stability, security, and prosperity" of the region - side-by-side with other nations that actually are located there - not a nation located oceans and continents away.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

"Drone Attack" on Saudi Oil - Who Benefits?

September 16, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Huge blazes were reported at two oil facilities in Saudi Arabia owned by Aramco. While Saudi authorities refused to assign blame, media outlets like the BBC immediately began insinuating either Yemen's Houthis or Iran were responsible. 

The BBC in its article, "Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes," would inject toward the top of its article:

Iran-aligned Houthi fighters in Yemen have been blamed for previous attacks.

Following an ambiguous and evidence-free description of the supposed attacks, the BBC even included an entire section titled, "Who could be behind the attacks?" dedicated to politically expedient speculation aimed ultimately at Tehran.

The BBC would claim:

Houthi fighters were blamed for drone attacks on the Shaybah natural gas liquefaction facility last month and on other oil facilities in May.

The Iran-aligned rebel movement is fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition.

Yemen has been at war since 2015, when President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the capital Sanaa by the Houthis. Saudi Arabia backs President Hadi, and has led a coalition of regional countries against the rebels. 

The coalition launches air strikes almost every day, while the Houthis often fire missiles into Saudi Arabia.

Deliberately missing from the BBC's history lesson are several key facts, leaving readers to draw conclusions that conveniently propel the West's agenda versus Iran forward.

The US and Saudi Arabia vs. MENA

The war in Yemen was a result of US-backed regime change operations aimed at Yemen - along with Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Syria, and Egypt - starting in 2011.

Major hostilities began when the client regime installed by the US was ousted from power in 2015. Since then, the US and its Saudi allies have brutalized and ravaged Yemen triggering one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century.

The UN's own news service in an article titled, "Humanitarian crisis in Yemen remains the worst in the world, warns UN," would admit:

An estimated 24 million people – close to 80 per cent of the population – need assistance and protection in Yemen, the UN warned on Thursday. With famine threatening hundreds of thousands of lives, humanitarian aid is increasingly becoming the only lifeline for millions across the country.

The cause of this catastrophe is the deliberate blockading of Yemen. Reuters in its article, "U.N. aid chief appeals for full lifting of Yemen blockade," would report:

The United Nations appealed on Friday to the Saudi-led military coalition to fully lift its blockade of Yemen, saying up to eight million people were “right on the brink of famine”.

Essentially - the United States - with the largest economy and most powerful military in the world - along with its allies in Riyadh - are attempting to erase an entire nation off the map through bombings, starvation, and disease.

Saudi aggression carried out on behalf of Washington isn't confined only to its war on Yemen. Saudi Arabia has played a key role in radicalizing, arming, and funding US-backed militants attempting to overthrow the government of Syria as well as extremist groups bent on destabilizing Iraq and even Iran itself.

Likewise, the militants who overran Libya in 2011 were drawn from extremist networks funded for decades by Riyadh. Thus, Saudi Arabia is not merely menacing neighboring Yemen, it is menacing the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and even beyond.

Saudi Arabia the Victim?  

The BBC's recent article attempting to portray Saudi-Yemeni hostilities as a tit-for-tat conflict rather than Yemen's desperate struggle for survival is yet another illustration of not only the West's hypocrisy in terms of upholding or in any way underwriting human rights, but also the Western media' complicity in advancing this hypocrisy.

Saudi Arabia is no victim.


If the US can predicate the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its government on deliberately false claims of possessing "weapons of mass destruction," wouldn't Yemen and its allies be justified in using any means possible to attack and undermine Saudi Arabia's fighting capacity as it and its US allies openly carry out a war of aggression unequivocally condemned by the UN itself?

Houthi fighters or Iran would both be well within their rights to strike at the economic engine driving what even the UN has repeatedly declared as an illegal war of aggression waged by Saudi Arabia and its Western sponsors against the nation and people of Yemen.

Unfortunately, provoking such attacks - however justified - is key to US machinations toward igniting an even wider and more destructive regional conflict.

Two Possibilities 

The alleged attacks on Saudi oil facilities mean one of two things.

Either it is indeed retaliation against Saudi Arabia for its criminal activities across the region - showcasing new military capabilities raising the costs for Riyadh to continue down its current foreign policy path - or it was a staged provocation that will be used by the US to station yet more military forces in Saudi Arabia and to ratchet up tensions with both Iran to the east and Yemen's Houthis to the south.

The recent departure of US National Security Adviser John Bolton led many to believe the US may be changing tack on its foreign policy - particularly toward Iran. However, it was much more likely a means of portraying the US as a "peacemaker" ahead of another round of attempts by the US to escalate tensions with Iran and if at all possible, trigger a wider conflict long sought by US special interests for years.

The US already used recent and highly questionable incidents in the Persian Gulf to justify sending hundreds of troops to Saudi Arabia. The New York Times in its July 2019 article, "U.S. to Send About 500 More Troops to Saudi Arabia," would report:

The United States is sending hundreds of troops to Saudi Arabia in what is intended as the latest show of force toward Iran, two Defense Department officials said Wednesday. 

The roughly 500 troops are part of a broader tranche of forces sent to the region over the past two months after tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated. 

Since May, a spate of attacks have left six oil tankers damaged in the Gulf of Oman, with Washington accusing Tehran of inciting them. Iranian officials have denied that claim. The downing of an American drone in June by an Iranian surface-to-air missile only heightened tensions, prompting President Trump to approve military strikes against Iran before abruptly pulling back.

With a growing number of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the US will be well positioned to launch offensive attacks against Iran in any future war, as well as carry out defensive operations to protect Saudi Arabia and essential infrastructure from retaliation.

This most recent alleged attack, along with a series of questionable incidents in the Persian Gulf have afforded the US justification - however tenuous - to further build up its military presence along Iran's peripheries it otherwise would have had to carry out in an openly provocative and unjustified manner.

It was just these sort of provocations that were described for years by US policymakers who sought to "goad" Iran into war with the West.

For example, in a 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," US policymakers would openly admit (emphasis added):

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.  

However beneficial this campaign of provocations may be for US foreign policy objectives, neither possibility - a provoked reaction from the Houthis or Iran or a staged attack organized by the US - bodes well for those ruling in Riyadh.

For Washington's allies - the fact that they are just as likely - or more likely - to receive a devastating attack from the US itself than from their actual enemies - all to trigger an even more devastating war they will find themselves in the middle of - is added incentive for nations like Saudi Arabia to take the extended hands of future potential allies like Russia and China, and begin walking down a new and different path.   

Only time will tell how far Saudi Arabia is willing to go down its current path, and how much they are willing to risk doing so, before they join the growing list of nations departing from America's unipolar global order and choosing a more equitable multipolar future.

Whether the US and Saudi Arabia finally provoked genuine attacks from nations they've purposefully goaded for years, or staged the attacks themselves, a dangerous course toward war has been set - and a course the rest of the world must now work hard to steer away from.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Western Media "Discovers" Saudi Atrocities in Wake of Khashoggi Fallout

November 12, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Nothing illustrates the cynical and deceitful nature of Western "journalism" better than the recent, apparent US-Saudi fallout in the wake of the alleged death of Washington Post Saudi correspondent, Jamal Khashoggi.

Khashoggi allegedly disappeared and has been reported killed at the hands of Saudi consulate staff in Istanbul, Turkey. Of course, the US, UK, EU, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are among the most dubious actors in modern geopolitics. Ascertaining the truth regarding the events surrounding Khashoggi may ultimately turn out to be an insurmountable task.

But the various narratives and reactions of Western political and media circles still provides us insight into the true character of Western international relations including extreme hypocrisy regarding human rights, the use and abuse of Western media platforms to selectively cover events around the globe to favor Western interests, and the ultimate fate that awaits other US "allies."

The New York Times Suddenly Notices "Overlooked" Yemen War

The New York Times in a series of social media posts and articles seems to suddenly notice the long list of atrocities Saudi Arabia is responsible for - including the ongoing war in Yemen. In a social media post published on Twitter, the New York Times would claim:

The Khashoggi crisis has called attention to a largely overlooked Saudi-led war in Yemen. On a rare trip to the front line, New York Times journalists found Yemenis fighting and dying in a war that has gone nowhere.

Of course, it is impossible that a newspaper as large, as prominent, as well-known and well-funded as the New York Times simply "overlooked" the "Saudi-led war in Yemen."

It was the systematic and concerted cover up by the Western media regarding the war - which began in 2015 - that provided Saudi Arabia the impunity with which it executed the war.

It is only political motivations in Washington now, that require newspapers like the New York Times to suddenly "notice" the war - but only partially. The New York Times would publish a recent article titled, "This is the front line of Saudi Arabia’s invisible war," claiming:

The Saudi-led war in Yemen has ground on for more than three years, killing thousands of civilians and creating what the United Nations calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. But it took the crisis over the apparent murder of the dissident Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate two weeks ago for the world to take notice.

Saudi Arabia’s brash young crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, under scrutiny over the Khashoggi case, now faces a fresh reckoning for his ruthless prosecution of the war in Yemen — yet another foreign policy debacle for Saudi Arabia, and a catastrophe for the Arab world’s poorest country.

Nowhere in the New York Times' piece is a single, even oblique mention made of the US role in the war. However - in fact - the war is being fought with US-made warplanes, refueled by US Air Force-crewed aerial refueling aircraft, dropping US-built ordnance on targets selected by US intelligence agencies, with the help of US special forces on the ground directly assisting Saudi forces.

Worst of all, it was the New York Times itself that admitted to all of these facts. In its May 2018 article titled, "Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels," the New York Times would admit:

For years, the American military has sought to distance itself from a brutal civil war in Yemen, where Saudi-led forces are battling rebels who pose no direct threat to the United States. 

But late last year, a team of about a dozen Green Berets arrived on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen, in a continuing escalation of America’s secret wars.

The article would also admit:

Details of the Green Beret operation, which has not been previously disclosed, were provided to The New York Times by United States officials and European diplomats.

They appear to contradict Pentagon statements that American military assistance to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen is limited to aircraft refueling, logistics and general intelligence sharing. 

And indeed, the war in Yemen is not a "Saudi-led war," it is in fact just one of America's many "secret wars."  It is secret specifically because of the complicity of newspapers like the New York Times, only now cynically and dishonestly reporting on the Yemen war as part of a concerted campaign aimed at decoupling US culpability and leaving it entirely with Riyadh.

For years before the Khashoggi incident, the New York Times and others were more than content with burying and spinning news about Yemen, or not covering it at all.

US Media Pretends to Only Now Notice Saudi Atrocities, Omits US Role Underwriting Them

The Western media demonstrates its absolute contempt for the intelligence of its collective audience. Their sudden concern and feigned outrage aimed at Saudi Arabia tenuously papers over decades of Saudi atrocities both inside Saudi Arabia itself, and across the world through its key role in state sponsored terrorism.

A remarkable admission was made in the pages of the Washington Post in a March 2018 article titled, "Saudi prince denies Kushner is ‘in his pocket’." 


The article would quote Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, stating (emphasis added):

Asked about the Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism, the austere faith that is dominant in the kingdom and that some have accused of being a source of global terrorism, Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

While the article claims "successive Saudi governments lost track of the effort" and that funding is now provided by "Saudi-based "foundations,"" this is not true.

There are no "successive governments" in Saudi Arabia. The nation since its founding has been run by a single family - the House of Saud.

And while Saudi-based foundations may be the conduit through which Wahhabism is organized, funded, and directed, it most certainly is done at the behest of Riyadh in a process fully underwritten by Washington.

Among Washington's other "secret wars" are Libya and Syria where terrorists recruited, radicalized, trained, funded, and armed through US-Saudi funded Wahhabism were unleashed on the battlefield. 

Amid these two conflicts, newspapers like the New York Times worked overtime providing them with public exposure - seeking to sell to the public greater and more direct Western military intervention. In Libya, these efforts resulted in a NATO-led air campaign that eventually toppled the Libyan government and plunged the nation into years of infighting, terrorism, slavery, and enduring dysfunction that persists today. 

In Syria, the gambit fell short when Russia intervened at the request of Damascus, effectively blocking a similar NATO-led Libya-style air campaign. Russian warplanes targeted NATO supply routes out of Turkey feeding terrorist organizations operating inside Syrian territory, and ultimately turned the tide of the war.  

And just as the US and Saudi Arabia used terrorist organizations in Libya and Syria to fight their proxy wars, an AP investigation revealed they were doing likewise in Yemen. 

The AP article titled, "AP Investigation: US allies, al-Qaida battle rebels in Yemen," would report (emphasis added):

Again and again over the past two years, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States has claimed it won decisive victories that drove al-Qaida militants from their strongholds across Yemen and shattered their ability to attack the West. 

Here’s what the victors did not disclose: many of their conquests came without firing a shot.

That’s because the coalition cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash, an investigation by The Associated Press has found. Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.

Thus, the Western media has always been and is still fully aware of the true nature of Saudi Arabia's decades-long geopolitical trajectory - as it was the West and more specifically the US and UK who helped launch it in the first place. And it was the Western media who all along helped spin it on its way.

Western Media's Deceit on full Display 

The deceitful and intelligence-insulting narratives now being peddled by papers like the New York Times and others are unacceptable. If Riyadh falls, so too must those in Washington and London who built Riyadh up and walked with it - bloody hand-in-bloody hand - every step of the way.

Attempts to decouple Western culpability from Saudi atrocities is an illustration of the immense duplicity and impropriety of Western political and media circles. But it is also a warning to the rest of Washington and London's "allies"- like the current regime in Ukraine - who believe their relationship and complicity with, as well as their obedience to the West affords them inexhaustible impunity.

It does not.

The West picks weak, dependent, and dysfunctional political, military, and economic partners specifically because their very nature serves as the perfect check to keep them under control and if need be, to dispose of expediently.

What's Really Behind the Khashoggi Fallout? 

For now, it is unclear whether the fallout between the US and Saudi Arabia is real or imagined. The US and Turkey may be using Saudi Arabia to expunge their responsibility for their joint support of global terrorism alongside Riyadh, or perhaps to preemptively decouple from Riyadh ahead of a planned "Saudi" provocation against Iran.

Or Riyadh may have refused requests made by Washington and is now being pressured to reverse its decision.

So far, absent are the sort of aggressive steps taken when Washington faces a real enemy it seeks to inflict damage upon. Unlike with Russia when baseless accusations were made regarding election interference, the downing of MH-17, or the entire Skripal affair - there are no sanctions being discussed regarding Riydah. Weapons and US military support still flow to Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen continues unabated, all while the US military continues providing Riyadh with defacto protection with its forces scattered across the Middle East.

Until these facts on the ground change, we may simply be witnessing geopolitical theater where Saudi Arabia is elected to play the "villain" and absorbs responsibility for years, if not decades of atrocities jointly committed with its Anglo-American sponsors. By doing so, the US can save face and leave Riyadh with the broken pieces of their collective and ill-conceived regional and global policies. Only time will tell.

One fact we can be certain of is that neither the US nor Saudi Arabia can be relied on for the truth. If the truth surrounding Khashoggi's fate ever does emerge, it will not be from the Western or Saudi media nor from representatives of their respective capitals.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

Saudi Arabia: What's Really Behind Trump's Hypocrisy?

July 14, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - US President Donald Trump's support came in no small part from those Americans who believe terrorism, and more specifically, "Islamic" terrorism pose an existential threat to the United States and the wider Western World.

It is curious then that President Trump's first trip abroad was to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the sociocultural source code of the very extremism infecting both the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as well as the wider, global extremism it inspires and fuels everywhere from Southeast Asia, western China and even in the streets of North America and Europe.

Far from a geopolitical gaff, US associations with Saudi Arabia and their mutual link and contribution to (not fighting against) terrorism is increasingly becoming an embarrassing, "open secret."

It was the US Defense Intelligence Agency in a 2012 memo leaked to the public that revealed the creation of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State (referred to in the memo as a "Salafist principality") were encouraged by "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey."

Leaked emails from former US Secretary of State and 2016 US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would include direct references to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in regards to their complicity in arming the Islamic State. More specifically, both nations were accused of, "providing clandestine financial and logistic support" to the Islamic State.

While the US postures to the world as engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is clear that those nations in the Middle East cooperating closest with Washington are in fact those also perpetuating this seemingly endless war. Why?

It turns out that perpetual war is a lucrative affair in both terms of acquiring wealth and power. It is this equation of wealth and power that takes precedence, even at the expense of narrative continuity and political legitimacy.

Dollars, Oil and Arms

Was President Trump's visit to Riyadh to deliver a stern warning regarding its extensive history of state sponsorship of terror? On the contrary. It was to seal an unprecedented weapons deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to an immediate $110 billion, and $350 billion over the next 10 years, according to the New York Times.

The New York Times also revealed the participants in the massive arms deal to include Lockheed Martin.

It was no surprise then that US policy think tanks like the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) encouraged members to submit op-eds praising President Trump's trip to prominent US and European media sources including The Hill.


The Hill's op-ed, "Trump gets it right in Saudi Arabia," for example, was penned by Anthony Cordesman, a CSIS member. His op-ed would conclude by passionately arguing:

This speech is the right beginning — in remarkably well crafted terms — and it deserves bipartisan and expert respect.

It is no surprise considering the sponsors who keep the lights on at CSIS and Mr. Cordesman in a job. The think tank's most prominent corporate donors include Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and, most telling of all, Lockheed Martin. It is also sponsored by Saudi Aramco, the central nexus of the US-Saudi petrodollar network propping up what many think tanks call the US-led "international order."

Governments that donate to CSIS include the United States and Saudi Arabia itself. Together, corporate and government donations account for over 60% (34% and 27% respectively) of CSIS' overall funding, according to its 2016 annual report.

Of course, a man's "opinion" of President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, including a multi-billion dollar arms deal favoring Lockheed Martin, will be positive, when the organization he works for is funded directly by both Lockheed Martin and the government of Saudi Arabia.

It is an example of  how the media in the United States actually works and how special interests, not the "truth," shape narratives and drive agendas in complete contradiction to reality and the best interests of the vast majority on the planet.

Threatening America's "international order" are competitors that exist independent of or even opposed to Washington and its corporate partners both on Wall Street and in Riyadh.

This is why US President Trump praised Saudi Arabia, a nation that serves as a virtual model for the Islamic State, and condemned Iran whose forces have fought for 6 years against both the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliates who have flooded into Syria and Iraq.

Clearly, based on the fact that the US' closest ally in the Middle East is also one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet and the premier sponsor of global terrorism, ideological and humanitarian concerns are strictly a rhetorical facade.

It was never about ideology, humanitarianism or truly fighting "terrorism." It is not a matter of "good and evil." It is as simple dollars and cents, Saudi riyals, oil and arms and maintaining hegemony across a region and upon a planet to prevent this wealth and influence from being usurped either by a competitor of equal footing or a general trend toward multipolar geopolitical decentralization.

The media is awash in politically-oriented rhetoric attempting to divide and distract the public along strictly political lines. The common denominator among all of this propaganda is the fact that all of the narratives, no matter how apparently contradictory, conveniently allow the singular agenda of amassing dollars, oil and arms in pursuit of global hegemony to move forward.

As this very simple reality is understood and acted upon by more people than pay into this prevailing political facade that perpetuates it, multipolar geopolitical decentralization will continue to incrementally replace this current US-dominated "international order."

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.     

Trump's Trip to Riyadh Offers Left and Right Common Ground

What liberals should really be railing against, and what Trump supporters should really know about "Sharia law." 

May 14, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A video went viral of an aggressive American man beating his chest, grabbing his genitals, and taunting a Muslim family on a Texas beach in support of what he believed was US President Donald Trump's mission of purging America of "Sharia law" and "ISIS" (the Islamic State).

What this man was likely not aware of as he made his lowbrow political statement was that the "Sharia law" he actually fears is called "Wahhabism," and that his candidate of choice "Trump" was preparing to visit  the very source of Wahhabism - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the American left remains convinced that their priority should remain resisting an alleged covert alliance between Russia and the Trump administration of which no evidence actually exists. They have made this a priority at the expense of exposing and resisting a documented and longstanding alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia that has endured for decades.

There is common ground here for the American public, but only if the intentional distractions presented by the Western media from both right and left cover can be sidestepped and the truth revealed.

Wahhabism's Source Code 

If the Islamic State is a virus, its source code can be traced directly back to Riyadh and the political regime that resides there. Riyadh chops heads off of offenders, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh oppresses women, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh is arrayed against all forces beyond its and American geopolitical influence, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh promotes a divisive sectarian-driven strategy of tension to divide and conquer, the Islamic State does too.

It is no coincidence that both Riyadh and its American sponsors are fighting precisely the same enemies as the Islamic State: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

In essence, President Trump's visit to Riyadh represents a paradox for Trump supporters.

He's the man supposed to "save America" from "Sharia law," but is visiting Riyadh from whence the corrosive version of "Sharia law," known as Wahhabism, originated and is actively perpetuated from. Worst of all, Riyadh perpetuates Wahhabism with the explicit and long-term support of the United States, including now under the Trump administration.

For the average chest-beating, genital-grabbing Trump supporter, America's complicity in propping up Wahhabism began under US President Barrack Obama who they suspect had infiltrated American politics as a "secret Muslim." President Trump's victory at the polls was supposed to reverse this "infiltration."


Back in reality, US support of Wahhabism goes back to the end of World War I and accepting the waning British Empire's handover of its vast networks across the colonized Arab World it used to divide and conquer the people living there.

Wahhabism represented one of the more successful and prolific British-supported networks of divide and conquer, adjacent to the Muslim Brotherhood. These networks were employed for decades, including during several attempts to break the Syrian nation under the rule of current Syrian President Bashar Al Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad.

In fact, Hafez al-Assad's victory over the Muslim Brotherhood and their Wahhabi allies in Syria served as impetus for the creation of Al Qaeda, a joint US-Saudi project aimed at dislodging Soviet forces from the Central Asian state of Afghanistan.


After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations like it would be utilized to fight US and Persian Gulf conflicts the world over either as proxy forces or as pretexts for justifying direct military intervention.

From Libya to Iraq, and from Afghanistan to Somalia, the United States has invaded, occupied or otherwise attacked and destroyed nation after nation predicated on the threat posed by "Al Qaeda." However, it is clear, that if one nation's government should be attacked, undermined and overthrown in pursuit of defeating the threat of Wahhabism and groups who practice it - Al Qaeda and the Islamic State - it would be Saudi Arabia.

Yet this is not only the one nation the US refuses to target, it has elected to support the regime residing in Riyadh with decades of bipartisan political, economic, and military support.

This support continues, unconditionally, under the Trump administration and represents a conundrum for his supporters who remain convinced he is a champion against terrorism, not yet another facilitator of it. But he is.

US Coddling the Worst Regime on Earth (Not Russia) 

The American left remains convinced - in no small part because of the media - that Russia represents the single greatest existential threat to America beyond its borders and the sole reason the Trump administration has assumed office instead of their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton. Yet there is no actual evidence of this or that US policy - foreign or domestic - would have differed had Clinton won the election.

What there is evidence of, is US ties with Saudi Arabia which include much more than the symbolic and routine meetings Trump's administration is having with Russian representatives - meetings the Obama administration before it had held including the notorious "reset" meeting between then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

President Obama sealed the largest weapons deal in US history with Riyadh in 2010. President Trump plans on augmenting that 60 billion USD deal with a proposed 11.5 billion USD deal which includes combat vessels.  The UK Independent reports that:

The arms sales contracts are likely to comprise of Lockheed Martin Co program packages with a Terminal Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile defence system worth $1bn (£770 million), a C2BMC software system, and a package with satellite capabilities. 

Provided by BAE Systems PLC, a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and an M109 artillery vehicle are also under consideration as part of the deal.

The Independent also notes that:

...there will be $1bn (£770 million) worth of munitions, including armour-piercing Penetrator Warheads and Paveway laser-guided bombs. These contracts had been suspended by the Obama administration because of Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen, which caused the deaths of thousands of civilians.

It is clear that after Obama sealed a 60 billion USD deal with Riyadh in 2010, its "suspension" of certain weapon delivered were all but symbolic, and now with President Trump in office, to be reversed.

The Independent's mention of Yemen is important. It is a conflict which, like Syria, began in 2011 and has persisted with the brutal suppression of anti-US-Saudi-backed government forces across the nation as well as Yemen's civilian population. The US-backed regime in Riyadh has targeted Yemen with aerial bombardment, sea and air blockades, and even multiple ground invasions.

Many who support or oppose President Trump appear oblivious to the ongoing conflict in Yemen despite repeatedly weighing in on the adjacent Syrian conflict. This is owed to the selective and dishonest reporting of Western media.

This same media, who proposes that President Trump is coddling Russia at the expense of US sovereignty, has failed to expose with equal vigor the bipartisan support both President Obama and now President Trump have exhibited toward a very real threat to American - and global- security, Saudi Arabia.

In addition to the brutality it has subjected neighboring Yemen to, Saudi Arabia oppresses and executes hundreds of its own citizens as well, many of which are executed by public beheading.

The Guardian in a 2016 article reports that up to 157 executions were carried out in 2015, with beheadings reaching their highest level in two decades. This means that Saudi barbarity is on the rise, and despite attempts to portray the regime as one in the process of "reforming," the facts reveal a regime doubling down within the safety of impunity provided to it by Western politicians and the media.

Finding Common Ground 

While the American left appears fixated on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, documented ties to Riyadh go unnoticed and unopposed. And while the American right is fixated on calling out Muslims real or imagined anywhere they find them, they remain oblivious to the fact that their own candidate of choice is coddling the very source of actual global terrorism.

It is an impressive accomplishment by the Western media, to convince the public that Washington's competitors are their covert allies and that true enemies of American principles, for all intents and purposes, don't even exist.

By doing so, the media has managed to enlist the American left in an adversarial campaign against Moscow it would have otherwise found impossible to provoke. It has also managed to slake racist and bigoted perceptions among Trump supporters without exposing Saudi Arabia or President Trump's role in propping up the Saudi regime and the terror the US and Riyadh collectively propagate globally.

President Trump's visit to Riyadh and the indifference among both the left and the right regarding it in many ways exposes the alternate reality American political discourse currently resides in. It is one dominated by emotions at the expense of facts, and until journalists, analysts and activists point out and question why both the left and the right share this critical blind spot instead of finding common ground within it, this unfortunate game will continue to consume America politically, consume Yemen in the fires of unchecked and unopposed war, and consume the people of Saudi Arabia and all others subjected to Wahhabism of body and soul.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

Declassified 9/11 Report Portrays US-Saudis as Partners in Crime

July 25, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recently released, previously classified report titled, "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (.pdf), reveals that indeed long-time US ally, Saudi Arabia, had connections to the alleged hijackers who purportedly carried out the 9/11 attacks.

While the US would go on to invade Afghanistan and Iraq predicated on the 9/11 attacks, it should be noted that all of the alleged hijackers were either Saudis or Persian Gulf citizens, or connected to terrorist organizations supported by Persian Gulf states.

The Western media has attempted to downplay the impact of the document's release, claiming that subsequent investigations found the "many" of the allegations in the document "without basis" - even as the US and Saudi Arabia today openly arm and fund terrorists in Syria.

To Whose Benefit? 

Many mistakenly believe on one hand terrorism is simply an inevitable clash of civilizations between "Islam" and the West, while others maintain it is the predictable backlash to flawed or unjust Western foreign policy.

In reality, it is neither.

It is meticulously engineered violence used as a tool for achieving geopolitical objectives around the world - from overthrowing governments and justifying military interventions, to creating paralyzing fear and hysteria at home to garner support for a growing domestic police state and a large military footprint overseas.

In essence, it is a highly conductive medium through which modern day empire can spread.

This can clearly be seen through the use of terrorism today. Some 14 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and as memories begin to fade, the US finds itself partnered with Saudi Arabia once again, arming and funding terrorists to fight their proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and beyond, just as they did in the 1980s when they jointly created Al Qaeda to begin with.

As the pendulum of geopolitical necessity swings from needing heavily armed, fanatical proxy forces to fight abroad, to needing a pretext at home to initiate large-scale military interventions overseas, these terrorist organizations are characterized by Western politicians and the media in a similarly shifting manner. During the 1980s Al Qaeda was portrayed as "freedom fighters." In 2001 when the United States sought to use full-scale military force to rearrange the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, Al Qaeda was transformed into a villain.

The 2001 terrorist attacks allowed the US to justify over a decade of global-spanning war that it otherwise would have been unable to wage.

The Hijackers Had Ties to Saudi Intelligence 

The 28 pages now declassified depicts a tangled web of connections between the Saudi government, Saudi intelligence agencies, the Bin Laden family, and the hijackers - most of whom were Saudi citizens themselves.

The report states:

While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government. There is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers. 

The report also reveals that the suspected Saudi intelligence officers worked for companies that had ties to both the Saudi government, and Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden (spelled: Usama Bin Ladin throughout the report).

And not only did various Saudi intelligence officers have connections to the alleged hijackers, several are revealed to have known each other as well.

Mentioned also is Osama Bin Laden's half-brother, Abdullah Bin Ladin, claimed to have worked for the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C. as an "administration officer," revealing once again the incestuous ties between the Bin Ladin family, the Saudi government, and through equity firm - the Carlyle Group - the Bush family and other political and business leaders in the United States.

The report also mentions that despite the many apparent links, and attempts by the FBI to investigate them further, many suspects were inexplicably able to "leave" the United States and return to Saudi Arabia.

Image: Fake mosques like this one in Denmark, openly recruit Europeans to fight Western proxy wars in the Middle East. Instead of being immediately shut down and those involved for providing material support for terrorism, often European governments and security agencies work with them to manage terrorists as they come home - again - not to imprison them, but use them to manipulate public perception and shape domestic policy. Such "mosques" are often Saudi-funded. 

The report also referred to "mosques" either directly funded by the Saudi government in which various aspects of terrorism were thought to be coordinated, or mosques in which associates of the hijackers met frequently or operated out of.

This illustrates precisely how the US-Saudi terror enterprise keeps its ranks full - through a global network of centers masquerading as mosques, protected by law enforcement and intelligence organizations linked to the West, allowing for both the recruitment and radicalization of terrorists, as well as the planning and financing of terrorism itself.

US Intelligence Community Before 9/11: Incompetence or Collusion? Or Both?  

The US and Saudi Arabia helped create Al Qaeda and for years used the organization to wage proxy war around the world. It's actions on 9/11 then helped set the stage for a decade of war in which the US toppled governments, occupied nations, while conducting covert warfare against others, expanding US hegemony across the globe, and dividing and destroying nations allied to its rivals in Beijing and Moscow.

It is very clear that Saudi Arabia played a role in the 9/11 attacks, as well as in terrorism of all kinds around the world before and after the attacks.

Clearly the FBI and the CIA both were aware of Saudi Arabia's role. It is also clear that efforts were made to protect valuable Saudi assets by spiriting them out of the country as dutiful agents attempted to do their jobs by investigating them further. Those who spirited Saudi agents and officials out of the country, protecting them from further investigation regarding their role in 9/11, are likely linked to those Americans who helped their Saudi counterparts organize and carry out the attacks.

And while some FBI and CIA agents attempted to do their job, one comment toward the end of the 28 pages reveals that perhaps agents were not as aware as they should have been regarding the nature of Al Qaeda and its relationship to Saudi Arabia.

The report quotes a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, saying:

Basically [redacted]. They were not a country identified by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. And the theme or the common modus operandi that we saw in San Diego was that if there were [redacted] there, their primary objective was to monitor dissidents in the interest of protecting the royal family. So they were not viewed as an inimical threat to national security.  

The agent's conclusion is based entirely on the assumption that the State Department's terrorist designations are meaningful and accurate. If such designations are not accurate, then the FBI would have neglected to fully investigate suspects who were indeed very much an inimical threat to national security.

Today, Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) are likewise portrayed as enemies of Saudi Arabia. This is despite clear evidence showing both terrorist organizations and their affiliates in Iraq and Syria, are armed and funded by, as well as working in the direct interests of Riyadh - as well as Washington. When terrorist attacks do unfold in Saudi Arabia, despite being portrayed as attacks aimed at Riyadh itself, they are often instead aimed at Shia'a targets throughout the country.

Shia'a in Saudi Arabia, unlike Al Qaeda and ISIS, do represent a threat to Riyadh - not predicated on fanatical extremism - but instead upon self-defense against the brutality and injustice of the Saudi political system which specifically targets Shia'a.

It appears that some agents, despite laboring under faulty assumptions, did attempt to do their jobs, while others appear to have been protecting suspects very likely tied to the 9/11 attacks, and possibly even tied to the attacks themselves. Together, through incompetence and collusion, the attacks unfolded, and the rest - as they say - is history.

Protecting Saudi Terrorism Then and Now 

While the Western media now claims that many of the declassified report's allegations have been found to be "without basis," the heavy redaction throughout the report leads one to believe that Saudi Arabia and the various tentacles of its security apparatus reaching into the United States are still being covered up by complicit American agents and interests.

Image: At some points, redaction of the 9/11 document becomes almost comically obstructive, defeating the purpose of declassifying it and making it public in the first place. 

Additionally, despite the very troubling implications of the report's contents, it should be noted that in the aftermath of 9/11 the US, along with Europe, continued supplying Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars worth of military weapons while politically supporting Riyadh during its own brush with the "Arab Spring" in 2011. Today, despite evidence of Saudi Arabia's arming and funding of designated terrorist organizations including Al Nusra, the US and Europe continue lending military and political support to Riyadh nonetheless.

Saudi Arabia didn't victimize the United States on 9/11, nor trick Washington. Riyadh and Washington are partners in crime, at times in lockstep, at other times posing as adversaries when maximum plausible deniability is desired.

Despite attempts to claim Saudi Arabia is blameless in the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers were undoubtedly Saudis, inspired by indoctrination that originated in Saudi-funded networks, allegedly approached and assisted by Saudi intelligence agents, and representative of terrorist organizations Riyadh to this day still arms, funds, and uses to wage it and America's proxy wars with.

The report is not really a revelation, but instead another piece of evidence that affirms the US and Saudi Arabia are collaborators in terrorism, not partners fighting it. Those who depend on either in a true fight against global terrorism, should be prepared for perpetual failure.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.     

Saudi Arabia Supported Al Qaeda Before and After But Not On 9/11?

May 6, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The BBC in its 2004 article, "Al-Qaeda's origins and links," would frankly admit that (emphasis added):

Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads. 

The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism. 

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.

The BBC's article merely reports what is accepted as common knowledge and documented fact regarding the inception of this now enduring, notorious and shape-shifting terrorist organization... that it was the initial creation of joint US-Saudi interests.

This fact would carry with it an ironic sting in 2001 when Al Qaeda, allegedly led by Bin Laden, struck the Pentagon in Washington and the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, killing nearly 3,000 people and precipitating now over 15 years of global war.

Without doubt, the US and Saudi Arabia created Al Qaeda, and many believe still control the terrorist organization citing that the immense material support it and its subsidiaries require along with the virtual impunity they enjoy as they operate worldwide could only be due to substantial and influential state sponsorship.

Many have postulated that because the 15 years of war following September 11, 2001 have benefited only a handful of special interests both in the US and Europe, as well as in the Persian Gulf, that it cannot be ruled out that these interests were also somehow involved in the attacks that justified this enduring war to begin with.

At least one center of power involved in Al Qaeda's creation, has been called out by members of the United States government as having continued to support the terrorist organization, including on September 11, 2001. Riyadh.

Before, After, and During 9/11... 

Recently making headlines, the US Congress is attempting to make it possible for victims of the September 11 attacks to sue Riyadh over its role in supporting the terrorists allegedly behind them.

15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis, 2 were from Saudi Arabia's close ally, the United Arab Emirates, another from Egypt (a Muslim Brotherhood member) and the last from Lebanon. Despite the identities of the hijackers and the obvious ties to both Persian Gulf despots and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood they openly back, the United States opted to first invade Afghanistan, then inexplicably Iraq in the wake of the attacks.

The Independent's article, "Saudi Arabia, 9/11, and what we know about the secret papers that could ignite a diplomatic war," would elaborate, stating:

The US Congress is considering legislation which would enable the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, presented by the West as its most valuable ally in the Middle East, over alleged links with al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks on New York and Washington. 

The issue had cast a long shadow over the recent visit of President Barack Obama to Riyadh, with the Saudis threatening to sell off $750bn of American assets they hold if the bill is passed by Congress. 

The classified pages are in a file titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive Narrative Matters”, which have never been published from the findings of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the attacks which killed 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000 others.

It is a fact that the US and Saudi Arabia jointly created Al Qaeda in the late 1980s.  It is also clear that something is being hidden about Saudi Arabia's role regarding Al Qaeda during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

What is also clear is that since September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia has continued arming and funding the terrorist group everywhere from Iraq to Libya to Yemen to Syria. In fact, a US Army report investing records related to foreign fighters battling and killing US soldiers during the US occupation of Iraq would reveal that these foreign fighters were primarily from, and backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and those currently labeled "rebels" backed by the US and Saudi Arabia in Syria.

Image: Many of the Americans killed in Iraq were victims Saudi-backed terrorists. Despite this fact, Saudi Arabia remains one of Washington's closest allies. 

West Point's Combating Terrorism Center (CTC)'s report, "BOMBERS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND BLEEDOUT al-Qa'ida's Road In and Out of Iraq," would reveal some very disturbing facts about one of America's oldest and staunchest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, and the role Riyadh was playing in the trafficking of arms and fighters from across the region, and into Iraq where they would inevitable clash with, and kill US service members. 

The report would establish that Saudi Arabia (41%) and Libya (19% and more specifically, from those regions associated with the so-called "rebellion" in 2011) supplied the most foreign fighters to Iraq.  The report also concluded that 46% of all funding came from Saudi nationals, and noted specifically that Saudi Arabia at the very least had little to gain from stemming the flow of its nationals into the ranks of Al Qaeda in Iraq because of what the CTC report claimed was a desire to limit the "perceived influence of Iran."

Similar arguments are made to defend Saudi funding and arming of Al Qaeda in Syria today, which is far less ambiguous in nature than the CTC report makes out its role during the US occupation of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia Supports Al Qaeda Today 

The Independent would report in a May 2015 article titled, "Turkey and Saudi Arabia alarm the West by backing Islamist extremists the Americans had bombed in Syria,"  that:

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad’s regime that includes al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, in a move that has alarmed Western governments. 

The two countries are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, a command structure for jihadist groups in Syria that includes Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist rival to Isis which shares many of its aspirations for a fundamentalist caliphate.

And as Turkey and Saudi Arabia openly arm and fund a terrorist organization listed and sanctioned by the US State Department, the United States government and its closest European allies continue to ship arms to Saudi Arabia and provide it with both political and military protection on unprecedented scales. In fact, one weapons deal struck between the US and Saudi Arabia constituted the largest ever in US history.

The Guardian reported in its article, "Barack Obama to authorise record $60bn Saudi arms sale," that:

Barack Obama is to go ahead with plans to sell Saudi Arabia advanced aircraft and other weapons worth up to $60bn (£39bn), the biggest arms deal in US history, in a strategy of shoring up Gulf Arab allies to face any military threat from Iran.

With the US and Saudi Arabia having jointly created Al Qaeda, and with Saudi Arabia continuing to this day to openly arm and support the terrorist group worldwide with America's enthusiastic ($60bn) approval, it is probably not just US-Saudi relations being protected by keeping the missing pages implicating Saudi Arabia in the September 11, 2001 attacks a secret, it is probably the existence of the entire Washington and Wall Street ruling class as well that is at stake.

Image: The US claims to be "shocked" by Saudi Arabia's support of Al Qaeda in Syria, yet in reality, it is a mere continuation of what Al Qaeda began as in the 1980s to begin with, a joint US-Saudi tool to project geopolitical power globally where conventional forces could not go. 

Regardless of whether the papers are released, or what their contents may hold, that the US is still to this day involved in propping up a regime openly arming and funding an organization responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history is an indictment not only the moral bankruptcy of the United States, but of the faltering narrative that it is a force fighting terrorism worldwide rather than one spreading it to the four corners of the globe, and one that must be exposed and stopped.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Saudi Arabia's "Northern Thunder," Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing

March 2, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The news has been abuzz before and during the ceasefire announced amid Syria's conflict about Saudi Arabia's possible intervention. Saudi Arabia has threatened to intervene amid incomprehensible, contradicting rhetoric, claiming that it would enter Syrian territory to "fight" IS (the Islamic State), but would do so only now because the Syrian government has refused to step down.



Of course, the only coherent forces on the ground fighting IS now are the Syrian government's troops and Kurdish fighters who now appear to be working with Damascus. Saudi Arabia's intervention to remove President Bashar al Assad from power would seem to work in IS' favor, not against it. To give Saudi Arabia's confusing threats some teeth, Riyadh announced its "Northern Thunder" military exercises which it claimed would be one of the largest military exercises ever held. The United Arab Emirates' "The National," would report in an article titled, "Saudi Arabia hosts joint military exercise," that:

Armed forces from 20 countries have begun manoeuvres in northeastern Saudi Arabia, described by the official Saudi Press Agency as one of the world’s biggest military exercises.

Troops from the other five Gulf Arab states – the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar – as well as Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Sudan are among those participating in the Ra’ad Al Shamal, or Northern Thunder, exercise, Spa agency reported.

The military drill – which began on Saturday and involves ground, air and naval forces – will be “one of the world’s most important military exercises based on the number of forces participating and the area of territory used”, the agency said.

While that sounds impressive, with Saudi news outlets claiming some 350,000 troops were expected to participate, not a single photo or video has surfaced so far showing this impressive force in action. The entire point of mounting such monumental military exercises is to show off one's military power to the world, not merely write about it in news articles. And more specifically, in Saudi Arabia's case, such exercises are meant to show those nations it is trying to coerce by threat of military force just what it faces if concessions are not made.

The National Interest in an article titled, "Saudi Arabia Goes to War," points out some obvious shortcomings of Saudi Arabia's military that, even at face value, undermine Riyadh's threats before they left the mouths of its diplomatic corps.

In the article it states:

Tanks, combat aircraft and missiles are only as powerful as the people operating, maintaining and supporting them. And in this domain, Saudi Arabia has a very long way to go.

Not much is known about the proficiency of Saudi Arabia’s military as a fighting force. The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991; and most of the fighting there was done by the US. More recently Saudi Arabia has been fighting in Yemen, but unsuccessfully so far. Foreign advisers speak about the difficulties in bringing Saudi Arabian soldiers to the desired combat readiness and proficiency.

The article also mentions another key shortcoming, Saudi Arabia's overdependence on foreign soldiers filling its ranks and the high number of contractors it relies on, as illustrated in its ongoing war with neighboring Yemen.

Multiplying Complications

There are several complications that immediately undermine Saudi Arabia's threats.

It's one thing to have an army, but it's another thing to actually get it into another theater of war that isn't bordering your own nation. Moving troops into Syria will require the cooperation and complicity as well as additional logistical expertise of other nations to move troops from Saudi Arabia either through Jordan and into Syria, or in large numbers to Turkey by sea and then onward to Syria.

And, it is one thing to have such capabilities to move enough troops for any sort of meaningful incursion into Syria, and quite another thing to be able to keep them armed, fueled and otherwise supplied, especially during sustained combat operations.

Image: Al Qaeda and IS supply lines have been having trouble making it over the Turkish-Syrian border without being picked off by Russian and Syrian airpower. Would they have greater success if they flew the Saudi flag? 

However, this last point could be addressed by Saudi troops simply latching on to the supply lines already in place for Al Qaeda and IS, lines likely already very familiar to planners in Riyadh, since they have helped underwrite them to begin with. Still, the unique requirements for a modern, mechanized army would need these lines expanded and augmented, something Saudi Arabia has little experience doing.

And experience is perhaps a third failing Saudi Arabia brings with it when it tries to threaten other nations of invasion. Entering into the Syrian conflict and doing anything more than seizing a buffer zone at the edge of Syria's territory would be the first "rodeo" of its kind for Riyadh. And if such a move was considered a "rodeo," its move into Yemen next door could be considered a "junior rodeo," and one Riyadh has yet to finish.

Saudi Arabia's Threat of Invasion is Cover For Something Else...

If Saudi Arabia cannot even win on the battlefield in neighboring Yemen, with fighting even spilling over the border into Saudi territory, it is unlikely it will do any better against the battle-hardened, better organized and better equipped forces of the Syrian Arab Army, let alone Russia's presence in the country. Clearly Saudi Arabia's phantom military exercises and posturing are cover for something else. It is likely that anything that goes over the border into Syria under the Saudi flag will be anything other than actual Saudi forces. Remember those Al Qaeda and IS supply lines mentioned earlier? What if the fighters and equipment pouring into Syria simply changed their black flags to Saudi Arabia's?

Image: A no-fly-zone over Syria to protect Syrian forces as they near Al Raqqa could help the West back down from a series of final but desperate options their bad judgement seems to be encouraging them to consider. 

And though Saudi Arabia's demands for "democracy" in Syria despite the fact that Saudi Arabia itself is an absolute monarchy devoid entirely of elections, staged or otherwise, are particularly discredited, an undeserving air of legitimacy still surrounds the regime in Riyadh, perhaps enough to make it difficult for Syrian or Russian forces to attack terrorists flagged as Saudis.

Consider also that while moving thousands of additional troops into the theater may be difficult, moving Saudi warplanes is not. Many are already reportedly in Turkey, standing by for operations. Saudi-flagged terrorists backed by Saudi airpower would be a particularly potent mix that could keep supply lines to terrorists fighting in Syria's interior open long enough to break Syrian-Russian operational momentum and create a stalemate only tough concessions made by Moscow and Damascus could break.

With this possibility, it would benefit Syria and its allies to begin considering a true no-fly-zone over the country, excluding from Syrian airspace all nations (especially the Saudis and Turks) not given authorization by Damascus. The matter could be brought before the UN under the plausible pretext that Syrian troops are closing in on IS positions in Al Raqqa and the chance of mishaps are growing by the day. This is not even a ploy, because in fact, Syrian forces are closing in on Al Raqqa. Now would be as good a time as any to begin closing off Syrian airspace and helping the US and its allies back down from increasingly desperate options, saving them from themselves and their demonstrably bad judgement.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.