Aletho News


“Bandar ibn Israel”

By Sharmine Narwani | Al-Akhbar | 2013-08-28

The recent acts of political violence in the Middle East’s Levant are not unrelated.

Car bombings in the predominantly Shia southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh; twin bombings targeting Sunni mosques in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli; an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus blamed on the Syrian government; a secret IDF operation across the Lebanese border foiled by Hezbollah; rockets lobbed by an Al Qaeda-related group into Israel; an IDF airstrike on a pro-Damascus Palestinian resistance group base in Lebanon…

From one perspective, the common thread is the crisis in Syria, where a 29-month conflict has cemented divisions in the rest of the region and set the stage for an existential fight on multiple battlefields between two highly competitive Mideast blocs.

From another perspective, the common thread drawing these disparate crime scenes together is the “culprit” – one who has strong political interest, material capabilities and the sense of urgency to commit rash and violent actions on many different fronts.

In isolation, none of these acts are capable of producing a “result.” But combined, they are able to instill fear in populations, stir governments into action, and in the short term, to create the perception of a shift in regional “balances.”

And no parties in the Mideast are more vested right now in urgently “correcting” the regional balance of power than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel – both nations increasingly frustrated by the inaction of their western allies and the incremental gains of their regional rivals Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and now Iraq.

Worse yet, with every passing month the “noose of multilateralism” tightens, as rising powers Russia, China and others offer protective international cover for those foes. Israel and Saudi Arabia are keenly aware that the age of American hegemony is fast declining, and with it, their own regional primacy.

Common foes, common goals

At the helm of efforts to “correct” the imbalance is Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the US’s longtime go-to man in Riyadh – whose 22-year reign as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington provided him with excellent contacts throughout the Israeli political and military establishment

Like Israel, Bandar has long been a vocal advocate of curtailing the regional influences of Iran and Syria and forging a neocon-style “New Middle East” – sometimes to his detriment.

When he all but disappeared from public view in 2008, one of the reasons cited for Bandar’s “banishment” from the royal circle of influence was that he had “meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king’s approval.”

The frustrated Bandar, who at the time officially headed Saudi’s National Security Council, was also notably absent when Saudi King Abdullah paid a highly visible visit to the Syrian president in late 2009 to renew relations after four years of bitter tensions.

All that changed with the Arab uprisings in early 2011. Regime-change in Syria – according to an acquaintance who visited various prominent Saudi ministers (all key royals) in 2012 – suddenly become a national priority for the al-Saud family. According to this shocked source, the Saudis had come to believe that if the battle for control over Syria “is lost,” the kingdom would lose its Shia-dominated Eastern Province where its vast oil reserves are concentrated.

That year marked Bandar’s return to influence in the kingdom, and within short order he was promoted to head the powerful Saudi Intelligence Agency, known for its myriad links into the underworld of global jihadis.

But the kingdom’s once-reliable western powerhouse ally, the United States, appeared to be withdrawing from the region. Highly sensitive to the fall-out over its aggressive interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington was shying away from the kind of overt leadership that the Saudis desperately needed to re-establish their equilibrium in the region.

Which is where Bandar comes into the picture. The former ambassador to Washington has the kind of relationships that go deep – no Saudi knows how to twist American arms better than he. But to push western allies in the desired direction, the Saudis were in need of an influential and opportunistic ally that was also passionately fixated on the same set of adversaries. That partner would be Israel.

Says a 2007 Wikileaks cable from the US embassy in Riyadh:

“We have also picked up first hand accounts of intra-family tension over policy towards Israel. Some princes, most notably National Security Advisor Bandar Bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, are reportedly pushing for more contact with Israel. Bandar now sees Iran as a greater threat than Israel.”

Bandar’s ascendancy to his current position suggests more than ever that the Saudis, at least for now, have put aside their reservations over dealing with Israel. And Iran’s election of a moderate new President Hassan Rouhani has brought urgency to the Saudi-Israeli relationship – both fearing the possibility of a US-Iranian grand bargain that could sink their fortunes further.

Putting wheels into motion

For Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Syria is the front-line battle from which they seek to cripple the Iranians in the region. None have been as ferocious in lobbying Washington on the issue of Syrian “chemical weapons use” and “red lines” as this duo – perhaps even setting up false flag operations to force its hand. Since last Winter, says the Wall Street Journal:

“The Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that Mr. Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a “red line”: the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents flew an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas exposure. Prince Bandar’s spy service, which concluded in February that Mr. Assad was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the US, which reached a similar conclusion four months later.”

The following Spring, it was Israel’s turn. In an article entitled “Did Israel Ambush the United States on Syria,” Alon Ben David says:

“By stating that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the director of Israel’s Military Intelligence Research Department, cornered the Americans. Washington finally — and very tentatively — admitted that such weapons had been used. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planned to ambush the Americans, it was a phenomenal success. From an Israeli standpoint, this was a chance to test America’s supposed “red line.”

The Russians, however, have stood in the way of every effort to draw the US into intervening directly in Syria. In the past year, the Saudis and Israelis have tag-teamed Moscow, by turns cajoling, threatening and dangling incentives to shift the Russians from their immovable position.

Just last month, Bandar beat a path to Moscow to test Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appetite for compromise. According to leading Lebanese daily As-Safir, a private diplomatic report on the Saudi prince’s visit claims that Bandar employed a “carrot-and-stick” approach to wrest concessions from Putin on Syria and Iran.

In what has to be the most delusional statement I’ve heard in a while, Bandar allegedly told the Russian president: “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world.” He continued with a threat:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

According to the report, Putin responded to Bandar thus: “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

Bandar ibn Israel: a terror Frankentein

Chechen jihadis have, of course, turned up in Syria to fight alongside their brethren from dozens of other countries against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past two years.

The Saudi links go beyond jihadis though. Seventeen months ago in Homs – and barely a month after the battle over Baba Amr – 24 Syrian rebels groups sent an email to the externally-based Syrian National Council, complaining about the rogue behavior of the Saudi-funded Al Farouq Battalion. This is the group to which the infamous lung-eating Syrian rebel once belonged.

Alleging that Al Farouq was responsible for killing at least five rebels and fomenting violence against civilians and other fighters, the group wrote:

“The basis of the crisis in the city today is groups receiving uneven amounts of money from direct sources in Saudi Arabia some of whom are urging the targeting of loyalist neighborhoods and sectarian escalation while others are inciting against the SNC. They are not national, unifying sources of support. On the contrary, mature field leaders have noted that receiving aid from them [Saudi Arabia] entails implicit conditions like working in ways other than the desired direction.”

In a reprisal of his role in Afghanistan where he helped the CIA arm the Mujahedeen – who later came to form the backbone of the Taliban and Al Qaeda – Bandar is now throwing funding, weapons and training at the very same kinds of Islamist militants who are establishing an extreme version of Sharia law in territories they hold inside Syria.

Says an analyst at a Beirut-based think tank:

“These fighters, many of whom are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda, are much more pragmatic today. They are ready to take funding, facilities and arms from the Saudis (who previously they targeted). There is no concept of a main enemy – it could be the US, Russians, Iranians, Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood. Their only priority is to use the new situation of instability in the region to form a core territorial base. They now think in Syria they have a real opportunity to regenerate Al Qaeda that they didn’t have since their defeat in Iraq. In the Sinai too. Through a central Syrian base they are ready to converge with other regional actors from which they will move into Lebanon, Iraq and other places.”

“Some of them know Bandar for a long time,” says the analyst. “There have always been Saudi intelligence officers dedicated to oversee jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya.”

Though the Saudis tell Washington that their goal is to keep extremists out of power in Syria, elements in the US administration remain uncomfortable about where this could end. Says the Wall Street Journal, quoting a former official concerned about weapons flowing into jihadi hands: “This has the potential to go badly” – an understatement, if ever there was one.

Using Lebanon as a lever

Whereas western powers have sought to maintain stability on the Lebanese front, the Saudis – who lost influence in the Levantine state when Hezbollah and its allies forced the dissolution of a Riyadh-backed government in early 2011 – are not as inclined to keep the peace.

Paramount for Bandar’s Syria plans is halting the battlefield assistance Hezbollah has provided for the Syrian army in key border towns which had become supply routes for rebels.

To punish Hezbollah and weaken its regional allies, the Saudis have used their own alliances in Lebanon to hammer daily at the Shia resistance group’s role in Syria. One easy route is to sow sectarian tensions in multi-sect Lebanon – a tactic at which the conservative Wahhabi Saudis excel. Pitting Sunni against Shia through a series of well-planned acts of political violence is child’s play for Saudis who have decades of expertise overseeing such acts – just look at the escalation of sectarian bombings in Iraq today for example.

This does not necessarily mean that Riyadh is involved in planning these operations though.

Says the Beirut analyst: “The escalation may be Saudi-run, but not necessarily the deed itself. (When they back these Islamist extremists in Lebanon), they know the software of these people. They know they will attack Shia and moderate Sunni, use rockets, car bombs, etc. They empower these groups being conscious of the consequences. These guys are predictable. And the Saudis also have some trusted men among these groups who will act in a way that will conform to Saudi interests and projects.”

The diplomatic report on the Bandar’s Moscow visit concludes: “It is not unlikely that things [will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both the political and security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision to respond to Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.”

Two bombings: one, targeting a Shia neighborhood, the second aimed at Sunni residents. On another front, the IDF launches a secret mission across the Lebanese border, swiftly thwarted by a Hezbollah counterattack. Soon after, an Al Qaeda linked group called the Abdullah Azzam Brigades (AAB), which last year acknowledged its fight against the Syrian state, launches four rockets into Israeli territory. Israel does not retaliate against this Salafist militia though. The IDF choses instead to strike at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that supports the Resistance in Lebanon and Syria.

It appears that Israel, like the Saudis, has a message to relay to Lebanon: Hezbollah should stay out of Syria or Lebanon will bear the consequences.

The escalation of violence in the region – from Lebanon to Iraq – is today very much a Bandar-Israel project. And the sudden escalation of military threats by Washington against the Assad government is undoubtedly a result of pressures and rewards dangled by this duo.

While Putin may have told Bandar to take a hike when the he offered to purchase $15 billion in weapons in exchange for a compromise on Syria and Iran, the British and French are beggars for this kind of business. Washington too. With $65 billion in arms sales to the kingdom in process, the Obama administration is prostituting Americans for cold, hard cash.

Let there be no mistake. Bandar ibn Israel is going for gold and will burn the Middle East to get there.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

August 28, 2013 - Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , ,


  1. Reblogged this on Peace by Truth.


    Comment by Eve Human | August 28, 2013


    “Prince Bandar Threatens US; Another 9/11 Coming?
    October 22, 2013 • 4:50PM

    Saudi Arabia’s Prince of Terror Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi intelligence, issued a public warning to the US over the weekend. The Wall Street Journal reports that Bandar “invited a Western diplomat to the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah over the weekend to voice Riyadh’s frustration with the Obama administration and its regional policies,” telling the unnamed diplomat that Saudi Arabia would cut back cooperation with the US (the CIA and others) on arming the Syrian rebels due to Washington’s failure to bomb Syria, the peace talks with Iran, and other regional issues, which stand in the way of the British/Saudi sponsored Sunni-Shia long war. Bandar said the Saudis would work with others on the Syria project, such as Jordan and France, rather than the US.
    In regard to Saudi Arabia’s announced rejection of the offer to join the United Nations Security Council (after campaigning to get on), Bandar said : “This was a message for the U.S., not the U.N..”
    Bandar has been documented by LaRouche’s EIR and others to have been the primary Saudi controller of the 9/11 attck on the United States by Saudi terrorist, at least several of whom were sponsored and funded by Bandar, who at the time was ambassador to the U.S., and his wife. The censored 28 pages of the 9/11 report which Obama refuses to release, document some of these facts.
    Bandar has gone balistic since Obama was forced to give up his planned war on Syria. Bandar went to Moscow to attempt to bribe and/or threaten Putin to support the war — in fact, several terrorist attacks in the region of the planned winter Olympics in Sochi are likely due to Bandar carrying out those threats when Putin refused to give in.
    Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal hosted a lunch for Secretary John Kerry at his private residence in Paris on Monday. A senior State Department official told reporters after the lunch that Kerry tried to convince the Saudis to take the UN seat, telling Saud that the US “values Saudi Arabia’s leadership in the region and the international community”, the US official said.
    What that leadership means was demonstrated on Monday, when Prince Bandar followed up his threat to the US with a meeting in Jeddah, bringing Saudi King Abdullah, King Abdullah of Jordan and UAE Defense Minister (and heir apparent) Mohammad ben Zayed. All the intelligence, defense and security chiefs of the three countries were present (with Bandar heading the gang, of course). The theme, according to the Saudi press was to “have a comprehensive discussion about the current developments in the Arab world, the region and the world”!
    Present in the meeting was Prince Salman ben Sultan, deputy defense minister of Saudi Arabia and the field coordinator from Jordan of the Saudi invasion into southern Syria, and most probably the architect of the Ghouta chemical weapons provocation. Note that Salman has been working with Bandar for many years, including the period of preparation of the 9/11 attack, as Salman was working in the Embassy in Washington under Bandar!
    The editorial of the London-based Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat writes that Prince Salman, the Crown Prince, who said in the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference recently: “If we fail to get the support in the UN, we will have to turn our back to the UN and build our own capabilities to solve our problems with our hands!” ”

    ” Ken Cummings: Profile of a Self-Asserted Saudi Asset
    September 19, 2013 • 10:29AM

    The following report posted on LaRouche PAC on Sept. 19 needs to be recalled and rubbed in the faces of these and other paid stooges of the British-Saudi Nazi operations, in light of Prince Bandar’s latest threats against the U.S.
    On September 13th, Congressional Staffer Kenneth Cummings, an aide to Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, was presented with the evidence that Saudi Arabia was behind both 9/11 attacks on the United States, on US soil in 2001 and in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, and that the Saudis were also funding and arming Al-Qaeda in Syria. Cummings response to the representatives of LaRouche PAC was to repeatedly insist that “We need the Saudis.” Cummings further asserted that the Congressional leadership would never allow the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report which details the Saudi financing and operational role in that horrific terrorist assault.
    On August 25th, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “A Veteran Saudi Power Player works to Build Support to Topple Assad,” which documents the role of Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan in lavishly lobbying members of Congress to support Saudi Arabia’s genocidal wars in the Middle East. Multiple intelligence sources have reported that Saudi largesse, in the form of massive contributions, is flowing to members of Congress. Prince Bandar was the Saudi Ambassador to the United States at the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks and his wife, Princess Haifa Al-Faisal wrote checks to the networks around Omar Al-Bayoumi, the handler of the terrorists who murdered our fellow citizens twelve years ago.
    Was Kenneth Cummings speaking for himself, or, was he speaking for Congressman Van Hollen who is part of the Democratic Party leadership? If Cummings was speaking out of turn, then Van Hollen should fire him. If this is Van Hollen’s position, then Van Hollen should explain his support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is an enemy of the United States, as has been documented in the withheld pages of the 9/11 Commission Report.
    The Constitution defines treason as “adherence to the enemies of the United States” and “giving them aid and comfort.” Lyndon LaRouche has characterized the continuing support for Saudi Arabia by members of Congress or their staffs as treasonous, given what is known or is readily available to be known about the Saudi role in direct attacks on this country.
    In a recent press release, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) issued a call for the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report. “As we commemorate the 12th anniversary of 9/11, it saddens me that vital evidence of this heinous attack is still being withheld from the American people. As a member of Congress, I had the opportunity to read the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into the attacks that have not been made public, and I believe that keeping this information classified is more about protecting powerful interests than our national security.”
    Former Senator Bob Graham, Congressman Jones, and the families of the 9/11 victims have repeatedly called for the release of this information to obtain justice and closure. Congress remains largely silent based on Saudi money, influence, and cowardice in the face of a secret government apparatus which dates from the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles. It is time to end all of this — release the 28 pages now. ”

    ” Did Saudi Prince Bandar Give Chemical Weapons to the Syrian Opposition?
    September 1, 2013 • 2:14AM

    The Mint Press News reports in an article entitled “Syrians: Saudi-supplied rebels behind Chemical Attack,” written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, that many Syrians interviewed by them believe that the rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the chemical attack in Syria.
    Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News who has reported from Amman, Jordan, writing for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC and Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist whose articles have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere
    “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta. Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a huge gas bottle.
    Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels. Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regimes heartland of Latakia on Syrias western coast, in purported retaliation.
    “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named K. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
    “When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution. A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named J agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
    We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” J said.
    More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government. ”

    ” Bandar Threatens U.S. and Foreign Journalists Who Exposed Syrian Rebel Role in Chemical Attack
    September 23, 2013 • 5:20PM

    The two journalists who authored the August 29, 2013 story, “Syrians in Goutha claim Saudi-supplied rebels behind chemical attacks,” published by Mint Press, have been threatened with having their careers “ended” if they do not disavow the story, and both journalists have told Mint Press that they believe that the pressure comes from Saudi Arabia. One author, Yayha Ababneh, who conducted the interviews on the ground that were the guts of the story, told MintPress that he received threats from the Saudi Embassy in Jordan, his home country. Dale Gavlak, the other reporter, an American, has been suspended by Associated Press, and further subjected to “immense amounts of pressure,” according to Mint Press, which said she believes the source of pressure to be Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi intelligence.
    Bandar, the former Ambassador to the United States at the time of the 911 attacks, left that post after exposes that showed his wife had provided funding for 911 hijackers through a Saudi Arabian intelligence operative living in the U.S., and after exposes that he had received bribe funds in the range of $2 billion from BAE (formerly called British Aerospace) for arranging the Al Yamamah defense contract deal with Saudi Arabia. Bandar is also a major figure in the suppressed “28 pages” of the report on the 911 attack produced by the U.S. Congress. The “28 pages” were “classified” and pulled from distribution because of their detailed information about the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its charities, bank accounts and nationals in the funding of the 911 attack.
    On September 21, MintPress which was founded earlier this year and is edited by Mnar Muhawesh, a Palestinian American journalist, put out a lengthy statement in response to Gavlak’s claims that she had not authored the August 29 story.
    MintPress editor Ms. Muhawesh wrote:
    “Dale [Gavlak] is under mounting pressure for writing this article by third parties. She notified MintPress editors and myself on August 30th and 31st via email and phone call, that third parties were placing immense amounts of pressure on her over the article and were threatening to end her career over it. She went on to tell us that she believes this third party was under pressure from the head of the Saudi Intelligence Prince Bandar himself, who is alleged in the article of supplying the rebels with chemical weapons.
    “On August 30th, Dale asked MintPress to remove her name completely from the byline because she stated that her career and reputation was at risk. She continued to say that these third parties were demanding her to disassociate herself from the article or these parties would end her career. On August 31st, I notified Dale through email that I would add a clarification that she was the writer and researcher for the article and that Yahya was the reporter on the ground….
    “Yahya [Ababneh] has recently notified me that the Saudi embassy contacted him and threatened to end his career if he did a follow up story on who carried out the most recent chemical weapons attack and demanded that he stop doing media interviews in regards to the subject.”
    The statement from MintPress adds, “We are aware of the tremendous pressure that Dale and some of our other journalists are facing as a result of this story, and we are under the same pressure as a result to discredit the story. We are unwilling to succumb to those pressures for MintPress holds itself to the highest journalistic ethics and reporting standards….”
    In terms of Gavlak’s role, MintPress says:
    “Gavlak pitched this story to MintPress on August 28th and informed her editors and myself that her colleague Yahya Ababneh was on the ground in Syria. She said Ababneh conducted interviews with rebels, their family members, Ghouta residents and doctors that informed him through various interviews that the Saudis had supplied the rebels with chemical weapons and that rebel fighters handled the weapons improperly setting off the explosions.
    “When Yahya had returned and shared the information with her, she stated that she confirmed with several colleagues and Jordanian government officials that the Saudis have been supplying rebels with chemical weapons, but as her email states, she says they refused to go on the record.
    “Gavlak wrote the article in its entirety as well as conducted the research. She filed her article on August 29th and was published on the same day.” [all emphasis in the original] ”

    ” Saudis Alarmed by Signs of U.S. Institutional Criticism
    October 20, 2013 • 9:45AM

    There is a deep fear among the Saudis and other Arab monarchies that their long-standing oligarchic regimes are on the chopping block and that the oligarchic system in the Middle East, especially in the Persian Gulf is in danger of being toppled. An October 10, 2013 article posted on the website of Foreign Affairs, journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) called “The Arab Sunset: The Coming collapse of the Gulf Monarchies,” reportedly “scared the daylights out of the Arabs,” reported a senior Washington intelligence source.
    It was not the article per se, but the article appearing in the context of two U.S. foreign policy developments—the cancellation of the U.S. attack on Syria and the opening of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran—that has spooked the Wahhabi oligarchs.
    The Saudis are beginning to recognize how deep the opposition from U.S. military and intelligence institutions is to their policies, particularly the Wahhabi support for Al Qaeda and its other jihadi spawn.
    This is the deeper background behind the Saudi government’s shunning of its seat on the UN Security Council—a position that it has coveted and heavily lobbied for for years.
    In addition to the U.S. institutional opposition to the Saudis murderous support for Al Qaeda and its Al Nusra Front in Syria, openly voiced on several occasions by recently ousted Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell, two other situations—Iraq and Lebanon—involving Saudi support for terrorism have moved to the front burner.
    * Saudi support for the terrorist attacks that have killed 6,000 people so far in Iraq in 2013 has become increasingly exposed. On Oct. 19, in an interview on Press TV, Zayd Al-Isa, a London based Middle East expert, detailed the Saudi role in the Iraqi terrorism. “Most of the funding to Al Nusra Front in Syria goes through Al Qaeda in Iraq” directly from the Saudis, Al-Isa says. The increased support for Al Qaeda is coming because the Saudi foreign policy is “in tatters” after their heavy investment in the Syrian rebel operation and after the U.S. military attack “which never took place.”
    In compensation, and as part of Saudi determination to have a rebel victory in Syria, the Saudis are now “throwing their weight” behind Sunni forces in Iraq’s Anbar province in order to “ramp up the rhetoric” and “serve as a recruitment” for Al Qaeda. The Saudi support has served to “reactivate the previous sanctuaries and safe havens” for Al Qaeda in Anbar and also in Mosul, Al-Isa added.
    * On the Lebanese front, the Saudis were stunned by reports that Jeffrey Feltman, now the United Nations Under Secretary General for Political Affairs (former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon and a 30 year State Department veteran), met with Lebanese and Palestinian delegate on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting last month and went into a tirade against the Saudi interference in Lebanon and Iraq. He accused the Saudis of blocking the formation of a Lebanese government because of Hezbollah participation, and railed that the Saudis are behind the ongoing destabilization of Iraq. He charged that they are directly working against vital U.S. national security interests in the region. The tirade was reported in the Lebanese daily Al Akhbar, and, while Feltman’s office issued a denial, U.S. intelligence sources have in fact confirmed the accuracy of the report. The Saudis were already up in arms over Feltman’s visit to Tehran, shortly after the inauguration of President Rouhani, where he was given the red carpet treatment and was presumed to be carrying messages from Washington. ”


    1) ” One of the most important British assets in this global genocide scheme is Prince Bandar. Trained in Britain, Bandar was not only the Saudi interlocutor with the British Crown and BAE in forging the original Al Yamamah deal. As Saudi Ambassador in Washington (and as practically an adopted son of George H.W. Bush), Bandar presided over the Saudi intelligence officers who shepherded the 9/11 hijackers for a year, leading up to the September 2001 attacks. His wife, Princess Haifa, provided cover for Bandar’s direct financing of at least one team of the hijackers.”
    ” The BAE-Saudi deal is essentially an oil-for-weapons swap involving the largest British weapons manufacturer, and a nation that is essentially a creature of the London-centered international oil cartel, in which Royal Dutch Shell and BP are major factors. Associated with this BAE-Shell-BP nexus are a number of important investment and commercial banks, other weapons manufacturers, and raw materials companies.”
    ” Shell is also one of the world’s most valuable companies.[3] As of January, 2013 the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors with 9.85% ahead of BlackRock in second with 6.89%.[4]”
    ” At the time of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, Blackrock was the single largest shareholder of BP.”
    ” Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and Barclays PLC own economic interests in BlackRock approximating 34.1%, 24.6% and 19.9%, respectively, with the remainder owned by institutional and individual investors, as well as BlackRock employees.”
    Bank of America is connected with the person of Warren Buffet a notorious friend of Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD.
    Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD “Hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002 at Waddesdon Manor, attended by such figures as James Wolfensohn, Nicky Oppenheimer, Warren Buffet, and Arnold Schwarzenegger ”
    Bank Of America and Merrill Lynch are also related with the Edmond De Rothschild, owned by BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD AND ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD, through the persons of Gerald Levy, Matthieu Walterspiler, Barbara Colombo, Beate Bakker, etc…
    Warren Buffet is also a friend of EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD.
    Barclays is a bank related with the British Crown and therefore connected with Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD and EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD.
    ” Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD, the behind-the-scenes controller of the Inter-Alpha Group, was a partner at Rothschild at the time he set up the Inter-Alpha Group in 1971, using its resources and then leaving in 1980 to continue his special mission, which includes advising the genocidal British Crown and managing the funds of Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall, to finance his kooky, “green” schemes.”
    ” Prince Charles already played polo with EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD in his student years and later set up the Interfaith consultations with him. ”
    EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD ” In 1989, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II,[2] for whom he serves as a financial adviser. ”
    Barclays Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland are also linked with the Edmond De Rothschild and therefore with BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD AND ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD.
    ” Al-Massari is allied with the well-known Saudi expatriate Osama bin Laden, who, to this day, maintains a residence in the wealthy London suburb of Wembly. And London is the headquarters of bin Laden’s Advise and Reform Commission, run by the London-based Khalid al-Fawwaz.
    Bin Laden has been given regular access to BBC and a variety of major British newspapers, to spread his calls for jihad against the United States. Thus, in July 1996, bin Laden told the London Independent, “What happened in Khobar [the U.S. Army barracks that was bombed on June 25] is a clear proof of the enormous rage of the Saudi population against them. Resistance against America will spread in many places through Muslim lands.”

    ” former President George H. W. Bush, then a senior adviser to Carlyle ”
    ” The Bush family has had a long and mutually profitable connection with the corrupt Saudi oil dictatorship. Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the United States, has been an honored guest both at the Bush I summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and at Bush 11’s getaway in Crawford, Texas (hence his nickname, “Bandar Bush”). Bandar expressed his gratitude to Bush I by donating $1 million to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas. And Bandar’s prodding prompted Saudi King Fahd to send another $1 million to Barbara Bush’s campaign against illiteracy.
    Saudi Prince al-Walid contributed half a million petrodollars to help launch the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund at Phillips Academy, the alma mater of both Bush presidents. The depth of these connections was highlighted when the former president visited the Saudis to “discuss U.S.-Saudi business relations” with Crown Prince Abdullah during his son’s 2000 presidential campaign.
    And then there is the bin Laden problem. The bin Laden family, a key Carlyle investor, stood to make millions of dollars from the war on terror-a war that has as its chief villain a member of their own family. The bin Ladens withdrew from the Carlyle Group in late October 2001, but it’s not just the bin Laden family proper that was problematic for the Bushes. It turns out that Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, had made charitable contributions that may have helped finance two of the 9/11 hijackers. ”
    ” Carlyle emerged from the shadows in spite of itself on September 11, 2001. That day, the group had organized a meeting at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel with five hundred of its largest investors. Frank Carlucci and James Baker III played masters of ceremony. George Bush senior made a lightning appearance at the beginning of the day. The presentation was quickly interrupted, but one detail escaped no one. One of the guests wore the name bin Laden on his badge. It was Shafiq bin Laden, one of Osama’s many brothers. The American media discovered Carlyle. One journalist, Dan Briody, wrote a book about the group’s hidden side, “The Iron Triangle”, and takes an interest in the close relations between the Bush clan and the Saudi leadership.”
    ” The collection of influential characters who now work, have worked, or have invested in the [ Carlyle ] group would make the most convinced conspiracy theorists incredulous. They include among others, John Major, former British Prime Minister; Fidel Ramos, former Philippines President; Park Tae Joon, former South Korean Prime Minister; Saudi Prince Al-Walid; Colin Powell, the present Secretary of State; James Baker III, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Defense Secretary; Richard Darman, former White House Budget Director; the billionaire George Soros, and even some bin Laden family members. You can add Alice Albright, daughter of Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Arthur Lewitt, former SEC head; William Kennard, former head of the FCC, to this list. Finally, add in the Europeans: Karl Otto Poehl, former Bundesbank president; the now-deceased Henri Martre, who was president of Aerospatiale; and Etienne Davignon, former president of the Belgian Generale Holding Company ”
    ” Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the US. It is 20%-owned by Mellon Bank ( and is controlled by the powerful Blackstone Group (seeOverthrow of the American Republic), which dined cheaply on the carcasses of looted S&L’s at auctions held by Bush Sr.’s Resolution Trust Corporation. ”
    ” Henry Kissinger’s good friend Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD sat on Bioport owner Blackstone’s International Advisory Board. (See Corexit Linked to the Blackstone Group and Lord Jacob Rothschild) ”
    ” Blackstone was founded in 1985 as a mergers and acquisitions boutique by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman, who had previously worked together at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. ”
    Peter G. Peterson ” is founding Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics ”
    Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the wife of Sir EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD, is a director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    Blackstone is also related with the LCF EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD owned by BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD and by his wife ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD, for example through the person of Daniel Costa Lindo that is a M&A Analyst at Blackstone and was Private Equity Analyst at LCF Edmond de Rothschild.


    Comment by bill113 | October 24, 2013

  3. Reblogged this on oogenhand.


    Comment by oogenhand | May 14, 2014

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.