Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 17, 2011
The Counter-revolution Is Not A Saudi One

The Leverett's have a new piece up on THE ARAB SPRING AND THE SAUDI COUNTER-REVOLUTION.

I disagree with it. The counter-revolution is not a sole Saudi project. While the Saudis princes are miffed about Obama and his, in their opinion, too early call for Mubarak to go, their mere existence depends too much on U.S. goodwill to act independently. The counter-revolution is a joint U.S.-Saudi project with a major U.S. motive of keeping the Middle East secure for Israel. Genuine democracy in any country there would endanger Israel's existence.

The Saudis were allowed to invade Bahrain and to suppress the Shia majority there without any critical word from Washington. As a thank you Obama got an Arab League vote that allowed him to attack Libya, practice regime change there by installing a bunch of dependable natives and to then steal its oil.

Both parties agree that Saleh in Yemen has to go as he has been incompetent to suppress the U.S. concern in Yemen, the alleged Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, and the Saudi concern, the Houthi tribes with their Zaidi Shia believe.

The Saudis are financing the gangs in Syria who try to take down the Syrian regime. Jordon and Israel seem to be involved in those efforts. If Assad falls (I do not think that he will) Hariri can be reinstalled in Lebanon as the Saudi tool he always was.

Egypt is still a military dictatorship. If some sort of meaningful elections will be allowed to happen there, then only if it is ensured that all possibly winning candidates are bought by either Riyadh, Washington or both. The U.S. already offered $150 million for that project.

A part of the Saudi-U.S. deal that is not yet fully visible is a new agreement about Afghanistan. Prince Bandar was recently in Pakistan and asked the Pakistani to keep a division of troops ready for the eventual use in Saudi Arabia. The Pakistanis agreed to that but had a price.

Then suddenly all the top people of Pakistan visited Kabul and astonishingly agreed with Karzai about the "reintegration" of Taliban. Pat Lang thinks that as part of some deal south Afghanistan will be handed to the Taliban when, in the next few month, the U.S. starts to reduce troops from there. This deal was certainly not made without U.S. involvement.

The revolutionary wave was stopped for now. Further revolts will get suppressed or, where convenient, channeled into directions the U.S. and Saudis can agree upon. This counter-revolution scheme may be successful for a while. I doubt though that it will be able to hold as a permanent solution.

Comments

I agree, on the whole. The Saudis are also hard at work in Iraq, which is really, though we often forget it, (I do, anyway) the most volatile and explosive country in the region.
The Saudis understand that the main enemy to autocracy in the region is the idea of Hezbollah, a disciplined, grass roots, quiet(uninterested in publicity), socially oriented and islamic alternative to the salafist nihilism which is Riyadh’s stock in trade.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 17 2011 18:54 utc | 1

I should add to Hezbollah’s qualities that it is self-reliant and unintimidated.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 17 2011 18:55 utc | 2

I believe both Saudi Arabia and Israel are in very tenuous positions looking twenty years out. Both are currently being played, while they are in return playing, but in this chess game where one plays the other, they are in the most vulnerable positions, and within the next twenty years, I believe we will see the destruction of the state of Israel, and the elimination of the House of Saud as oil becomes ever more precious and the price ever increasing.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 17 2011 19:08 utc | 3

What a load of crap. Everything that’s been done in Libya has the backing of the UN.

Posted by: par4 | Apr 17 2011 21:33 utc | 4

What a load of crap. Everything that’s been done in Libya has the backing of the UN.
ahhh . . . yes . . . well, since you put it like that, it can only be moral, ethical and for the utmost good of the Libyan people . . . .
What a Strange Way to Protect Civilians: Depleted Uranium and Libya

“We are there to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas” – William Hague
“I was watching ABC News last night and, lo and behold, there was a DU impact. It burned and burned and burned.”
Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project commenting on Libya attack.
“Depleted uranium tipped missiles fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way… I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.” – Marion Falk, chemical physicist (retd), Lawrence Livermore Lab, California, USA

The Pentagon has known since 1948 that DU munitions are essentially genocidal weapons – it has always planned to use them some day in that fashion, and now they use them daily
U.S. considered Cold War radiological weapon
But if it’s sanctioned by the UN it must be ok, right?
The West Versus China: A New Cold War Begins on Libyan Soil

INSURGENTS NOT PROTESTORS
The great PR spin trick in the run-up to NATO’s carpet bombing run in Libya was the West’s ability to characterise Libya’s violent armed gangs as mere protestors. The average American, British or French media consumer equated the Libyan uprising with those previously in Tunisia and Egypt. The reality of course was that they were anything but.
However, the bells of freedom and democracy had indeed rung, so all that was really needed at that point was a clever WMD-like diplomatic trick to dazzle the rows of intellectually challenged diplomats at the UN in New York City. The ‘No Fly Zone’ was repackaged and worked well enough for politicians to get their foot in the door to their respective War Rooms.

Posted by: hu bris | Apr 17 2011 23:24 utc | 5

A declassified memorandum from 1943 explains how radioactive material can be used as a gas warfare instrument:

(2) As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person’s body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty
Two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are: (1) It cannot be detected by the senses; (2) It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging.
An off-setting factor in its effectiveness as a weapon is that in a dust or smoke form the material is so finely pulverized that it takes on the characteristic of a quickly dissipating gas and is therefore subject to all the factors (such as wind) working against maintenance of high concentrations for more than a few minutes over a given area.

we can expect for apologists to begin moving into the next phase of damage control within the coming months.
It will likely be claimed, by persons such as the above @ 4 that the depopulation of much of the Middle East was an unfortunate result of the DU that the Pentagon used because it was not aware of the health effects it would have.
this, of course, would be a lie- the US always intended to use DU for the purpose originally stated in the 1948 and 1943 documents

Posted by: hu bris | Apr 17 2011 23:34 utc | 6

yes…Ms Clinton gave the goahead for the saudis to invade Bahrain..The real peaceful protestors of Bahrain were not going to get help of NATO or the US. That tells us a lot about the reasons US/NATO invaded Libya.

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2011 1:52 utc | 7

‘What a load of crap. Everything that’s been done in Libya has the backing of the UN.
Posted by: par4 | Apr 17, 2011 5:33:13 PM | 4
—————
No, NOT the UN…the UN(IN)Security Council..big difference

Posted by: brian | Apr 18 2011 1:53 utc | 8

As a thank you Obama got an Arab League vote that allowed him to attack Libya

. Just 9 of the 22 members of the AL voted for the no fly zone. Of the 9 that voted 6 were members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Posted by: hans | Apr 18 2011 6:17 utc | 9

No b., that analysis is silly. of course Saudi Arabian monarchs have different interests from the US. A partnership has to work for both sides, no matter how different the amount of power is.
In terms of cultural hegemony Saudi Arabia (and Israel) are liabilities for the US, as they give the lie to American progressive values. So the – very attractive – US freedom agenda for young people seems hypocritical at best.
Plus, all the autocrats on the side of the US were/are old, and the US will have/has – see above – a problem connecting to young Middle Eastern people. Though a lot of them studied at US universities. So the US is between a rock and a hard place.
War in Libya was the neoconservatives, France, Britain. And of course all alienated expatriate Libyans and co, who hoped for change, influence, oil money, power.
Obama has a reelection problem – he tries to occupy the center, but a rerun of weapons of mass destruction will put him on the right, that would be the last straw for most of his constituency. That is why this was about “civilians, civilians, civilians” and that is why this interview is in the Washington Post and not in the New York Times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/an-interview-with-saif-al-islam-gaddafi-son-of-the-libyan-leader/2011/04/17/AF4RXVwD_story_1.html

Posted by: somebody | Apr 18 2011 6:36 utc | 10

@somebody
the interview to Said Gaddafi is very interesting; and even more remarkable is that it was published at all in the Us press: it confirms my suspicion that the Us are backpedaling, and in damage containment mode;
but what do you mean by:

that is why this interview is in the Washington Post and not in the New York Times

I rather see two steps in the same direction; remember? “a new generation of leaders” …

Posted by: claudio | Apr 18 2011 7:26 utc | 11

opss: “two steps in the same direction”: I mean the NYT op-ed by Obama, and now this interview

Posted by: claudio | Apr 18 2011 8:04 utc | 12

Obama has a reelection problem – he tries to occupy the center, but a rerun of weapons of mass destruction will put him on the right, that would be the last straw for most of his constituency. That is why this was about “civilians, civilians, civilians” and that is why this interview is in the Washington Post and not in the New York Times.
A reelection problem? Are you serious? If the Plutocracy wants him again for another four years because he’s appropriate for the spirit of the times, then they will have him hook or crook. There’s no coincidence that Obama is the symbol of youthful hope and change, and we see this uprisings in the Middle East that are about the same thing. A symbolic throwing off of the old order….but it’s all about perception. The next phase of leadership will be about hope and change in perception only. Behind the scenes, it will be very much business as usual….with the Corporate Plutocratic Oligarchy inching ever closer to their vision of a Global Plantation.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 18 2011 11:10 utc | 13

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

Saudi money wins Obama’s mind

This growing sense of isolation prompted the Saudi leadership to invoke its ultimate reserves of influence in Washington – the Pentagon. The promise Abdullah made to Gates – that Saudi arms purchases from the US this year will exceed the $60 billion deal (which is already the biggest in US history) – changes the entire complexion of Persian Gulf security from the American perspective. Obama interprets arms sales to foreign countries as the means to create jobs at home. And if the Gulf Confederation idea takes hold, the sky is the limit for lucrative arms deals since a joint military will be created by the petrodollar states involving land, air and naval forces.
The speeches by Clinton and Gates suggest that the Saudis have succeeded in making Obama reassess the Arab spring in the Persian Gulf region.

Posted by: b | Apr 18 2011 11:29 utc | 14

MB @ 13: “they will have him by hook or crook.”…
E-voting will ensure the outcome the elites desire. Why Americans can’t see they’re just along for the ride, is beyond me.
“Global plantation”..love it.

Posted by: ben | Apr 18 2011 14:42 utc | 15

Cameron and Sarkozy were not given the opportunity to join in on killing Afghanis and Iraqis. Now, there is a little window of oppo’ for killing yet more ‘natives’, with a UN mandate, no less!
Deploying military might, flexing the muscles, what a thrill, and a supreme distraction from problems at home. It must be glorious fun to sell arms to say Khadafi, cash in, and then set out to destroy what one has sold in good faith, presumably looking forward to the perspective of yet more sales.
The West’s ‘development’ aid is dust as compared to the arms sales. The former could merely be considered stipends or bribes to encourage the latter. Like when I shop at the Coop I get ‘points’ I can only spend at the Coop.
Poisoned gifts, of arms, only encourage.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2011 15:47 utc | 16

Evidence of cluster bombs found just as a team from Human Rights Watch arrives in Misrata to condemn Qadhafi. Just a little too convenient to be believable?

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 19 2011 1:30 utc | 17

Pepe Escobar gives a broader (and darker) look at the Us-Saudi counter-revolutionary pact;
I think it responds indirectly to the problem posed by b in an earlier thread, concerning the possibility of Iran being “next on the line”, given the growing drum-beat against it; from Escobar’s account one may desume that all this is the effect of a Saudi-led sectarian strategy (welcomed by Israel), rather than an Us initiative;
what this means for the future, I don’t know; it’s so easy, these days, to pull the Us into “wars of choice” …
maybe S&P are our allies now … at a certain point the Us government will have to look at its budget, won’t it? or not?

Posted by: claudio | Apr 22 2011 15:05 utc | 18