OF (ARAB) BLOOD AND (SAUDI) GREED

sortofthirdroughdraft (I'm avoiding real work!)

The evidence is mounting that the harmful idiots, via the Saudis, via Prince Bandar bin Sultan, are fueling sectarian tension and strife among the Arab Sunni and the Arab Shia. This blog in prior posts had addressed this suicidal, blood-thirsty, self-defeating, harmful, and idiotic policy.

HASAN BIN TALAL: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SELF-BLEEDING

Most recently, an al-Jazirah television show host, Ghassan Bin-Jiddu, at the Amman airport, was made to cough up a videotape of an interview with former Jordanian Crown Prince, Hasan Bin Talal, the King’s uncle.

The former crown prince in that interview was said to have criticized the Saudis, an "un-named prince" in particular. (Bandar bin Sultan, of course). One reason: Unleashing Sunni-Shia sectarian tension and strife. The Jordanian prince expressed his fear that such could set off sectarian wars for one hundred years. In addition, the former crown prince lamented the (mis-) use by Saudi leaders of the holy sites (e.g., Mecca al-Mukarramah) as convening places to mediate and sign intra-Arab accords meant to achieve (in essence) Saudi political goals. These accords , he was said to have told the al-Jazirah host, are pushed along under the guise of stopping the shedding of Arab blood.

(NOTE:

Prince Hasan is almost certainly an "asset" of the harmful idiots. (Warning: This observation is based on my ability to "smell" these things. ) His statements therefore could very possibly reflect the views of these, or, more likely, the views of some of them–the realists. My suspicion is that these should by now have had it with the Israel-anchored sophomores at the American intelligence services and their self-defeating ideas. These have taken us to defeat. And one defeat is plenty. Hence, likely, Prince Hasan’s criticism about Bandar.

More problematic was Prince Hasan’s criticism of the use by Saudi authorities of holy Islamic sites to push along agreements among Arab parties. The one agreement that comes to mind is the "Mecca Accord," an agreement between Hamas and Fatah. Could the realist faction be offended by the Mecca Accord? Why would it? It doesn’t make sense.

It could be that the realists are using Prince Hasan who, as a Hashemite, lays a claim as caretaker of the holy places, as a pressure point on the Saudi ruling team to get rid of Bandar at a minimum. But to target the alleged mis-use of the holy places by the royal governing team possibly shows that the realist faction within the American intelligence services had had it with that team altogether, and not only with Bandar. For that team, as with the Bush one, had taken us to defeat and should therefore go away.

I could be reading too much into Prince Hasan’s statements. He’s made at least one outrageous one in the past where, from France, he had called the American President a bad name. Quite daring for a likely asset.

At any rate, don’t hold your breath: Plus ca change...)

HIZBOLLAH CONFRONTS THE SAUDI-SPONSORED INTRA-MUSLIM CIVIL WAR (FITNAH)

Pepe Escobar recently wrote in Asia Times about his trip to Lebanon. Hizbollah officials revealed to him that they were all too aware that Bandar was behind the sleazy attempts to ignite sectarian strife. Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to Washington, D.C., is, for all practical purposes, a Middle Eastern extension of the harmful idiots.

This newsletter has repeatedly warned that the harmful idiots were behind the extremely dangerous scheme of igniting civil strife among Shia and Sunni. They’re desperate. They’re stuck between the rock (Iraq) and the hard place (the Israel-anchored White House). Iraq is unmanageable; the White House wants them to last in the Iraqi quagmire for the balance of Mr. Bush’s term.

This newsletter has warned that such a policy, using huge volumes of Saudi oil money, will bring tons of misery and instability onto the Arabs. Moreover, even a morally and ethically deficient person, but one who’s not an idiot, should see that this policy would not achieve its stated goal–to contain Iran.

For one, this policy practically delivers the Arab Shia to Iran on a silver platter. And it delivers others, such as the Shia of non-Arab Pakistan and Afghanistan. In other words, this policy concedes jurisdiction to Iran of a sizeable part of the Muslim Arabs. This should give Iran a near-permanent hold onto those Arabs and Muslims, consolidating its stature and regional reach.

This policy is dangerous for yet another reason, too complex for harmful idiots to understand, and complex enough for me to articulate. I’ll try.

HIZBOLLAH AS DEFENDER OF THE ARAB UNITY ETHOS

Multiple accidents of history have prevented Arabs from uniting. But the ethos of unity is very powerful, especially among the masses, and even among the majority of the elite. The only way I can explain this to culturally-deficient, Israel-anchored, harmful idiots is to liken this drive to the democratic ethos in America. Steven Cohen, one of my best friend from grad school, now a professor, had always pointed to me how powerful that ethos was, especially that he sees it repeatedly in public policy projects in which he becomes involved. And I’ve been witness to the same since. Now, since I practice law, I’ve been witness to another aspect of the democratic ethos–a sense of fairness and justice called due process. True, we’re way less democratic now since we’re been watched 24 hours a day, thanks to post-September 11 laws; but the democratic ethos lives on.

To sum up the comparison: Our democracy is now hugely a mirage, but our democratic ethos is alive and well. For Arabs: Arab unity is hugely a mirage; but the spiritual quest for it, too, is alive and well.

When such rich powers as Saudi Arabia and the United States push along a blood-thirsty policy to divide and subjugate Arabs, on behalf of (in the end) a stubbornly colonialist power, Israel, then the force that would oppose this barbaric policy should rise to the top. That force of resistance should gain prominence. All the Muslims and Arabs, even if swayed by the mix of Saudi money and American-Israeli-Saudi colonialist schemes, should appreciate the force of resistance–any force of resistance--which keeps the dream (ethos) of Arab unity (now Islamic Arab) alive. That force now is Arab Shia. Its vanguard is Hizbollah

(NOTE:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I’m all too aware of Hizbollah’s terrorist connections, Imad Mughniyyah, blah blah blah. They’re mostly true. But the Arab Street, provider of the resistance fighters, doesn’t give a hoot about all of this; and we’re sinking deeper and deeper into a quagmire where the Israel-centric views, obsessed by terrorism (its sympathizers here have all but monopolized the definition of terrorism and many of the anti-terrorism jobs) have ensnared us into policies based on never-ending illusions. So forgive me for not partaking in illusions and idiocy. Defeat is sobering (we hope) and provides those of us who are not Israel-anchored a chance to save the life of maybe one U.S. soldier from the stupidity of his/her Israel-anchored, Saudi royalty pleasing, leaders.)

THE SAUDIS SPILL MUSLIM BLOOD TO PROTECT THEIR USURIOUS LOANS TO LEBANON

According to Pepe Escobar, Bandar, the point man in Saudi Arabia’s policy to ignite an intra-Muslim/intra-Arab civil war, has taken his harmful initiative to Lebanon. Why Lebanon? Why such interest?

I don’t have the figures, but here’s what I (not Pepe) suspect lies at the heart of Saudi interest in Lebanon: it’s money–tens of billions of it. The Hariri family is an extension of the Saudi royal family, whose wealth is understandably immense. The Hariri family, I’m told, "owns" two Lebanese banks. Which means that the Saudi royals own these banks, via the Hariris, or likely both own them together. These two banks, it’s said, have lent the Lebanese state the lion’s share of that state’s estimated $42 billion debt–at terrifically artificial and usurious interest rates. Chances are so much better that a Hariri government will pay back that debt than a Hizbollah-influenced government.

In other words, Bandar bin Sultan, in Lebanon, spilling intra-Muslim blood, is really protecting the financial interests of the Saudi royals. It’s not enough that these banks (and the Saudi royals behind them) probably have made their money many times over. Greed knows no limit even among brothers.

(It's also known that the Saudi royals own an unspecified amount of real estate in Lebanon. I suspect a lot of it. They own it through the Hariri family and through front personalities.)

(NOTE:

How did this all happen? How did the Saudi royals end up owning Lebanon? It began when an extension of the Saudi royal family and the harmful idiots, the late Rafiq al-Hariri, returned to Lebanon after the two forces (royals and harmful idiots) paid his way into the office of Premiership. There, he forged ahead with outrageously grandiose government construction projects where he had the state he controlled (the joke in Lebanon is that the Hariris own most of the judges) borrow from his two banks, likely owned by the Saudi royals and himself, at usurious rates, to finance these projects. So he and his Saudi royal extension, I suspect, made money twice: once by outright fraud, channeling contracts to family members at non-market rates, and another by charging usurious interest by the banks they owned to the state to pay for the grandiose construction projects!)

(NOTE:

So, you see, the harmful idiots are masters of sponsoring corruption. Is there a revolving door here, too? Does anyone know? Carlysle-like? I feel like a college freshman thinking this way. But I wouldn’t even have given this a thought had it not been for the defeat in Iraq, the sadistic annihilation of an Arab country, and the repercussions of developing corrupt assets. This awakened me to the harmful idiots’ role in annihilating Lebanon. There's a dire need to re-formulate the criteria for chossing foreign assets by this government.)

Saudi policy therefore (to protect its financial stake in Lebanon and force that country to continue to pay the royals interest, by keeping the Hariris in power--via Seniora or whoever) melts into the harmful idiots’ Israeli-anchored sophomoric, and needlessly harmful, policy : to wipe out Hizbollah by (among other things) training Jumblatt and Geagea men in Israel to counter-assassinate, and assassinate.

The policy of dividing the Muslims of Lebanon seems to be bearing some fruit. For instance, historically, the Sunni of Tripoli, Lebanon’s northern city, had been at the forefront of Arab nationalism. But in the last parliamentary elections, they voted for the Hariri list. It’s unclear whether they did so because Hariri paid for the votes (not a secret in Lebanon) or because the policy of dividing the Muslim Arabs had worked. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. The irony of ironies, though, is that Hariri and Bandar are financing Sunni extremists who, in the end, should turn on them at any moment that Israel attacks. Not to mention that Syria should be able to infiltrate these Islamists relatively easily since Syria carries still a lot of weight in Tripoli and northern Lebanon.

Back to the ethos/dream of Arab unity. If Hizbollah senses that the colonial policy of divide and conquer is gaining strength in Iraq or Lebanon (e.g., in Lebanon, the international tribunal as a tool to defeat it and Syria), it will counteract it by igniting the Lebanese-Israeli front and/or the internal front in Israel/Palestine. True, UNIFIL troops stand in-between Hizbollah and Israel. But should Hizbollah, now the champion of Arab Muslim unity, of the ethos/dream, sense that matters are getting out of hand, it’ll start eating away at the UNIFIL troops. The ways are many. (It should start by southern Lebanese children, who would make great baseball batters, spinning Biblical rocks at this or that UNIFIL contingent.) We have learned, haven’t we, that Western troops can be cowardly. Consider the fifteen British sailors who caved in to nothing when snared by Iran’s Guard of the Islamic Revolution. Consider how they failed to fire a single shot.

Consider, too, the experience in Iraq where even relatively mild losses would spark domestic calls in European countries to withdraw their contingents from Iraq. In short, Western troops are eminently unreliable (e.g., the Italians), all talk (e.g., the Brits), or outright useless (e.g., the Australians.) Or smart enough to stay out of Iraq yet, under the pressure of illusions and to protect the Saudi $40 billion usurious loans, idiot enough to head to Lebanon (e.g., the French.)

STAYING POWER

Since all know that the harmful idiots are driving our country bankrupt, the challenge would be to assess the staying power of each party. Here, it strikes me as hilarious that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney believe that they can outlast Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran–that Saudi money can do it for them (e.g., by taking over the cost of recruiting the mercenary Peshmerga. Don't you love it how the Kurds, using our money, are paying for a public relations campaign in the U.S.?)

COMPARATIVE COST:

How can the Bush team believe that the U.S. can outlast the others? Do the calculus: A resistance fighter could not cost more that $300 per month, "salary" and cost of basically primitive weapons (road-side bombs, AK-47, chlorine.) In contrast, an American soldier costs a small fortune, maybe $10,000 per month: Rayban sunglasses, up-to-date weaponry, bottled water, MASH units, surgeons, medics, copters, around the clock email access... (For a better calculus one would need to divide the billions in cost by the number of troops on the ground.)

So you see why Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, courageously stated the obvious: that the battle in Iraq has been lost. I’ll add that it was and is lost both in Iraq and Lebanon. This blog has addressed the defeat in Iraq multiple times.

In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia’s Hariri remains in power (superficially) only because Hizbollah, acting as defender of the Arab unity ethos, will not be the one to destroy that ethos by cutting all ties with the Saudi government ("regime" to Tony Blair until the Saudis coughed up $15 to $70 billion in arms contracts). But should that government and its harmful idiot allies push too far, Hizbollah should be expected, with absolute certainty, to come to defense of the Arab unity ethos, and itself.

WHAT TO EXPECT

If Hizbollah is pushed into a corner,

--We should expect Israel (eventually) to re-invade and criminally spread American goodies (cluster bombs, though now Israeli-made) over Lebanon, for the benefit of its Arab children. (There was a time, a time of the Presbyterians and the Methodists and other missionaries, when America spread colleges and education. Now it’s education for the rich, in the Gulf, and cluster bombs, "shock -'n-awe,’ and bombing back to the stone age for the Arab poor.)

--We should expect the Arab Street to mobilize in support of Hizbollah (and Syria). (The Street now has networks; it no longer heads to the actual streets to demonstrate. It got smart.)

--We should expect the arming the pro-Syrian Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to help out against the Israelis and against the Saudi-financed pro-Israel (temporarily--in the long-run, they're not) Hariri Islamists.

--We should expect more weapons to the resistance in Iraq, this time quality weapons capable of downing planes and copters by the dozens.

--We should expect an operation or two inside Kuwait, as a shot across the bow of the harmful idiots, that the forces that be are willing to expand the conflict; (It matters little that the head of Kuwait’s National Security Organization, Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahed, would recently make Arab nationalist statements to the effect that Kuwait will be the last one to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and that Jihad (in Palestine) is legitimate so long as there’s occupation. Kuwait has exhausted Iraq financially and my antennae tell me there are tons of Iraqi Islamists, both Shia and Sunni, who are waiting for the right time to exact revenge.)

--We should expect an endless stream of assassination attempts in Lebanon and attempts against Saudi royal family members wherever they may be found.

--We should expect a more generous financing of al-Qaeda, money meant for Iraq, but spread by al-Qaeda to allied para-military opposition groups in other countries, as we’ve witnessed recently in Algeria and Morocco.