680 Obama must show the Saudis who's boss: he should align with Iran & Syria against Sunni barbarians

Obama must show the Saudis who's boss: he should align with Iran & Syria
against Sunni barbarians

Newsletter published on 29 September 2014

(1) Obama must show the Saudis who's boss: he should align with Iran &
Syria against Sunni barbarians - Peter Myers, September 29, 2004
(2) Saudis force a hard deal on Obama: they join attack on ISIS, on
condition that he back anti-Assad rebels
(3) Beheadings are not new; ISIS rebels fighting Assad routinely
beheaded Syrians
(4) Saudis, Israel & Neocons mobilize Sunnis to fight Shiites - Seymour
Hersh (2005)
(5) Israel prefers ISIS to Shiites (Iran Syria Hezbollah) - Brother
Nathanael
(6) ISIS fighters received new Humvees from US; but turned on their US
sponsors - Thierry Meyssan
(7) US and UK should back Assad to defeat ISIS - senior UK MP

(1) Obama must show the Saudis who's boss: he should align with Iran &
Syria against Sunni barbarians - Peter Myers, September 29, 2004

The Saudi government recently participated in air strikes against ISIS.
However, it did so reluctantly - and only after driving a hard bargain
with Obama. The condition was that he back the anti-Assad insurgency.

The fragmentation of Iraq has produced a "Shiite Crescent", on the north
side of the Persian Golf, comprising Iran, the southern half of Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah).

Both Israel and the Saudi regime deem Iran an existential threat; they
fear a renewal of the Persian Empire, once Zoroastrian, via this Shiite
identity.

So Israel and the Saudis are the drivers of the Sunni uprising. And the
West has fallen in with them, instead of having the balls to take them on.

Iran is not a threat to the West. Why should we stoop to the
Israeli/Saudi agenda, when it is unleashing uncontrollable barbarism
against us?

Let's be a man, and stand up. Obama must show the Saudis who's boss: he
should align with Iran & Syria against the Sunni barbarians.

If this strengthens Iran & Syria, the Saudis and Israelis have only
themselves to blame.

(2) Saudis force a hard deal on Obama: they join attack on ISIS, on
condition that he back anti-Assad rebels

http://online.wsj.com/articles/deal-with-saudis-paved-way-for-syrian-airstrikes-1411605329

Deal With Saudis Paved Way for Syrian Airstrikes

Talks With Saudi Arabia Were Linchpin in U.S. Efforts to Get Arab States
Into Fight Against Islamic State

Julian E. Barnes

Sept. 24, 2014 8:35 p.m. ET

The Americans knew a lot was riding on a Sept. 11 meeting with the king
of Saudi Arabia at his summer palace on the Red Sea.

A year earlier, King Abdullah had fumed when President Barack Obama
called off strikes against the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. This
time, the U.S. needed the king's commitment to support a different
Syrian mission—against the extremist group Islamic State—knowing there
was little hope of assembling an Arab front without it.

At the palace, Secretary of State John Kerry requested assistance up to
and including air strikes, according to U.S. and Gulf officials. "We
will provide any support you need," the king said.

That moment, more than any other, set in train the U.S. air campaign in
Syria against Islamic State, according to U.S. and Gulf officials. Mr.
Obama made clear he would only authorize strikes if regional allies
agreed to join the effort. Few would likely go along if the Saudis sat
on the sidelines.

Western-backed rebels fear U.S.-led airstrikes on Islamic State and
other extremists in Syria will ultimately favor President Bashar
al-Assad's regime. WSJ's Sam Dagher reports. Photo: AP

Officials on both sides say the partnership could help rebuild trust
between longtime allies whose relations have been deeply strained over
the U.S.'s response to the Arab Spring uprisings and Mr. Obama's
outreach to Saudi rival Iran. It was also a sign the Saudis might take
on a greater security role in the region, something the U.S. has long
pressed for.

Reaching that agreement, however, took months of behind-the-scenes work
by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate
against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis
leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for
rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top
priority.

Wary of a repeat of Mr. Obama's earlier reversal, the Saudis and United
Arab Emirates decided on a strategy aimed at making it harder for Mr.
Obama to change course. "Whatever they ask for, you say 'yes,'" an
adviser to the Gulf bloc said of its strategy. "The goal was not to give
them any reason to slow down or back out."

Arab participation in the strikes is of more symbolic than military
value. The Americans have taken the lead and have dropped far more bombs
than their Arab counterparts. But the show of support from a major Sunni
state for a campaign against a Sunni militant group, U.S. officials
said, made Mr. Obama comfortable with authorizing a campaign he had
previously resisted.

The latest user generated content from the ground in Syria following
Tuesday's airstrikes against Islamic State. WSJ's Mark Kelly reports.

How the alliance fares will depend on how the two sides reconcile their
fundamental differences over Syria and other issues. Saudi leaders and
members of the moderate Syrian opposition are betting the U.S. could
eventually be pulled in the direction of strikes supporting moderate
rebel fighters against Mr. Assad in addition to Islamic State. U.S.
officials say the administration has no intention of bombing Mr. Assad's
forces. [...]

For the Saudis, Syria had become a critical frontline in the battle for
regional influence with Iran, an Assad ally. As Mr. Assad stepped up his
domestic crackdown, the king decided to do whatever was needed to bring
the Syrian leader down, Arab diplomats say.

In the last week of August, a U.S. military and State Department
delegation flew to Riyadh to lay the ground for a military program to
train the moderate Syrian opposition to fight both the Assad regime and
Islamic State—something the Saudis have long requested. The U.S. team
wanted permission to use Saudi facilities for the training. Top Saudi
ministers, after consulting overnight with the king, agreed and offered
to foot much of the bill. Mr. Jubeir went to Capitol Hill to pressed key
lawmakers to approve legislation authorizing the training.

When Mr. Kerry touched down in Jeddah to meet with King Abdullah on
Sept. 11, he didn't know for sure what else the Saudis were prepared to
do. The Saudis had informed their American counterparts before the visit
that they would be ready to commit air power—but only if they were
convinced the Americans were serious about a sustained effort in Syria.
The Saudis, for their part, weren't sure how far Mr. Obama would be
willing to go, according to diplomats.

"Everyone saw correctly that the Saudis were the linchpin," said a
senior U.S. official who works with the Saudis.

Saudi players in attendance for the Sept. 11 meeting included Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, who as the king's spymaster last year ran afoul of
Mr. Kerry over Syria and Iraq policy. U.S. officials interpreted his
presence as a sign the king wanted to make sure the court was united,
U.S. officials said. [...]

(3) Beheadings are not new; ISIS rebels fighting Assad routinely
beheaded Syrians

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-isis-beheadings-part-of-the-training-manual-of-us-sponsored-syria-pro-democracy-terrorists/5402566

The History of ISIS Beheadings: Part of the “Training Manual” of US
Sponsored Syria “Pro-Democracy” Terrorists

By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, September 19, 2014

The recent beheadings of three Westerners, Foley, Sotloff and Haines, at
the hands of the Islamic State (ISIS) has sparked a wave of indignation
and strong condemnation by Western heads of state.

For anyone aware of what has been truly going on in Syria from the
outset of the war in March 2011, there is something unusual in these
strong statements, which are now the object of a wave of “humanitarian
bombings” under a counter-terrorism mandate directed against the Islamic
State.

Lest we forget, from the outset of the war on Syria in March 2011, the
US and its allies supported  so-called “Freedom fighters” largely
composed of the Al Nusrah and ISIS brigades. Trained in Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, these pro-democracy terrorists were routinely involved in
atrocities including beheadings directed against Syrian civilians.

Double standards? In the course of the last three years, no Western
leader made any statements in regards to these atrocities committed by
“Muslim extremists”.  They passed virtually unnoticed. No concern was
expressed by the international community in this regard.  With some
exceptions, these beheadings were barely the object of media coverage.

Is it because the “freedom fighters” integrated by ISIS and Al Nusrah
forces were beheading Syrian civilians rather than Westerners. [...]

Atrocities committed in Syria were reported from the outset of the
unrest in 2011 by independent media. It took some time for the
mainstream media to mention those atrocities, but since 2012, many
reports have been published by the mainstream press, in spite of which
the prevailing discourse on Syria remained essentially the same: the
“tyrannical Assad regime” was brutally repressing a “pro-democracy
rebellion” and the West was still expressing its unyielding support for
the “pro-democracy fighters”.

The only difference was that at some point the U.S. authorities had to
admit the presence of terrorist groups among the “moderate rebels” even
though these so-called moderate rebels were never clearly identified.
Even former CIA operative Bob Baer said in a CNN interview following
Sotloff’s alleged beheading that “there are no moderate rebels in Syria”.

Here are only a few excerpts of various mainstream and independent
articles and videos mentioning beheadings by rebels in Syria in 2012 and
2013, including reports from the UN and Human Rights Watch, which are
usually used to support “humanitarian interventions” abroad.

The video you can find here was published on July 3, 2013 and shows a
Christian priest and another Christian being decapitated. [...]

The German magazine Der Spiegel published in March 2012 a story
featuring an “executioner” part of a “burial brigade”, some sort of
death squad “responsible for the arbitrary execution of 350-400 people”
who expressed “their opposition to the rule of terror of the Free Syrian
Army (FSA)” [...]

(4) Saudis, Israel & Neocons mobilize Sunnis to fight Shiites - Seymour
Hersh (2005)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

March 5, 2007 Issue

The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on
terrorism?

By Seymour M. Hersh

2007_03_05

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

[...] To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with
Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of
the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from
Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. [...]

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed
publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new
strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and
“extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation,
and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that
divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran
and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to
destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The
clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving
the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to
work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and
former officials close to the Administration said. [...]

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new
strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an
existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the
Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will
give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in
Arab-Israeli negotiations. [...]

Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton
Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the
Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.” Indyk, who
is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the
Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear
whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of
its new policy. “The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,”
he said. “It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very
complicated. Everything is upside down.” [...]

(5) Israel prefers ISIS to Shiites (Iran Syria Hezbollah) - Brother
Nathanael

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=967

September 23, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

Is ISIS Good For The Jews?

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

Is ISIS good for the Jews?

Let’s see. For now they’re using them to break the Arc of Resistance
against Zionism running from Iran, through Iraq, to Damascus, to Beirut.

Israel’s former ambassador to the US admitted last year that Israel
prefers al-Qaeda to lawful rule.

[Clip: “The Israeli ambassador to the US says that Tel Aviv prefers
al-Qaeda affiliated guys to groups backed by Iran. Israel’s initial
message was that it had always wanted Syrian’s President Bashar al Assad
to go even though the bad guys had links to al-Qaeda.”]

The Jerusalem Post just chimed in that ISIS “poses no threat to Israel.”

But Assad, who maintains stability in the region, he’s the threat.

When ISIS—the latest version of al-Qaeda—rolled into Iraq last month,
the Pentagon said it was ‘taken by surprise.’

Bull.

The CIA has been in Syria for three years, arming ‘freedom fighters’
comprised of al-Qaeda factions.

It knows very well that the caravan of Toyotas ISIS drove across Syria
into Iraq matched the same trucks the US State Department gave to the
‘Free Syrian Army.’

ISIS and the FSA are united…cutting deals and celebrating together.

Former President of the FSA Military Council joined the celebration with
his “brothers.”

[Clip: “Journalist: How is your relationship with the “Islamic State in
Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL)?

Okaidi: It is good. My relationship with the brothers in ISIL is good.

J: Do you communicate with them?

O: Yes of course. I communicate almost daily with brothers in ISIL to
settle these disputes and issues.”

“Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, who enabled us to conquer
the Menagh airbase.”

“I swear to Allah, O Alawites, we came to slaughter you.”

(6) ISIS fighters received new Humvees from US; but turned on their US
sponsors - Thierry Meyssan

From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@lorinna.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:30:36 +1000

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185132.html

The Grand Saudi Reversal

by Thierry Meyssan

[...] To take only the recent events in Iraq, everyone has observed that
EIS fighters entered the country in columns of brand new Humvees,
straight from US American Motors factories and armed with Ukrainian
materials, also new. With this equipment they seized the US weapons of
the Iraqi Army. Also, everyone was amazed that the EIS had civil
administrators instantly capable of taking over the management of the
conquered territories and communications specialists that promote its
activities on the Internet and on television; personnel obviously
trained at Fort Bragg.

Although US censorship has forbidden any review, we know from the
British news agency Reuters that, in January 2014, a secret session of
Congress voted financing and arming the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic
Front, and Al-Nosra Front of the Islamic Emirate until September 30,
2014 [1]. A few days later, Al-Arabiya boasted that Prince Abdul Rahman
was the real leader of the Islamic Emirate. [2] Then, on February 6, the
US Secretary of Homeland Security brought together major European
Interior Ministers in Poland asking them to maintain European jihadists
in the Levant by prohibiting their return to their countries of origin,
so the EIS would be numerous enough to attack Iraq. [3] Finally, in
mid-February, a two-day seminar at the US National Security Council was
attended by heads of allied secret services involved in Syria,
definitely to prepare the EIS offensive in Iraq. [4]

(Report of August 2012 on the alleged religious fanaticism of the
"democratic opposition")

It is extremely shocking to observe the international media suddenly
denounce the crimes of the jihadists even though they proceeded without
interruption for three years. There is nothing new in public butcheries
and crucifixions: for example, the Islamic Emirate of Baba Amr, in
February 2012, had established a "religious court" which condemned to
death by slaughtering more than 150 people without raising any Western
response nor at the United Nations [5]. In May 2013, the commander of
the Al-Farouk Brigade of the Free Syrian Army (the famous "moderate")
aired a video in which he cut a Syrian soldier and ate his heart. At the
time, the West continued to portray the jihadists as the "moderate
opposition", desperately fighting for "democracy". The BBC even gave the
floor to the cannibal in order that he justify himself.

There is no doubt that the difference established by Laurent Fabius
between "moderate" jihadists (the Free Syrian Army and the Frente
Al-Nosra-that is to say Al-Qaïda- until early 2013) and "extremist"
jihadists (the Al-Nosra Front from 2013 and the EIS) is a pure artifice
of communication. The case of Caliph Ibrahim is illuminating: in May
2013, during the visit of John McCain to the ASL, he was both a member
of the "moderate" staff and leader of the "extremist" faction [6].
Identically, a letter from General Salim Idriss, Chief of Staff of the
ASL, dated January 17, 2014, certified that France and Turkey were
delivering ammunition to the ASL (one third) and to Al Qaeda (two
thirds) via the ASL. Presented by the Syrian ambassador to the Security
Council, Bashar Jaafari, the authenticity of the document has not been
disputed by the French delegation. [7]

{photo}
John McCain and the chiefs of the Free Syrian Army. In the left
foreground, Ibrahim al-Badri, with which the Senator is talking. Next to
him, Brigadier General Salim Idris (with glasses).
{end photo}

That said, it is clear that the attitude of some NATO powers and GCC
changed in August 2014 to pass from secret support to massive and
ongoing support to outright hostility. Why?

The Brzezinki doctrine of jihadism

One must go back 35 years to understand the importance of the
transformation that Saudi Arabia-and perhaps the United States-are in
the process of undergoing. Since 1979, Washington, at the instigation of
the National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, decided to support
political Islam against Soviet influence, reviving the policy adopted in
Egypt to support the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser.

Brzezinski decided to launch a major "Islamic revolution" from
Afghanistan (then governed by the Communist regime of Muhammad Taraki)
and Iran (where he himself organized the return of Imam Ruhollah
Khomeini. Subsequently, this Islamic revolution was to spread throughout
the Arab world and take with them the nationalist movements associated
with the USSR.

The operation in Afghanistan was an unexpected success: the jihadists of
the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) [8] recruited Muslims and, led by
the anti-Communist billionaire Osama Bin Laden Brothers, launched a
terrorist campaign that led the government to appeal to the Soviets. The
Red Army entered Afghanistan and was bogged down there for five years,
accelerating the fall of the USSR.

The operation in Iran was rather a disaster: Brzezinski was amazed to
find that Khomeini was not the man he was told - an old Ayatollah trying
to recover his estates confiscated by the Shah -, but a genuine
anti-imperialist. Considering a little later that the word "Islamist"
held not at all the same meaning for all, he decided to distinguish good
Sunnis (collaborators) from the poor Shiites (anti-imperialist) and
entrust the management of the former to Saudi Arabia.

Finally, considering the renewal of the alliance between Washington and
Saud, President Carter announced, during his speech on the State of the
Union on January 23, 1980, that henceforth access to Gulf oil was a goal
related to US national security.

Since then, jihadists were tasked with all the low blows against the
Soviets (and Russians) and against nationalist or recalcitrant Arab
regimes. The period running from the accusation against the jihadists of
plotting and carrying out the attacks of Sept. 11 until the announcement
of the alleged death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan (2001-11)
complicated matters. The idea was both to deny any relationship with
jihadists and to use them as a pretext for interventions. Things have
returned to clarity in 2011 with the formal collaboration between the
jihadists and NATO in Libya and Syria. [...]

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “US Congress secretly approves arms deliveries to Syria”, Voltaire
Network, 30 January 2014.

[2] “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant led by Prince Abdul Rahman”,
Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 4 February 2014.

[3] “Syria now a "matter of homeland security" for US and EU”,
Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 10 February 2014.

[4] “U.S. coordinating secret war against Syria”, Voltaire Network, 21
February 2014.

[5] "The Burial Brigade of Homs: An Executioner for Syria’s Rebels Tells
His Story" by Ulrike Putz, Der Spiegel, 29 March 2012.

[6] “John McCain, Conductor of the "Arab Spring" and the Caliph”, by
Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18 August 2014.

[7] “Resolution 2165 and debates (humanitarian aid in Syria)”, Voltaire
Network, 14 July 2014.

[8] « La Ligue anti-communiste mondiale, une internationale du crime »,
par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 12 mai 2004.

[9] « Le grand mufti d’Égypte condamne l’État islamique en Irak », Radio
Vatican, 13 août.

[10] “How Al Qaeda men came to power in Libya”, by Thierry Meyssan,
Voltaire Network, 7 September 2011.

[11] « Déclaration du mufti du Royaume sur l’extrémisme », Agence de
presse saoudienne, 19 août 2014.

[12] « SAS and US special forces forming hunter killer unit to ’smash
Islamic State’ », by Aaron Sharp, The Sunday People (The Mirror), 23
August 2014.

(7) US and UK should back Assad to defeat ISIS - senior UK MP

http://rt.com/uk/182108-uk-assad-alliance-isis/

Published time: August 22, 2014 11:30
Edited time: August 22, 2014 15:14

The US and UK must work with Bashar Assad's Syrian regime if they are to
defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the chairman of
Britain's intelligence and security committee warns.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, one of the UK's most senior MPs, told the Financial
Times (FT) in an exclusive interview that the horrific murder of
American journalist, James Foley, highlights the urgent need to take
action against the extremist group Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL), whose swift rise to power in the Middle East has remained
largely unchecked by Western intervention.

While the militants have annexed vast swathes of territory in northern
Iraq, their central power base remains in Syria.

"ISIS need to be eliminated and we should not be squeamish about how we
do it," Rifkind told the FT on Friday.

Although he made it clear he does not support the Assad regime in
principle, Rifkind reluctantly emphasized that "sometimes you have to
develop relationships with people who are extremely nasty in order to
get rid of people who are even nastier."

Following a brutal civil war that has devastated and divided Syria while
providing a breeding ground for the Islamic State, the Assad regime has
faced isolation from myriad world powers.

Prior to Rifkind's interview, Western states expressed no willingness to
work with Damascus. On Wednesday, President Obama's deputy national
security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said Assad was "part of the problem."

Following the Ghouta chemical attack, which killed up to 1,729 people in
August 2013, Rifkind was one of most vocal members of Britain's
parliament calling for the UK to intervene against the regime. But as
the Islamic State continues to wage aggression in the Middle East, the
chairman has urged the US and Britain pursue a strategic shift.

"We have to deal with facts on the ground, not as we would want them to
be but as they are," he said, conceding the prospect of working with
Assad would be a deeply unsavory choice.

In an effort to justify his tactical proposal, Rifkind referenced the
manner in which allied states worked alongside Joseph Stalin during the
Second World War in pursuit of a greater good.

It's unthinkable that a military operation in Iraq, spearheaded by
America and its allies, can exist without some sort of "Syrian
dimension," Rifkind said. "For Syria to become an ISIS safe haven "“
that is ludicrous," he continued.

Working in tandem with Syria, throughout the duration of this military
operation, has almost become inevitable, the chairman concluded. [...]

Rifkind's proposal for a US-UK tactical shift with respect to Assad
follows Prime Minister David Cameron's recent announcement that Britain
must form a strategic alliance with Iran.

Emphasizing it was in Britain's national interest to cast aside
long-held antagonism with the Islamic Republic, Cameron urged Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani to assist the international community in
defeating the Islamic State.

The prime minister justified this move on the grounds of the grave need
to thwart the "shared threat" of fundamentalist Sunni militants in Syria
and Iraq who are endeavoring to cultivate "a terrorist state," the
boundaries of which could infiltrate "the shores of the Mediterranean."