RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "The Saudi mass beheadings on January 2 proved nothing new to a world that well knows Saudi Arabia is still a tribal police state with a moral code of medieval barbarity."

President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul Aziz stand during the arrival ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015. (photo: AP)
President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul Aziz stand during the arrival ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015. (photo: AP)


Saudi Arabia a Force for Stability? Dream On!

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

07 January 16

 

Enabling Saudi militancy is an irrational US policy

he Saudi mass beheadings on January 2 proved nothing new to a world that well knows Saudi Arabia is still a tribal police state with a moral code of medieval barbarity. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni-Muslim country that executes people for witchcraft, adultery, apostasy, and homosexuality (among other things). And the Saudi regime is perfectly willing to torture and kill a Shi’a-Muslim cleric for the crime of speaking truth to power, knowing that that judicial murder will inflame his followers and drive the region toward wider war. The Saudi provocation is as transparent as it is despicable, and yet the Saudis are held to no account, as usual. 

Yes, the predictable reaction in Iran included street protest and breaching the security of an annex to the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Protestors ransacked the annex and set it on fire. Police responded quickly, put out the fire, and arrested some 40 protestors. No Saudis were hurt or taken hostage. (This was not Iran taking US hostages in 1979, despite the ritually repeated echo of that event as the Times wrote falsely: “ransacked and set fire to the Saudi Embassy….”) As such things go, the annex attack was pretty much a non-event – but it was enough for diplomats and media to create a false equivalency, as if vandalizing an empty building carried the same moral weight as the ISIS-style execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr for nonviolent protest against a brutal dictatorship.

Hiding behind this false equivalency, governments around the world call for both sides to act with restraint, even though Iran has acted with restraint all along, while Saudi Arabia threw restraint to the winds from the start with the deliberate provocation of a political murder. Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong – ever – with both sides exercising restraint, it’s just a meaningless bromide as applied here, with a caution bordering on cowardice. These are, after all, the same people who mostly say nothing in opposition to the Saudi coalition’s brutally aggressive war against Yemeni fighters and civilians alike in daily violation of international humanitarian law. 

The speed with which Saudi Arabia seized on the embassy attack as a pretext for cutting off diplomatic relations suggests that this was a Saudi goal from the start. The diplomatic break also complicates (or even scuttles) this month’s peace talks that contemplated Saudi Arabia coming to the same table with Iran to discuss the wars in Syria and Iran. The Saudis are fighting in both wars. Iran has fighters with Iraqi and US forces fighting the Islamic state in Iraq, and Iraq has something like “advisors” supporting President Assad in Syria. The Saudis allege that Iran has troops in Yemen on the side of the Houthis there, but there is no persuasive evidence that this is true. Whatever the reality on the ground, any restraint on Iran resulting from the Saudi provocation would likely help the Saudis in their unrestrained wars, neither of which is going all that well. The Saudis unilaterally ended the ceasefire in Yemen, killing more civilians there the same day it beheaded 43 prisoners and shot four others at home.  

When does US complicity in Saudi violence come to an end? 

The long game for the Saudis – regional dominance – requires relative Iranian weakness. The sanction-enforced weakness forced on Iran in recent years is about to end as a result of the multinational nuclear agreement between Iran and most of the civilized world (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the US – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – plus Germany and the European Union). The return of Iran to the world community can only increase its challenge to Saudi regional hegemony. Whether this is good or bad for the rest of the world is arguable, but the current Western conventional thinking that Saudi Arabia is a force for stability in the region is pure fantasy. 

There is not a lot of moral high ground in the Middle East, where the most democratic nation is Israel, which treats its Palestinians worse (perhaps) than the Sunni dictatorship of Bahrain treats its Shi’a majority (with the blessing of the US 5th Fleet based there). When it comes to executing people, Iran and Saudi Arabia are #2 and #3 globally, behind China, and followed closely by Iraq, North Korea, and the US. 

In the midst of this moral quagmire, President Obama once again has an opportunity to actually earn that Nobel Peace Prize he received in 2009 in anticipation of his someday doing something to deserve it. He can act to contain and calm the nations of the Persian Gulf. Instead of relying on mealy-mouthed bromides from low-level State Department officials, the President of the United States could step up to defend his administration’s signal accomplishment to date, the multinational nuclear agreement with Iran, by telling the Saudis to behave like a mature nation and stop beheading clerics just to annoy the neighbors. 

The White House website has no searchable comment about recent Saudi actions. On January 4, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest commented on the mass beheadings with seemingly helpless plaintiveness more reflective of weakness than any kind of leadership:  

“And, you know, this is a concern that we raised with the Saudis in advance, and unfortunately, the concerns that we expressed to the Saudis have precipitated the kinds of consequences that we were concerned about.” 

Well, if the White House had been truly concerned about heading off mass executions, or even just heading off the beheading of Sheikh al-Nimr, the White House could have done any number of things to give the Saudis pause, something other than what it did, including approving another $1.2 billion in arms sales

US has the choice of not abetting Saudi war crimes in Yemen

Instead of weeping for American children already beyond his help, President Obama could act immediately to save still-living Yemeni children by withdrawing US support of the Saudi-led war on Yemen (carried out with weapons from the US and others). President Obama has been complicit in the Saudi criminal war since the US helped launch it in March 2015. The US could end its role in the naval blockade that keeps Yemenis from fleeing the war zone, a blockade that keeps food and other humanitarian aid from Yemeni children and adults alike, a blockade that enforces mass hunger and one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. For the US merely to abstain from its active role in crimes against humanity in Yemen would allow it to seize something like the moral high ground in a region where almost none exists. Pulling back from mindless support for one of the most depraved governments in the Middle East would seem, by contrast, like reaching a moral mountaintop. Why does the US support the Saudis anymore anyway, when the Saudis are most useful now for heating the world beyond habitation?  

The Saudis have demonstrated time and again that the US has no significant influence on Saudi Arabia. In 2001, when Saudis hit the World Trade Center, Saudi Arabia (with the connivance of President Bush) withdrew its people from the US before the FBI could have a word with any of them, even those who had had contact with the dead terrorists. Again and again, the US bows to Saudi pressure on issues large and small (with some magnificent exceptions like the multinational nuclear agreement with Iran). At some point the US should ask itself: if we have so little influence with Saudi Arabia, why should we let the Saudis make us look like their puppet? 

Saudi betrayals of trust and good will have a long history

There has been no doubt about Saudi duplicity at least since 1996, when the Khobar Towers bombing killed 19 Americans (wounding some 500) and the Saudis obstructed the FBI and other American investigators every step of the way, even though the Saudis knew from the start the identity of the Saudi terrorist who planned the attack. Even so, the US eventually indicted 14 people (13 Saudis and one Lebanese), but blamed it all on Iran. Iran denied any involvement, and also promised no further attacks. Having obstructed the investigation, after the indictment Saudi Arabia refused to extradite any of the suspects. According to Bruce Reidel, then a deputy assistant secretary of defense, at that time the Saudis were most worried about the US starting another Gulf War by attacking Iran and acted to avoid that escalation:

“In my meetings with senior Saudi officials in Dhahran in the days immediately after the attack, they pointed the blame at Saudi Hezbollah. It became clear the Saudis had a great deal of information on the group and had probably foiled an earlier bomb attack without telling Washington. The Saudis were certain it was not the work of Osama bin Laden. They knew Mughassil was the mastermind from the start.” 

Now, in 2016, President Obama asks in vain for the Saudis to join the peace talks on Syria, but authorizes billions of dollars of arms sales to Saudi Arabia to pursue its covert support for the Islamic State (ISIS) and its criminally brutal war on Yemen. And Secretary of State Kerry asks in vain for the Saudis to spare the life of a cleric whose crime is speaking truth to power, but Saudi Arabia cuts off his head along with 42 others, just to make a point. Saudi Arabia has long since broken with the US whenever it felt like it. Will the US finally get it this time that our Saudi ally is not only unreliable but is not an ally? 

The multinational nuclear agreement with Iran is, if it holds, an actual achievement worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet this President acts as if the Saudi kingdom of corruption and war is somehow more worthy of protection and support than a world with a diminished threat of nuclear war.   



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+25 # Radscal 2016-01-07 19:00
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly broken with the official US narrative. I see no reason to assume it has broken with actual US realpolitik policies.

If the US really wanted to investigate the Saudi connections to 9/11, then they wouldn't have expedited flying them out of the US, now would they have?

Especially in light of the official US narrative that Saudi Arabia obstructed the FBI investigation of earlier terrorist attacks, and refused to extradite suspects, it takes a willful blindness to believe the Bush Administration had any reason except protection of Saudis and covering up the multi-faceted shadow actors behind 9/11.

Bush's State Department also intervened to stop the FBI investigation of the many Israeli citizens arrested on 9/11 and the days immediately after. The Bush Administration forced the FBI to release those Israelis held, and once again, expedited their flights from the US.

These acts by the US are not "a failure of imagination" or "incompetence." They are deliberate actions to obscure the truth and protect the guilty.
 
 
+15 # jdd 2016-01-08 05:46
Obama must be forced to release the 28 pages of the 911 Joint Congressional Inquiry which expose the Saudi hand behind that atrocity. As the above article made clear, both he and Bush are complicit in the crimes being committed by that barbaric regime.
 
 
+5 # progressiveguy 2016-01-08 08:29
The goal of the Saudi's seems to be the same as the goal of the US in the Middle East, never ending war. Of course the Saudi's don't want the fighting in their country anymore than the US wants fighting in this country. Neither country minds the fact that most of the Middle East is destabilized. As long as the Saudi's keep the price of oil down the Obama administration will keep selling military equipment to them and also will refuse to release the 28 page report concerning the funding of the 9/11 attacks. Money talks, money rules. The innocent that die because of greed are not talked about very often. It's as if they don't exist.
 
 
+6 # jdd 2016-01-08 09:52
It is not simply oil. Iran has oil, Syria has oil, Iraq had oil, Libya had oil, and Russia is the world's largest oil exporter. But all are labeled "enemies," whereas the Saudis are creations of British imperialism. It goes to geopolitics and the Anglo-American intention to isolate and weaken Russia and now China at all costs.
 
 
+5 # sashapyle 2016-01-08 11:16
Am I right that it has been many decades--back to the Korean War perhaps--since our armed forces have not faced American-design ed, American-made weapons in every single conflict? We arm those we will soon fight against, and we do it over and over again. This serves only the weapons manufacturers and traders as they pander to all sides in a never-ending arms race. They lobby to keep it that way.
And we just sold another whopping big batch of weapons to the Saudis, who rival China as proof that capitalism does NOT bring democracy (the cherished myth of neocons everywhere)...O ur Presidents KISS the ring of Saudi royalty (as many photos document). These corrupt, woman-hating monopolists who hide behind theocracy aren't fit to do business with and we should get off of their oil so we can stop kissing their ring of power.
Pope Francis just said any man who calls himself a Christian while profiting from weapons is a hypocrite, a view I would like to see become more widespread.
 
 
+8 # wrknight 2016-01-08 08:50
A force for stability? Of course they are. Just like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad and all the other brutal dictators in that part of the world. They maintain stability (which means that 1% have it all and 99% share the rest) by brute force.

The real question is why the neocons and liberal interventionist s favor some of these despots over others. I can only surmise that it has to do with how those dictators allow their countries to be exploited by U.S. corporate interests.
 
 
+5 # jdd 2016-01-08 09:55
See my reply post. It is geopolitics, not simply money. Iran will soon free up $100 billion in assets previously frozen. While German and other corps are lining up the contracts, the US sits by, just as Obama remains silent on the Saudi war crimes.
 
 
+4 # Robbee 2016-01-08 09:33
"medieval barbarity", anyone?

except in a war of self-defense, states have no business killing anyone!

how are beheading, hanging, or firing squad less barbarous than lethal injection?

i deem the whole premise of this story medieval!
 
 
-1 # WBoardman 2016-01-09 11:43
What – in his own words – does Robbee think
IS "the whole premise of this story"?

Once Robbee says what he thinks that is,
can he explain how he deems it "medieval"?

If Robbee has no coherent answers to these questions,
the comment is just a drive-by shouting... ;-)))
 
 
+5 # Kootenay Coyote 2016-01-08 09:49
Oil. Oil. Oil.
 
 
+3 # cmp 2016-01-08 10:44
Are the Utopian tools of the 20th century over? .. Or, do they just have growing pains?

The world’s first Peace Conference took place in 1899 and the modern foundations of The Hague were established for an International City of Peace and Justice. But, in the midst of technological/ population explosions, etc., we didn’t do very well at settling all of the disputes in a very civilized manner. .. In fact, you may say, it turned out to be, the century of centuries for grandstanding, “justifiable” murder.

After WW-II, we established the GATT, the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations and NATO. These institutions were Sold as the path to Peace and Global Prosperity. .. But, they have always appeared to look more like the yellow brick road - for the Man Behind the Curtain.

.. (.. and yes, Frank Morgan, he too - played 5 roles – ‘Professor Marvel’ the carnival huckster, the Gatekeeper of the Emerald City, the coachman of the carriage drawn by ‘The Horse of a Different Color’, the Guard who refuses entry - and the Wizard himself ..)

Can we still believe in the 20th century tools of the “Real Estate?” Can we see beyond their abuses and their terrible mistakes? How long will it take to drag Oz from out behind his curtain?
.. And, When We Do - what do we do with Frank?
 
 
+3 # logical1 2016-01-08 13:18
It is a bout time someone iterated the truth about our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U S has protected The Saudis on every front.
We have the ability to let them fend for themselves. This should be the threat we use to get them to stop their duplicity.
If the Saudi regime continues its abuses,
we can pull our forces and support from their country and let the mid east chips fall as they may.
Our corporate greed out of Saudi Arabia and they stand to lose everything. The leaders likely be overthrown and the country taken over.
The Saudi government knows this but relies on American corporate greed to keep us there.
We need to be bold and act strong and morally.
Strength is not in fighting wars, it is in taking leadership and responsible action.
 
 
+1 # futhark 2016-01-09 11:44
A lesson that history attempts to teach us year after year, decade after decade, and century after century is that authoritarian regimes, be they absolute monarchies or fascist dictatorships, are inherently unstable. This is so because they adhere to inflexible ideologies that cannot adapt policy to changing circumstances and they exclude people from policy formation who could contribute to adaptive change. This exclusion leads to frustration, alienation, revolt, civil war, and chaos, often ending in the establishment of another totalitarian regime, renewing a cycle of barbarism, violence, and inhumanity.

If the foreign policy of the United States had any ethical basis, it would work toward encouraging the Saudis to liberalize their domestic policies instead of putting a virtual stamp of approval on the injustices and murders committed by their monarchy.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN