Tuesday 13 July 2004

Michael Moore, Richard Perle Join Forces

"Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. … Any Muslim who is aware of his teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Qur'an and the Sunn'ah will never involve himself in such acts because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth." Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulema, Sheikh 'Abdul-'Aziz Âlush, Sept. 15, 2001

Richard Perle - Evil Incarnate Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11 has done a tremendous favor for proponents of a war on the Arabian Peninsula. The film achieves what endless pages of conservative think-tank studies, panel discussions, PR and books have not: it spills gasoline on the anti-Saudi sparks in the United States. Moore's film lambastes the Saudis not only for their business relationships, but also for leaving the U.S. after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (as did other non-Saudi officials that day). The overwhelming popularity of this documentary takes the anti-Saudi message to a whole new market. It is the latest rationale for a long-term plan to invade and occupy the Kingdom. In spite of its progressive producer and target audience, Fahrenheit 9/11 falls in lockstep with the agenda of neoconservative hawks: rid Arabia of the House of Saud, thereby granting the U.S. and allies full access to the Middle East's biggest prize.

There is a growing belief on the part of members Congress, diplomats, and the American public that the Bush administration is executing a "turnaround" in U.S. policy toward the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of neoconservative and interest group pressure. Those opposed to the current administration accuse the White House of maintaining ties to an enemy of America in exchange for lucrative business deals. In contrast, those who support ties with Saudi Arabia maintain that the U.S. has no intention of severing relations with a regional stabilizing force and with long term friends in the House of Saud. Who is correct?


The U.S. has not had wholly "friendly" intentions toward the Kingdom for the past 30 years. Any appearance of such is only the visible veneer of real U.S. military policy. Declassified documents reveal that there has been a constant drumbeat behind closed doors to invade Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon has, for three decades, formulated and updated secret plans to seize Saudi oil wells and rid the Kingdom of the ruling House of Saud. This is not only a neoconservative cabal. Time and again, plans have been made for an invasion of Saudi Arabia for a larger purpose: U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil, with all the political power that would entail.

The most recent wave of charges that Saudi Arabia supports and/or condones terrorism signifies a secondary and more public attempt to gain support for a thirty-year-old plan to occupy Saudi Arabia. Other regional players' objectives (such as "securing" oil supplies, or "fighting terror") may create an unstoppable impetus for an American invasion.

In 1973, the Nixon administration described a plan of attack against Saudi Arabia to seize its oil fields in a classified Joint Intelligence Report entitled "UK Eyes Alpha." British MI5 and MI6 were informed, and under British National Archive rules, the document was declassified in Dec. 2003. The oil embargo had been over for only three weeks but "Eyes Alpha" suggested that the "U.S. could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for themselves and their allies by taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf State of Abu Dhabi." It followed that "preemptive" action would be considered, and that two brigades could seize the Saudi oilfields and one brigade each could take Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

In Feb. 1975 the London Sunday Times revealed information from a leaked and classified U.S. Department of Defense plan. The plan was code-named "Dhahran Option Four" and provided for an invasion of the world's largest oil reserves, namely Saudi Arabia. (See exhibit #1)

Also in 1975, Robert Tucker, U.S. intelligence and military analyst, wrote an article for Commentary magazine, owned by the Jewish American Committee, entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention." Tucker stated that, "Without intervention there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing … resemblance to the disaster of 1930s. …The Arab shoreline of the Gulf is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." And this was followed in February of the same year by an article in Harper's magazine by a Pentagon analyst using a pseudonym, Miles Ignotus, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to seize Saudi oilfields, installations and airports, entitled "Seizing Arab Oil." According to James Akins, former U.S. diplomat, the author was probably Henry Kissinger, secretary of state at the time. Kissinger has neither confirmed nor denied the charge.

Further, in Aug. 1975, a report entitled, "Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study," was produced for the Committee on Foreign Relations. This report stated that potential targets for the U.S. included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria. "Analysis indicates … [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed."

Full story...