Saudi Arabia, owned by the Saud family, are telling the U.S. Government, they’ll wreck the U.S. economy, if a bill in the U.S. Congress that would remove the unique and exclusive immunity the royal owners of that country enjoy in the United States, against their being prosecuted for their having financed the 9/11 attacks, passes in Congress, and becomes U.S. law.

As has been well documented even in sworn U.S. court testimony, and as even the pro-Saudi former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged privately, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” She didn’t name any of those “donors” names, but the former bagman for Osama bin Laden, who had personally collected all of the million-dollar+ donations (all in cash) to Al-Qaeda, did, and he named all of the senior Saud princes and their major business-associates; and, he said, “without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing.” So, both before 9/11, and (according to Hillary Clinton) since, those were the people who were paying virtually all of the salaries of the 19 hijackers — even of the four who weren’t Saudi citizens. Here’s that part of the bagman’s testimony about how crucial those donations were:

Q: To clarify, you’re saying that the al-Qaeda members received salaries?

A: They do, absolutely.

So: being a jihadist isn’t merely a calling; it’s also a job, as is the case for the average mercenary (for whom it doesn’t also have to be a calling). The payoff for that job, during the jihadist’s life, is the pay. The bagman explained that the Saud family’s royals pay well for this service to their fundamentalist-Sunni faith. Another lifetime-payoff to the jihadists is that, in their fundamentalist-Sunni culture, the killing of ‘infidels’ is a holy duty, and they die as martyrs. Thus, the jihadist’s payoff in the (mythological) afterlife is plenty of virgins to deflower etc. But, the payers (the people who organize it, and who make it all possible) are the Saud family princes, and their business associates — and, in the case of the other jihadist organizations, is also those other Arabic royal families (the owners of Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman). However, 9/11 was virtually entirely a Saudi affair, according to Al-Qaeda’s bagman (who ought to know).

The report of the threat by the Saud family comes in veiled form in an April 15th news-story in The New York Times, headlined, “Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill.” It says that the Saud family’s Foreign Minister is “telling [U.S.] lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in [U.S.] treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.” The NYT says that this threat is nothing to take seriously, “But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.” While the carrying-out of this threat would be extremely damaging to the Saud family, the NYT ignores the size of the threat to the Sauds if their 9/11 immunity were removed — which could be far bigger. Consequently, this matter is actually quite a bit more than just “another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

Russian Television is more direct here: “Saudi Arabia appears to be blackmailing the US, saying it would sell off American assets worth a 12-digit figure sum in dollars if Congress passes a bill allowing the Saudi Government to be held responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.” (The Saudi Government is owned by the Saud family; so, even that statement is actually a veiled way of referring to the possibility that members of the royal Saud family — the individuals name by the bagman — could be held responsible for 9/11.)

Even immediately in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there had been some mentions in the U.S. press of the U.S. Government making special allowances for Saud Prince Bandar al-Saud, a close friend of the Bush family (and he was also one of the Saudi Princes mentioned specifically by the bagman), to fly out of the country to avoid being sought by prosecutors. Furthermore, Newsweek’s investigative journalist, Michael Isikoff, headlined on 12 January 2001, “The Saudi Money Trail”, and he reported statements from royal Sauds, that they didn’t really mean for their donations to be going to such a thing as this. (Perhaps those individuals didn’t, but Bandar almost certainly did, because he was the Saud Ambassador to the U.S. at the time of 9/11.) However, now that the U.S. Government is relying heavily upon Saudi money to pay for the U.S. weapons and to help to organize the operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria and to replace him with a fundamentalist-Sunni leader, there is renewed political pressure in the United States (from the victim-families, if no one else), for the arch-criminals behind the 9/11 attacks to be brought to American justice. After fifteen years, this process might finally start. That would be a drastic change.

Clearly, the threat from the Sauds is real, and the royal response to this bill in the U.S. Congress reflects a very great fear the owners of Saudi Arabia have, regarding the possible removal of their U.S. immunity, after 15 years.

Prosecution of those people will become gradually impossible as they die off. But a lot more time will be needed in order for all of the major funders of that attack to die natural deaths and thus become immune for a natural reason — the immunity of the grave. The U.S. Government has protected them for 15 years; but, perhaps, not forever.

To say that this threat from the Sauds is just “another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States” seems like saying that a neighbor’s threat to bomb your house would constitute just “another sign of escalating tensions” between you and your neighbor. The passing-into-law of this bill in Congress would actually constitute a change from the U.S. Government being a friend and partner of the Sauds, to becoming their enemy.

Obviously, there is little likelihood of that happening; and, on April 20^th and 21st, U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with Saudi King Salman al-Saud. Without a doubt, this topic will be on the agenda, if it won’t constitute the agenda (which is allegedly to improve U.S. relations “with Arab leaders of Persian Gulf nations” — not specifically with Saudi King Salman and with his son Prince Salman).

If President Obama represents the American public, then the Sauds will have real reason to fear: the U.S. President will not seek to block passage of that bill in Congress. However, if the U.S. President represents instead the Saud family, then a deal will be reached. Whether or not the U.S. Congress will go along with it, might be another matter, but it would be highly likely, considering that the present situation has already been going on for fifteen years, and that the high-priority U.S. Government foreign-policy objective, of overthrowing Bashar al-Assad, is also at stake here, and is also strongly shared not only by the Sauds but by the members of the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, the impunity of the Saud family is taken simply as a given in Washington. And, the U.S. Government’s siding with the Sauds in their war against Shia Muslims (not only against one Shiite: Assad) goes back at least as far as 1979. (Indeed, the CIA drew up the plan in 1957 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist Government, but it stood unused until President Obama came into office.)

Furthermore, the U.S. Government is far more aggressive to overthrow Russia-friendly national leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych, than it is to stop the spread of fundamentalist Sunni groups, such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.; and, a strong voice for U.S. foreign policy, the Polish Government, even said, on April 15th, that as AFP headlined that day, “Russia ‘more dangerous than Islamic State’, warns Poland foreign minister”; and Russia itself is, along with Shiite Iran, the top competitor against the fundamentalist Sunni Arab royal families in global oil-and-gas export markets. So, clearly, the U.S. Government is tightly bound to the Saud family. Terrorism in Europe and America is only a secondary foreign-policy concern to America’s leaders; and the Saud family are crucial allies with the U.S. Government in regards to what are, jointly, the top concerns of both Governments.

Consequently, there is widespread expectation that some sort of deal will be reached between U.S. President Barack Obama and the Saudi leaders, King and Prince Salman, and that the Republican-led Congress will rubber-stamp it, rather than pass the proposed bill to strip the Saud family’s immunity.

rinf.com

More interesting than the article, perhaps, were the over 80 reader-comments responding to it at Reddit, best summarized by one that said, «Being friendly with a regional power outweighs the strategic concerns of Syria and Islamic terrorism for the most part».

The predominant framework of those reddits was that of idealism-versus-pragmatism: it’s expressed by the adage «They might be bastards, but they’re our bastards».

However, the Arab leader whom the US Government declares to be our enemy is Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and the Obama Administration had long been bombing his military forces which are fighting against ISIS and other jihadist groups, many of which are actually being backed by America’s ‘allies’: Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Why does the US invade Syria to remove Assad, while arming the Saudi regime that funds jihadists?

The Reddit readers didn’t consider such realistic and vital questions as this, concerning US foreign policymaking, but only the bumper-sticker ‘issues’ such as idealism versus pragmatism. Those philosophical categories exist in order to fool people, not to assist them in understanding problems as they actually are.

The actual issue here is the American government’s effort to overthrow or kill national leaders who are allied with Russia, such as were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, and Bashar al-Assad in Syria. This «regime change» thrust has nothing to do with «idealism». That’s merely a George-W.-Bush-&-Barack-Obama regime lie. Nor does it concern «pragmatism». It concerns instead a global war between aristocracies: The American aristocracy is trying to control or conquer Russia’s aristocracy; and, whereas America’s allied aristocracies in Europe and in the Arabic oil kingdoms and Turkey support regime-change in Syria, Russia’s allied aristocracies in Iran and China don’t.

By falsely framing issues, America’s propaganda-media (which those media instead call ‘news’ media) deceive the public (such as the commenters at Reddit) to think that America’s government is on the ‘right’ side, or maybe even ‘idealistic’, and that Russia’s government is on the ‘wrong side’, or perhaps ‘pragmatic’, even where Russia is insisting upon a democratic determination by the citizens of Syria to elect their own President, whereas America insists upon simply overthrowing the existing President and replacing him by someone who is acceptable to the American government.

US Secretary of State John Kerry subsequently yielded to international pressure for the US to support democracy instead of a military overthrow. But King Saud refused to go along with that and continues to insist upon overthrow. And, then, on January 25th, Kerry backed King Saud’s insistence upon overthrow as a prerequisite to any Syrian election. Kerry and Saud now were united on favoring an ‘interim’ government to be imposed by ‘peace talks’ before any election in Syria.

However, King Saud insisted that the anti-Assad side be led by two Sunni jihadists selected by Saud himself (actually by his son, Prince Salman al-Saud, who really runs the country). The Assad government and Russia rejected that demand. The idea of «peace talks» is in limbo until February 25th, when the two sides are supposed to come to some kind of agreement on this – which is extremely unlikely.

Basically, the «peace talks» idea is dead, and Syria continues to be invaded by the US-Saud-Turkey-Qatar-UAE alliance, which wants to impose an extremist Sunni jihadist government in the country, to replace the existing non-sectarian but Shiite-led secular Assad government, and Syria continues to be defended by the Syrian army and Russia and Iran.

Regarding the question that had been posed by «The Great Debate: Is it time for the United States to dump Saudi Arabia?» the reality is that the US is allied with fundamentalist Sunni jihadist Arab royal families, which are being led by King Saud.

What that question really comes down to then, basically doesn’t concern Assad, but only King Saud and his tyranny and the tyrannies of his royal allies whom the US government likewise supports and endorses.

‘We’ are propping up jihadists: fundamentalist Sunni terrorists who want to take over Syria before they get on to taking over the rest of the world (including us). The American government is against the American public, but for King Saud.

The Obama regime has identified Russia as being America’s top enemy. This is what remains now of American ‘idealism’.

None of the US Presidential contenders is talking about this scandal of a traitorous government, because the ‘news’ media might attack such a candidate by calling him ‘pro-Russian’.

The ghost of the fascist demagogue Joseph R. McCarthy is still politically powerful in the US, even 25 years after the USSR and Russian communism ended in 1991. That fascist ghost haunts not only America’s politics but America’s press. Some of America’s Presidential candidates (such as John Kasich and Hillary Clinton) embrace Joe McCarthy’s ghost, but others (such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders) are ambiguous about it. (None of the candidates condemns it as being rabidly inappropriate to guide today’s US foreign policies – which it is. That would be risky in today’s America, fascist America.)

Anyone who would discuss such matters in such terms as ‘idealism’ versus ‘pragmatism’, is spouting obscurantist propaganda, not facts nor even any real analysis of facts. The issue here is instead democracy versus fascism.

Americans accept Saudi royals as friends of America, because they don’t know that they’re reading and watching propaganda not news, and because that propaganda is produced by an alliance of American and jihadist aristocrats: US aristocrats and fundamentalist Sunni Arab royals.

That’s the reality. And, yes, it is «time for the United States to dump Saudi Arabia». But the US aristocracy own the US ‘news’ media, and they hug Joe McCarthy’s ghost – and hug the jihadist royal families, the ones who are funding Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc., which the Arab side of the US-Saudi alliance hope to turn overtly against «the West» after they and «the West» have first conquered Russia.

First comes the mind-control; then comes the land-control. And the mind-control is by now pretty much complete, which is why the real issue here isn’t even being debated in American political campaigns, in America’s 'democracy'.

Karim Khakimov, a well-known Soviet diplomat, an orientalist and expert on the Middle East, became the first ambassador to Saudi Arabia to greatly contribute into development of relations, reaching mutual understanding and learning each other’s history and traditions. 

Today Saudi Arabia is a leading regional power. The Kingdom acts as the spiritual leader of Muslim world hosting the two main holy sites – Mecca and Medina that played an important role in the life of Prophet Muhammad. The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, and a mandatory religious duty for believers that must be carried out at least once in their lifetime by all adult Muslims who are physically and financially capable of undertaking the journey, and can support their family during their absence. It is a pillar of Islam. The gathering during Hajj is considered the largest annual gathering of people in the world. 

The Kingdom is the largest member of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the seven Arab states which border the Persian Gulf, namely Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. All of these nations (with the exception of Iraq) are part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for the Arab States of the Gulf. The countries coordinate their activities in many areas. The Peninsula Shield Force (or Peninsula Shield) is the military side of the Cooperation Council intended to deter, and respond to, military aggression against any of the GCC member states. The rich in oil Saudi Kingdom is a leading member of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The profits received from oil exports allow Saudi Arabia to boost its economic, social and education infrastructure, as well as invest abroad, including the developed states of the West.

Salman was crowned as the new king of Saudi Arabia on 23 January 2015 following the death of his half-brother, King Abdullah. In April 2015 King Salman appointed a nephew as new heir-presumptive and made his young son second in line to rule. By making Interior Minister Mohammed bin Nayef, 55, crown prince and Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman, 30, deputy crown prince, King Salman has effectively decided the line of succession for decades to come in the world's top oil exporter. The announcement means the kingship will pass to a new generation for the first time since 1953, when the throne passed from the founder of the dynasty, King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, to the first of six of his sons who have held it since. Almost all powers under the king are now concentrated in the hands of the pair.

The reform was timely. The old system gave rise to a host of problems and social upheavals. Like other Arab states, the Kingdom also has problems (perhaps, not as acute as in other Arab countries, but still pressing enough) which could potentially provoke Arab Spring-type of upheavals that shook the Middle East in 2011-2012. Thus the incumbent ruler gave younger heirs a chance while preserving the succession to the throne. Time will tell if the system works. There is competition between groups inside the royal family, though it never comes to grips.

King Salman has also introduced changes in the government structure. Muqrin bin Abdulaziz (born 15 September 1945), the 35th and the youngest surviving son of King Abdulaziz, the founder of dynasty, was replaced as crown prince. The new crown prince, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, is the first of his generation to be thrust into the highest echelons of government, will continue to act as interior minister but will also play the role of deputy prime minister as crown prince. His age means he is likely to be a hugely important role for decades to come in Saudi Arabia, and makes him the most likely to be the next king. Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is overseeing the Saudi air strikes in Yemen, will remain defence minister as he takes on the title of deputy crown prince. He also heads a massive council that oversees all economic and development issues. In another big shift, Salman replaced veteran Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, who had served in the role since October 1975, with the kingdom's Washington ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, the first non-royal to hold the post. 

The replacement of the veteran foreign minister by a younger non-royal, who is currently the Saudi ambassador to the US and a long-time Washington insider, strengthens the sense of generational change. The most senior woman in government, Nora al-Fayez, was sacked from her post as deputy education minister for girls, the decree said. Shunned by ultraconservatives, she was strongly pushing to try to get physical education on the curriculum for girls in Saudi public schools.

The reform of succession and shifts in the government should not be viewed as drastic change of policy. Giving a chance to younger generation has been a burning issue since a long time ago. The new assignments, especially appointing the new foreign chief, prove that the main guidelines of policy remain unchanged.

The decision of new Saudi leadership to develop the relations with Russia can go beyond the bilateral relationship changing the situation in the Middle and Near East, or even influencing the global trends. The relations had been developing smoothly till the Syrian crisis on which the Russia’s and the Saudi Kingdom’s positions differ. The relations were negatively affected by Kingdom’s 2011 intervention in Bahrain to quell the Shia uprising and the air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. No matter differences on regional conflicts, Saudi Arabia has made attempts to improve the ties. Saudi delegations have visited Russia recently. The guests from Saudi Arabia told Russian RIA Novosti agency that, no matter how different their stances on Syria are, the both parties could boost mutually beneficial cooperation following the pattern of Russia and Turkey relationship.

There are reasons behind the Saudi Arabia’s aspiration to spur the development of bilateral cooperation. First, Russia has recently returned its place among leading world powers. It has significant global clout– a factor to reckon with when it comes to addressing regional problems. Second, Saudi Arabia followed the policy imposed by the United States supporting the armed radicals, like the ones confronting the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria. The policy has resulted in emergence of extremist Islamic State posing a threat to the security of Saudi Arabia. 

The same thing has happened in Yemen. The coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia launched an air campaign against the Houthis under the pretext of defending the government of toppled Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The Houthis are supported by the majority of population, as well as Iran. Condemned internationally, the air bombardments led to great death toll among civilians and brought about no positive results. Saudi Arabia failed to quell the Houthis uprising. The Yemeni Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) also poses a threat to Saudi Arabia. The US-led policy has failed to effectively address the security threats. Common sense made Saudi Arabia offer a five-day cease-fire to the Houthis in May, so that the humanitarian problems could be tackled while the Houthis and the representatives of the overthrown President started talks in Geneva with the United Nations as intermediary. The talks led to no results.

Saudi Arabia appears to review its pro-US policy switching to multi-dimensional political course, including cooperation with Russia. What is especially important – Russia could be an intermediary in the process of improving the Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran. Iran has stated on a number of occasions that it was ready to meet Saudi Arabia halfway.

The Kingdom’s intent to improve the relations was confirmed during the June 2015 visit to Russia of delegation led by Saudi Arabian Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman. He was met by President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of 2015 St. Petersburg’s International Economic Forum. The Saudi delegation included deputy head of the Saudi Arabian Navy, Admiral Ibrahim Nasir. Visiting the Army-2015 'Military Supermarket' he said that his country is interested in Russian ships, particularly the new Steregushchy-class corvette. «Yes, we are interested, that's why we are here, and we are not only talking about the navy. We are interested in frigates, corvettes and guard ships. It's too early to compare prices, evaluate logistic and then we can make actual decisions», the Admiral said. 

Bilateral economic cooperation, the situation in the Middle East, including the conflict in Syria and the threat posed by the Islamic State, hit the agenda of President Putin’s talks with Prince Mohammad bin Salman. The visit by top Saudi official could be seen as a kind of a demarche against the United States, the country which ignored the St. Petersburg’s forum and insists that anti-Russian sanctions should remain in force.

Russia is also interested in developing relations with Saudi Arabia. First, Saudi Arabia is one of leading Arab states along with Egypt and Algeria. The rapprochement will increase Russia’s clout in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as bolster its international influence. Second, Saudi Arabia has vast financial resources. The relationship may bring in significant investments into Russian economy. Third, getting closer is a logical step on the part of both sides in view of common threat – the Islamic State. 

Saudi Arabia may review its stance on some Middle Easy issues. With Russia acting as a go-between, it can improve ties with Syria and Iran – the countries also threatened by Islamic State. As the recent events have shown, the groups supported by Saudi Arabia, like, for instance, al-Nusra Front fighting the government of Bashar Assad in Syria, side with the Islamic State. They can hardly be considered as Saudi Arabia’s friends.

Finally, by strengthening economic and military cooperation with Arab states Russia could strengthen its position while standing up to pressure and the sanctions imposed by the West. There is no prospect for the improvement of Russia-West relations in sight.

Faisal, a moderate domestic reformer who appointed non-Wahhabi Sunni minority Shi’a and Ismaili Muslims to the Saudi government, held the foreign minister portfolio. King Khalid, Faisal’s successor, appointed Prince Saud as foreign minister. The post-Faisal government reversed course on the inclusion of non-Wahhabis in Saudi society and Prince Saud’s policy was to back the United States in a variety of schemes involving the most radical elements of Islam, from arming the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the Soviet military foray into that country to supporting Al Qaeda-affiliated insurgents in Pakistan. Saud also ensured Saudi support for pro-Wahhabi rebels from crisis zones extending from North Africa to Chechnya to Southeast Asia.

Abdulaziz is representing Saudi Arabia at the NATO-maligned Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in Tehran scheduled for August 30-31. Abdulaziz’s presence in Tehran is in direct contravention of the wishes of Saudi Arabia’s NATO allies coordinating the largely Saudi- and Qatari-financed insurgency against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Saudis had also supported the NATO-backed rebels in Libya who overthrew and assassinated Muammar Qaddafi.

The United States, Israel, and the European Union tried, but failed, to persuade world leaders to boycott the Tehran conclave. 

The ascension of Abdulaziz, an expert on Syrian and Lebanese affairs in the Saudi foreign affairs hierarchy, may or may not portend a change in Saudi Arabia’s strong alignment with the interests of the United States and, by default, Israel, in the Middle East. Just a few months ago, Abdulaziz was in Paris at a meeting of supporters of the Friends of Syria, the Western and Gulf Arab contrivance created to marshal international support for the Syrian rebel movement.

Saudis like Abdulaziz may be sensing an international shift from unipolar global geopolitics dominated since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact by the United States. The NAM summit includes a number of emerging economic power houses that are clearly thumbing their noses at dictates from Washington, Jerusalem, London, and Brussels about isolating the Iranian government. The Saudi de facto acting foreign minister will be rubbing shoulders in Tehran with not only Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had just attended the Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit in Mecca at the invitation of Saudi King Abdullah, but Syria’s Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who representing the government in Damascus that Saudi Arabia is trying to overthrow. 

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) quoted Ahmadinejad as telling his Saudi hosts in Mecca, “A significant portion of the energy of Muslim governments and groups is spent in internal conflicts and damaging each other . . . Perhaps it would be good for Muslim countries to consult with each other on this issue.” Ahmadinejad’s words may have had some effect on the Saudi leadership. Abdulaziz reciprocated Ahmadinejad’s visit by accepting Iran’s invitation to the NAM summit in Tehran.

Abdulaziz, unlike Prince Saud, who has, as the longest serving foreign minister, may be facing a new global reality. Nations opposed to U.S. and NATO hegemony are establishing new global and regional alliance that include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Asia; the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) in Latin America and the Caribbean’ and the Brazil (represented in Tehran by its Vice President)-Russia-India-China-South Africa (represented in Tehran by its Foreign Minister) (BRICS) economic group. The attempt by Iran, India, and South Africa, among other nations, to breathe new life into the NAM is a recognition by these nations that the world is transitioning into a multipolar reality in which Russia, China, and India are playing greater roles. 

In addition, the Organization of Islamic Conference, which also is gaining in international importance, will soon have one of Abdulaziz’s foreign ministry subordinates, Nazar Madani, as its new Secretary General. For Saudi Arabia, its real and perceived links to the United States and Israel are becoming an uncomfortable liability.

During the Cold War, the NAM, the brainchild of such anti-imperialist nationalist leaders as Sukarno of Indonesia, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Josip Tito of Yugoslavia, and Jawaharlal Nehru of India, was seen as a counter-balance between the West and Soviet blocs. After the end of the Cold War, NAM became largely irrelevant. However, as can be seen with the attendance of world leaders in Tehran, the dictates from the West and the neo-conservatives fell on deaf ears. The message was heard loud and clear in the royal palaces of the Gulf states. Joining Saudi Arabia’s Abdulaziz in Tehran were the Emirs of Qatar and Kuwait, the Sultan of Oman, and the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain

Saudi Arabia has been stung by criticism by other Islamic nations, as well as non-aligned countries, for its consistent policies of always supporting the United States and Israel on issues ranging from Western intervention in Iraq, Libya, and Syria to propping up the royalist regime in Bahrain. More and more news outlets in the Middle East and Islamic world are carrying reports that the House of Saud is descendant from a Jewish merchant family that once lived in what is now Kuwait several centuries ago. King Faisal, who likely was also irritated by such rumors, always made it a point of presenting to visiting heads of state a beautifully-bound copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a reputed false history of Zionism written by the Russian Czarist secret police.

NAM members represent 14 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, something that is not lost on the petroleum and natural gas exporting Saudis. Saudi Arabia is also keenly aware that China attended the Tehran summit as an observer and Russia as a special guest. Even United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who weathered a barrage of criticism from the neo-conservative power centers in the West, is attending the Tehran summit. Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said of the NAM summit, “This conference will doubtless be exploited by the Iranian regime for propaganda purposes and will try to create the impression of legitimacy for its policies.” Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed had a good response for the United States and Israel when he said, “Certain NAM states too have upheld sanctions against Iran which is a totally unwise move because the sanctions are not on the part of the UN, rather unilaterally leveled by the U.S. The U.S. can issue any sort of sanctions it wants against Iran but there is no reason other countries to follow suit.” It was clear that Mahathir had the Saudis and their Gulf allies in mind when he made his statement.

There were attempts by the neo-conservative oligarchy in Washington, represented notably by Robert Kagan of the elitist Brookings Institution and his State Department spokesperson wife Victoria Nuland, to convince Ban, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, and other recipients of U.S. aid to boycott Tehran. 

Nevertheless, present in Tehran will be a collection of leaders propped up with U.S. support: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zaradari, Moroccan Prime Minister Abdelillah Benkirane, Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdul Aziz, Philippines Vice President Jejomar Binay, Senegalese President Macky Sall, Benin President Yayi Boni, and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Saudi Prince Abdulaziz is likely more adept than the ailing Saudi foreign minister at sensing the shifting sands of geo-politics in the Middle East. Saudi foreign policy may also shift with these prevailing political winds.