Among the physical and economic catastrophes of this summer — such as the bridge collapse in Minnesota, the economy’s reaction to the sub-prime lenders failures and the horrifying mine story unfolding in Utah — there was another catastrophe, this one the product of the Bush administration.
Near the end of July, senior administration officials told the New York Times about a proposed $20 billion arms package deal with Saudi Arabia, which would include advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels.
In one sentence, the United States will be supplying one of the most unstable and malicious monarchies in the world with enough weapons to make Stalin blush.
The Bush administration has always contended that Saudi Arabia is one of our staunchest allies in the Middle East, but even King Abdullah has said otherwise. During a speech last April at an Arab League Summit, King Abdullah referred to the American invasion of Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation.” On that, the King and I agree, but I also must admit that rhetoric such as that does not imply agreement on the situation in Iraq.
While the House of Saud, the ruling family, is a firm friend of the United States because we fuel its economy, a large portion of the Saudi population thinks otherwise. Remember, at the risk of stereotyping, that 15 of the original 19 attackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden.
Many terrorists besides bin Laden call Saudi Arabia home. Saudi Arabia alone houses the fundamentalist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood — the Islamic Jihad — after both Egypt and Syria expelled it. The Islamic Jihad has been connected to numerous terrorist attacks, namely the 1983 bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Marines.
To better understand the significance of this, know that a Muslim Brother by the name of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, also known as the “Amir of Jihad,” was Osama bin Laden’s mentor during his time at a university.
‘Azzam himself had been expelled from other countries, ultimately seeking sanctuary in the only country that would take him — Saudi Arabia.
Another of bin Laden’s mentors during his school years in Saudi Arabia was Muhammed Qutb, brother of Sayyid Qutb, who convinced the Muslim Brotherhood that all Christians and Jews deserved to be killed. Sayyid was eventually executed by Egypt, and his brother Muhammed fled to Saudi Arabia.
The Muslim Brotherhood was also active in the Afghan uprising against the Soviet Union. The CIA armed the Afghan Brothers because they were fighting the Soviets, but that would come back to haunt us — bin Laden was part of the Afghan Brothers.
Also take this into account: In 1996, Saudi Arabia declined Sudan’s offer to turn over Osama bin Laden. The Saudi explanation? Bin Laden was much too popular in Saudi Arabia; his arrest would spur a revolution.
It is ironic that these groups find refuge in Saudi Arabia, because the majority of them see the House of Saud as evil because of its flagrant use of money for sex and entertainment. In fact, the House of Saud has given millions of dollars to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations so they would not attack the ruling family. Saudi Arabia has been bribing its own enemies.
However, the ruling family has been facing enemies at home, as well, long before the Muslim Brotherhood and others began to make Saudi Arabia their home. The House of Saud is mainly Sunni, while a large part of the Saudi population is part of the Wahhabi sect of Islam, including bin Laden. Wahhabi fundamentalists are known for denouncing the House of Saud, as is the Muslim Brotherhood, and continue to call for its downfall.
So, while we arm Saudi Arabia with one of the most expensive arms packages in the world, groups within Saudi Arabia are already calling for an end to the ruling monarchy — our sole ally in the country. Eventually, when the oil runs out and the House of Saud has no more money or power, the revolution will begin.
Of course, administration officials point to the recent $30 billion arms deal with Israel as some perverse form of checks and balances. That sounds an awful lot like the Cold War theory of mutually assured destruction.
During the signing of the Israeli arms deal, Nicholas Burns, the under secretary for political affairs, said, “There is no question that, from an American point of view, the Middle East is a more dangerous region now even than it was 10 or 20 years ago and that Israel is facing a growing threat.”
And that makes me wonder: who is contributing the most to this growing threat?
