The Website of Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

CATO INSTITUTE: TIME FOR AMERICA TO RECONSIDER ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ...

5/5 (6)
5/56

There's more evidence that the American deep state is reconsidering its long relationship with the (out)house of Saud, this time from the CATO institute, an American policy think tank. And in what is becoming a somewhat familiar pattern, it isn't being reported in the American media, but by Russia's Sputnik, in this article shared by Mr. V.T.:

America Pays a High Moral & Material Price for Its Alliance With the Saudis

If Sputnik's reporting of the study is indeed accurate, then there may be a lot lurking in between the lines here, so it is important to look at what the lines are, for such policy studies within the American deep state "think tank apparatus" usually precede major policy changes by only a few years, and in this case, I suspect that this policy change is percolating quietly in the background of the USA's current election theater:

From the geostrategic tack, Bandow recalled that Washington has used Riyadh in recent years "as an integral component of a containment system against Iran. Of course, much of the 'Tehran problem' was made in America: overthrowing Iranian democracy and empowering the Shah, a corrupt, repressive modernizer, led to his ouster and the creation of an Islamist state. Washington's subsequent support for Iraq's Saddam Hussein in his aggressive war against Iran only intensified the Islamist regime's antagonism."

"Fears multiplied as Tehran confronted its Sunni neighbors along with Israel and continued the Shah's nuclear program. Overwrought nightmares of Islamic revolution throughout the region encouraged America’s fulsome embrace of the KSA and allied regimes, such as Bahrain, where a Shia majority is held captive by a Sunni monarch backed by the Saudi military."

Held captive by such strategic considerations, "in Riyadh, Secretary Kerry [thus] declared America's undiminished support for the world's leading feudal kleptocracy."

...
The reality, Bandow argues, is that the real threats to the monarchy, domestic in nature and "beyond Washington's reach," include "the kingdom's general repression and particular mistreatment of its Shia minority." This was demonstrated, the analyst recalls, by "the recent execution of cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who urged nonviolent opposition to the monarchy."As for the government in Tehran, whatever hesitation Washington might have about the Islamic Republic, "in contrast to the KSA, there are (carefully circumscribed but real nonetheless) elections, political debate, religious diversity, generational resistance and liberal sentiments." In fact, the analyst shrewdly suggests, "shifting the US relationship with Iran could dramatically improve the region's dynamic."

In other words, Iran looks like a positive bastion of modernity and tolerance, compared to the galloping and somersaulting barbarism and cruelty of the Saudi regime and its tyranny. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it is not sponsoring a variety of Wahabbist "fronts" in the guise of "Islamic charities" and caliphates.

To put it country simple, Mr. Bandow is suggesting that the source of Middle East instability is the riotously insane (what fundamentalist regimes aren't riotously insane?) regime in Riyadh, and that in the long term, America's best interests lie in assuming a much more realistic - and therefore, "distant" - posture with respect to the Saudis, and a much more open posture with respect to Iran, which, as he points out, has been the victim of American meddling repeatedly, and all to the detriment of America.

If this reading of recent op-ed pieces appearing in the American specialized media on policy formation is true, then one may expect the signs of this to grow in the coming year, and to increase to the point of becoming a debate or discussion topic during the election theater.  The tone of this response to the question and discussion of American Middle East policy, both by candidates and the media, will say a great deal of whether this reading is in fact the case, and whether or not the desert kingdom is indeed "on the menu."

See you on the flip side...

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".

Rate this post

8 Responses to CATO INSTITUTE: TIME FOR AMERICA TO RECONSIDER ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ...

  1. I just ran across ‘After the Prophet’, a very intriguing, non-preachy article on Muslims. Especially on the Sunni/Shia ‘divide’ and Wahhabism. Good background…

    ‘I am an ordinary Muslim (albeit a weak one at that). I am not a religious scholar. I am not a scholar of any type. I live in the West and am originally from Egypt.’

    thesaker dot is/after-the-prophet/

  2. (out)house – HA!
    First policy is made, then sent to Washington to officially rubber stamp in an entertaining self governance melodrama. Before that, policy is sent to the kool-aides intelligentsia (s)think tanks to fashion a justifiable policy masking the real motives behind the puppet masters real purposes.
    After all, they replaced a budding democracy with a murderous kleptocracy in 1953. Now they’re on steroids worldwide rushing in a totalitarian global governance that is more sinister than even most of those implementing it are aware of.

  3. One of the founders of the CATO Institute is Charles Koch, of the infamous Koch Brothers, poster boys for the American Oligarchs. In fact, it was originally named “The Charles Koch Foundation.” That has to be taken into consideration with anything coming out that outfit.

    I’m with basta, it’s doubtful there’s any real moral objection to the odious Saudi regime here, since coming from the Kochs and their ilk is blatant hypocrisy. The actual problem they have with the Saudis is purely monetary and future profits.

    Seeing that the Saudis are being verbally attacked by all manner of people and institutions from all sides of the political spectrum for various reasons, that (out)house is on its way out in some manner.

  4. Problem is witness the disastrous regimes that were impose on the indigenous people of the USA, DOC, Australia. So dancing with the regime in Saudi Arabia is to say routine these are the types of governments our Viking masters like so much because that’s type of regime they imposed on Britain and Ireland starting in 1066.

  5. The final paragraph of the Sputnik article is, “As a caveat, Bandow recommends that whatever Washington does, recognizing Riyadh’s role as a destabilizing force in the Middle East “does not mean that the United States should attempt regime change…America has proved that it isn’t very good at overseas social engineering – consider Afghanistan, Egypt, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Somalia, Syria and elsewhere,” but at the very minimum, Washington must “stop lavishing attention, praise, support, and reassurance on the Saudi royals.”

    Five stars apiece for Giza, Sputnik and Bandow.

  6. I think the U.S. Is indeed distancing itself from the Saudis and pivoting towards Iran, as the recent nuclear agreement, and the lessening of embargoes will testify. And I, for one, think it’s a very good thing.

  7. Cato is a NeoZioNaziCon “think tank” (aka one of the Cabal’s privatized plotter’s nests and unofficial propaganda ministries). They are ramping up the Wurlitzer to play the tune of regime change, throwing the Saudis under the bus because they’ve outlived their usefulness and are ripe for eventual looting, another domino to fall as the ZioZombie USSA war machine works its way across the map of the ME/NA.

    More chaos, more death, more plunder, more broken regimes, more radicalization, more control, more profits… What’s there for the psychopaths-in-control not to like? This cycle has become an inevitability, it’s now down to rinse-and-repeat. Like I said, zombies.

    At this point, making any allusions at all about the morality of others — even the Saudis, with whom past presidents have walked hand-in-hand through fields of fragrant bluebells — is rank hypocrisy.