SULTAN'S SUBTLE GAME
My reader may remember the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar is the son of Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan. By the byzantine succession pattern so far, Sultan would become ruler if his half-brother Abdullah were to falter. Many of the events we are witnessing, such as activity of Saudi-based terrorists, are the external manifestations of the arcane inner politics of the House of Saud and the jockeying for succession among the potential heirs.
Our news sources are completely silent about the a long festering dispute at the top level of the House of Saud. But, the DEBKA File is a source of some very interesting insight into the region. DEBKA reports an attempt on the life of the ailing King Fahd in Jeddah, on or around July 14, shortly before he departed for his summer vacation in Geneva. This incident added fuel to the running feud between the Sudeiri faction of the royal house, led by King Fahd and his full brother, defense minister Prince Sultan (the leading contender for the succession after Abdullah), and the group led by their half-brother, the regent Abdullah. The Sudeiri's have close ties with the Bin Laden family, Al Qu'ida, and the Bush family.
As more direct evidence of this, Newsweek will report in an upcoming story that the money trail from th 9/11 hijackers leads to the House of Saud.
The FBI has uncovered financial records showing a steady stream of payments to the family of one of the students, Omar Al Bayoumi. The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qa'ida planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United State, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi.
Sources familiar with the evidence say the payments—amounting to about $3,500 a month—came from an account at Washington’s Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
Of course, the Saudi government denies this and is shocked, shocked to find such accusations have wide credence.
After 9/11 the Bush Administration loudly promised to track down Al Qu'ida and their financial supporters. There was much talk of the money trail and shutting down "Islamic charities." Now you know why there is silence on this front. The White House response to the report was saying "it was not uncommon for wealthy Saudis to provide financial assistance to struggling Saudi families in the United States" and then refusing to release the "classified" report. Other reports have revealed that members of the Saudi royal family, associated with Prince Sultan, are paying salaries and living expenses for many "Afghan veterans." Recently, there have been actual street battles in downtown Riyadh, involving automatic weapons when security forces, under the command of Abdullah's faction, attempted to arrest men variously identified as "Afghan veterans" or Al Qu'ida.
Washington, like Riyadh, publicly ignores the return of bin Laden to the Saudi-Yemeni desert with family, his top lieutenant Ayman Zuwahri and a following, although the Pentagon is believed to have sent out several hundred US special troops, surveillance aircraft, and spy satellites. Public acknowledgement of this presence by Washington would act as an irritant to its relations with Riyadh as well as pointing attention to the shaky security situation in the Saudi capital.
That's not the only news from the region that is "ignored" or covered up by US news channels. Remember the rumors of an attempted coup by Saudi and Yemeni officers serving in the Qatari army against Emir Sheikh Hamad. Rumors were that US special forces troops had helped the Emir subdue the revolt. A DEBKA investigation found no evidence of a plot to overthrow the Qatari ruler, but did uncover
the secret purchase of a 20-25 percent stake in al Jazeera by none other than the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar. The Saudi crown prince Abdullah, Bandar’s uncle, is reported to have hit the ceiling. So extreme is his loathing for Al Jazeera that he had recalled the Saudi ambassador from Doha and severed ties with Emir Hamad. When he discovered that his nephew had invested in the satellite channel, he decided Bandar’s move was not merely provocative, but a blow on behalf of his father, defense minister Sultan bin Abdulaziz, in their contest over the succession.
It should be recalled that al Jazeera are seemingly the only people who can get an interview with bin Laden and the channel for all the bin Laden tapes and video messages to the rest of the world. They are openly owned by Prince Sultan and the Sudeiri faction. Now, I hope it is more clear why a war with Iraq is being promoted and the "war" on Al Qu'ida shoved down the memory hole.
Perhaps a little too subtle for the Bush White House
Jim Henley has offered the Vodalus scenario:
It hit me this afternoon: In Gene Wolfe's fine novel sequence, The Book of the New Sun, the Autarch (absolute ruler) of the Commonwealth faces an internal enemy, the rebel armiger Vodalus. But as the Autarch makes clear to Severian, New Sun's protagonist, he knows pretty much everything there is to know about Vodalus' organization and leaves him and it in place. Because Vodalus exists, all opposition gravitates toward him, which makes threats of sedition that much more manageable for the Autarch. When Vodalus dies and Severian ascends to the Autarchy, his enemy and former lover Agia takes over Vodalus' organization. Vodalus' "rebellion" functions, tacitly, as an auxiliary of the Commonwealth government.
Are we starting to make a connection? Consider this: bin Laden tells his followers not to attack Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities because they represent "the wealth of the people" that he'll see gets redistributed when a just regime takes power in Riyadh. That's an awfully convenient sworn foe to have if you own that wealth, eh? And I realize Americans don't get comprehensive international news, but - you hear about bin Laden blowing up Khobar Towers; you hear about bin Laden blowing up the USS Cole. But has his organization struck any serious blow against the government in Riyadh? Killed any Saudi ambassadors, kidnapped any princes, bombed any ministries? al-Qa'ida has proven its ability to commit violence on the peninsula generally and in Saudi Arabia specifically. You'd think someone sworn to bring down the regime would get to it.
On the other hand, you'd think an "official opposition" might do exactly as bin Laden has done.
weblog.nohair.net |
