Home | About | Donate

Israel’s Clandestine Alliance with Gulf Arab States is Going Public


#1

Israel’s Clandestine Alliance with Gulf Arab States is Going Public

Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept, New York Times

In 2009, a U.S. State Department diplomatic cable gave one of the first glimpses of what is becoming a burgeoning alliance between Israel and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The cable quoted Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yacov Hadas saying, “the Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the United States,” adding that GCC states “believe Israel can work magic.”


#2

What is the old saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
* Israel and the Saudis hate Iran so much that they will bury their feud for a while to remove their perceived common enemy. They can go back to their own feud later.
* So now we have the Saudis and Israel, both client states of the US joining hands to destroy yet a third state.
* Israel and Saudi Arabia are both war criminals and apparently proud of it. Both are approved and on occasion kowtowed to by US officials from the President on down.
* Meanwhile, Iran is trying to broker peace in the Mid-East, is working toward nuclear disarmament, both global and in the ME.
* For this crime, all three nations are sanctioning, assassinating, forcing hunger and illness upon it. A treaty to end this stupidity is being deliberately sabotaged by the United States Senate and Congress at the behest of Israel and its AIPAC surrogate.
* A couple of years ago, an Israeli newspaper wrote an article about an agreement with Saudi Arabia to use one of their northern airbases as a refueling and staging area for attacks on Iran.
* The MICC must be drooling. They are selling billions of advanced military hardware to the Saudis and their Gulf State allies. Israel is getting billions more.
* "Oh boy! More wars! More profits! No profitless peace!"
* "Death in the name of profit!"
* Remember, the Golden Rule is "Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you,"
* Not "Do unto others before they can do unto you."
* There is a definite difference.
;-})
* Mrs. Minitrue read this and asked, "Didn't 15 Saudis have something to do with 911?"
;-})


#3

We here warnings The House of Saud will seek to obtain nuclear weapons if current Iranian negotiations with G5+1 don't go their way. Israel has already meddled deeply in these ongoing negotiations, including American and European elections in 2012 and 2014. And, now has created a dangerous partisan divide in American foreign policy by allowing Adelson, Inc. ( Citizens United ) to throw billions into this Republican circus ring to keep the insane clown car posse, overflowing. And, by supporting these Endless War Hawks and War Profiteers, Israel may end up being the conduit by which The House of Saud either gets those nuclear weapons or America is drawn into a truly devastating confrontation with Iran. Israel is the culprit here and a duplicitous one, at that. Prime Minister Bennie the Net was sighted for aiding the smuggling of 282 nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the early 1980s. America already flirts with a death cult label in foreign policy concerning the MENA. We don't need Israel and the Saudis, acting as matchmaker, for a date certain disaster with Iran and its' allies.


#4

I don't know how, because I ain't that smart, but I realized back in '71 there was no peace to be found in the middle east.


#5

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis buy their nuclear weapons from Israel. If the price is right, they've got a lot to spare, and a shekel is a shekel!
;-})


#6

MENA: is an acronym (my guess) that you have used throughout many of your posts. What does it stand for?


#7

I do not speak in certainty, but I have some doubts this one. The fever that grips Israel (with exceptions, of course) is one of racism against all Muslims and all Arabs. They dont use the word "untermenschen", for obvious reasons, but their talk and propaganda amounts to the same. It seems to me that it would include the Saudis. The alliance could be at most one of convenience. When you consider that the Saudi royal family might not be in power forever, I just cannot imagine they would give these "untermenschen" a weapon with the capacity to completely destroy the weapon giver. If they did, then it would be suitably flawed in some way.


#8

Middle East & North Africa.


#9

The House of Saud may not last until 2017 would be just as good a guess. And, Israel providing them with inferior technology/first stage/defeatable would be something they learned from the master, wouldn't it?


#10

i really hate this, but it was in 1970/1971 that it became clear to me that there was going to be no turning aside civilization's fast train to planetary disaster.

Climate chaos has actually hit a bit faster than i thought it would... but nothing has happened in the past 45 years to allow me to think civilization will rein itself in, rather than ride to collapse. Excruciating.

And i also don't really know how. i mean i know what i learned and read and thought, but i'm no different from anyone else. Why have i spent my life paying close attention to the unfolding tragedy / disaster? (The fact that Common Dreams has been my home page for 16 years is indicative of where i keep my attention. And i think the coverage and reporting here has only gotten better. Too bad the comment threads have been so degraded...)


#12

Thanks for the insightful comment. Good that it was selected to complement this news story.
When you make a comment, all one can do is Like, and perhaps comment, "Well stated!"


#13

There is something fundamentally good about the Gulf States and Israel communicating on a civil level. This could lead to political will to get Palestinian Arabs to get practical, and understand that only by accepting Israel as a potential ally, will their people have a tolerable future.

The idea of this rapprochement being all about weapons deals may be a bit to surfacy. If Iran sees that Israel has developed a mature relationship with its closest neighbours, possibly Iran may become willing to put its best interests forward, and join forces in bolstering civilization in the region. The current mayhem of allowing a disgrace to Islam run wild in the islamic state goon squad, this needs to be seen a sufficient justification for the whole region to become interested in real polices - like implementing the UNESCO Culture of Peace Initiative - that if it had been treated seriously as the follow up for the International Year for the Culture of Peace 2000 - much of the chaos of 2015 could have been prevented. If Iran can be dealt with in an educated manner, the urgent matters like an ambitious water management policy and other things that can't be deferred, will become possible.


#15

"The current mayhem of allowing a disgrace to Islam run wild in the islamic state goon squad, this needs to be seen a sufficient justification for the whole region to become interested in real polices - like implementing the UNESCO Culture of Peace Initiative - that if it had been treated seriously as the follow up for the International Year for the Culture of Peace 2000 - much of the chaos of 2015 could have been prevented."

Can you recognize the deep irony in your statement? Who is promoting "a disgrace to Islam run wild in the Islamic State goon squad"? Are you unaware that it is precisely the US / Israel / Saudi axis that is enabling this "run wild"?


#16

Thank You!
;-})


#17

I was writing sort of tongue in cheek with my comment, but at the time, my thought was, "I wonder if they would sell them duds, or something remote controlled?"
* I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with a Machiavellian mind. wink
;-})


#18

Iran has been a non-aggressive state for many years, though they do very well at defending themselves. There is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, Iran is party to the NPT. They allow themselves to be inspected by the UN. They are working very hard to see Nuclear Disarmament carried out, not only in the ME, but worldwide.
* Why is it necessary for three of the most blatant terrorist governments on the planet to "deal with Iran"? They should just look in a mirror and deal with themselves.
;-})


#19

Thanks for the question, webwalk - I would be the first to concede that the Bush debacle set the stage for holy hell to be the consequence of dehumanizing and alienating everyone who had Baathist background at the time that Bremer was putting the American imprimatur on Iraq. When Tariq Aziz passed away this week, I thought that this was a symptom of the mindless lack of strategy that has damaged Iraq so much. That a person who was wanting to act in good faith, such as Aziz, could be cast aside, instead of being brought into a government of reconciliation - is beyond me.

As much as it may be balming to one's sense of validation, about the causation of the IS monstrosity, it is no excuse for not demanding that the member countries of the UN begin to grasp their responsibilities to civilization. Their blatant lack of real seriousness on this is not only inexplicable, but is totally inexcusable.


#20

You wrote: "* Why is it necessary for three of the most blatant terrorist governments on the planet to "deal with Iran"? "

This is exactly what I DON'T understand. Why do these countries "hate" Iran? Is this based on religious hatred? Is that the only reason for the animosity?


#21

Hi Helen.
* There has been a dichotomy between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam for centuries. There have been times when it has been violent, usually during a regime change. However much of the time it has just been a philosophical divide, much like Catholic/Protestant differences, which, incidentally, have at times been very violent and cruel, also.
* In Mohammad's time (PBUH) Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together, had their churches/synagogues/mosques in the same towns. They were all considered "People of the Book." Christians and Jews did have to pay an extra tax.
* During the Crusades, that still held, but as the invasions continued and the Sunnis and the Shiites joined to fight off the invaders, the Crusaders used many ploys to turn that philosophical divide into violence. Sometimes it worked.
In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, all the faiths were welcome. The Sunnis and Shiites disagreed, but non-violently. They did not bomb each others mosques. Their Imams debated the various views. There was an exchange of ideas, not gunfire.
* After Bush went to war in Iraq, suddenly factions were blowing up each others mosques. There were a number of articles that appeared, linking that violence to US false flags, but they were quickly moved to the want ads and off the grid.
* The Wahabi are like Christian Southern Baptists. The world will not be right until everybody believes the way they do. This leads to trouble.
* Iran is mostly Shia, but there are no pogroms against Sunnis as such, but US and Mossad spend a lot of time and money fomenting and supplying dissident groups to cause unrest and violence, which is then trumpeted in the press.
* One of the main reasons that Iran is targeted is that not only do they have oil and gas coveted by our oil barons, but they are working toward getting rid of the dollar based oil bourse and creating one of their own, possibly based on gold. There are a number of countries that are working on this and they are all under fire by the US and its cronies.
* So, as with most problems, it is all based on power and greed, exacerbated by promoting sectarian differences to violence, then using that as an excuse.
* Iran has not invaded anyone for centuries. I am sure they help people, especially neighbors, who are being persecuted. For that help, they are a "terrorist" nation. If we do the same thing, we are helping patriots. Remember, we were a key to the creation of ISIS, to "get" Assad out of power. We also work with Al Qaeda to remove him. That has now come back to bite us, but it widens the wars, and the profits for the MICC, so it must be, as Martha Stewart says, "A good thing."
* This is just a "once over lightly," but I hope it gives some perspective as to what is going on.
;-})