Would you like to know how the United States can virtually eliminate global Islamic terrorism and world hunger with one stroke?
Seize the oil wells of Saudi Arabia.
If this sounds preposterous and unethical—“the U.S. doesn’t go on the offensive and it certainly doesn’t ‘steal’ other peoples’ natural resources, especially its allies!”—consider some facts:
First, anyone who sees the Islamic State (ISIS) as a cancer on earth that needs to be eradicated—and most Americans, including U.S. President Donald Trump, do—must also see Saudi Arabia (SA) in similar terms. For the desert kingdom enforces the same kind of Islam that ISIS does—with all the religious intolerance, beheadings, crucifixions, mutilations, and misogyny we associate with the terrorists.
Worse, SA spends a whopping 100 billion dollars annually—trillions over the decades—to support and disseminate the vilest form of Islam (“Wahhabism”/Salafism) around the world. Virtually all radical literature, radical mosques, radical websites, and radical satellite programs—all of which create radical Muslims—are funded by SA. In other words, if you trace the “radicalization” of Muslims—including formerly good neighbors and colleagues that suddenly got pious, grew a beard or donned a veil, and then went on a shooting spree, or “martyred” themselves in a suicide attack—Saudi money will almost always be at the end of the line.
It gets worse still: the Islamic kingdom is not only the chief exporter of radical ideologies; it is also the chief financier and material supporter of the worst terrorist groups. ISIS and al-Qaeda would not exist without Saudi and other Gulf largesse.
So how is SA able to fuel this multifaceted and global jihad? Entirely from the oil reserves beneath the Arabian Peninsula.
Now, in a fair world, surely the Saudis should keep the natural resources of Arabia—even if it was the West that discovered and created the technology to utilize oil. But when they openly use that wealth to spread hate, turmoil, terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents around the world, surely the international community is justified in responding—in this case, by seizing the weapon from out their hands, that is, the oil wells.
Some may argue that, whatever the merits of this argument, there’s no way U.S. leadership could sell such a war to the American people. Actually, they could—very easily; and all they would have to do is tell the American people the truth for a change.
Remember, the establishment has already behaved more “spectacularly,” including by going on the offensive against several Arab rulers—in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. In every case, the real motives for war were/are hidden from the public, probably because they didn’t and don’t serve American interests (hence why ISIS is now entrenched in “liberated” Iraq, “liberated” Libya, and still being “liberated” Syria). All U.S. leadership and media had to do was portray Saddam, Gadhafi, and Assad as “monsters” persecuting their own people. That was enough for most Americans to acquiesce to the waging of these wars if not heartily support them.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, the establishment wouldn’t have to deceive the public: the Saudi regime is a monster. As in ISIS held territories, women in SA are little better than chattel; blasphemers, apostates, and homosexuals are persecuted and sometimes executed; all non-Sunnis—from Hindus to Shia—are subhuman infidels to be treated accordingly; house churches are closed, Bibles and crucifixes confiscated and destroyed, and Christians caught worshipping in private thrown in jail and tortured. SA is arguably even more backward than ISIS: women can still drive in Mosul and Raqqa, whereas they are forbidden in SA; and the Saudi government has its own special department devoted to tracking down and executing witches and warlocks.
Nor is Saudi savagery confined to the Peninsula. The SA regime once issued a fatwa, or Islamic-sanctioned decree, still available online for all to see, calling on the world’s Muslims to hate all non-Muslims (meaning more than 99% of Americans; such is how “our good friend and ally” really feels about us).
In short, from a libertarian or humanitarian point of view—and that’s the point of view that was used to justify war in Iraq, Libya, and Syria to the public—the tyranny of Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad pale in comparison to that of Saudi leadership.
In this context, what is to stop, say, the UN Security Council—America, France, Britain, Russia, and China, all nations that have suffered from Saudi funded radicalization and terrorism—from sending a military coalition to seize and internationalize the oil wells of Arabia? How would that be any different than seizing the assets of a terrorist organization, which the SA regime amounts to? There would hardly even be a “war,” certainly nothing on the scale of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The oil can be shared equally, fair international prices can be established and, to assuage any Western guilt, revenues—including the 100 billion spent annually sponsoring Islamic radicalism and terror—can go to the poor and needy of the world, including the Muslim world. Peninsular Arabs can still be maintained by a rich stipend; they can keep Mecca and Medina and, if they still choose to, practice Sharia on other another without being a threat to the civilized world at large.
A win-win for all concerned—the developed world, the underdeveloped world, and even Peninsular Arabs content with practicing Islam among themselves. Even the world’s Muslims, whom we are told are overwhelmingly moderate, should welcome the liberation of their sacred places.
The only ones who lose are those committed to using oil wealth to spread radical Islamic ideologies and terrorism around the world.
If this proposal still sounds too “unrealistic,” remember: we already have precedents of the U.S. behaving more spectacularly. In 2003 the Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of being behind 9/11, of developing weapons of mass destruction, and of committing unprecedented human rights abuses. Because these accusations were false or exaggerated—even the human rights violations were often carried out against ISIS-types—most Security Council nations rejected war on Iraq. Even so, the U.S. invaded and conquered Iraq; and the average American was fine with it all.
So what’s to stop the U.S. from either going it alone again or in cooperation with all or some Security Council members—perhaps a joint Trump/Putin endeavor—and severing the bloodline of global terrorism? It’s not realpolitik, “balance of power” theories, or ethical standards that prevent the U.S. from defanging the head of the jihadi snake. If the U.S. could go against international opinion and invade Iraq on a number of false/dubious pretexts, why can’t it do the same in SA—a nation that is guilty of supporting and disseminating radicalism and terrorism to ever corner of the globe? Incidentally, unlike Saddam, Saudi leadership—to say nothing of 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11—was actually involved in the strikes of September 11, in case Americans are still interested in payback.
So why hasn’t this proposal been implemented? Because the Saudis know better than anyone else exactly how vulnerable their terrorist activities make them and long ago bought off top and influential Western politicians, institutions, universities, and media—in a word, the establishment. Put differently, Saudi wealth is not just spent on the offensive jihad—the spread of radical ideas and groups around the world—but the defensive jihad as well. This consists of “donating” billions to key Western elements, who in turn whitewash SA before the American public—you know, our “indispensable ally in the war on terror.”
The establishment has another, more subtle job: to condition Americans into believing that the very idea of seizing Saudi oil is as unrealistic and absurd as … well, as Donald Trump becoming president was once.
But times are changing and old paradigms are breaking; things once mockingly dismissed by the establishment as “impossible” and “ridiculous” are coming to pass. More to the point, there’s a new American government in town, headed by one whose immense wealth immunes him to Saudi bribes—one who promises to drain the swamp. Surely one of the foulest things that will be found stuck around the drain hole and in need of rooting out is the unholy alliance between Saudi Arabia and the establishment.
Funny !!!
It would be hard not to agree with the author. However, how come there is not even one mention of another, no less dangerous monster – Iran?!
I would expect that’s because the article focuses on Saudi Arabia and the fact that it’s inexplicably viewed as an ally.
I am of the same opinion, and was for very long time. Why the US and allies “liberated” Kuwait and never recovered any costs from THEM, or “liberated” Iraq from Saddam tyranny and never sized THEIR oil fields as at least partial down payment? Methinks that all modern problems with Islam started from the moment the west resigned from good old colonial rule and allowed their property to be sized by barbarians only because it happen to be on “their” territory.
Raymond, your suggestion deserves open discussion.
I also have a similar proposal I call “RICO M3”.
American RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) were intended to go after the mafia. The acts of Islamic mullahs and jihadis clearly falls into the same pattern as the mafia. The only difference being, Islam’s claim to an oddball form of “religious legitimacy”.
The US needs to use the RICO statutes to, declare Islam, a criminal enterprise. Then close-down Islam as it presently exists in the US.
RICO allows the government to follow crime and money. Then arrest all, and confiscate anything in its path.
You can be sure the movement of money for jihad is widespread. You can also be sure the incitement and communication between mullahs and mosques is also wide spread. The RICO statutes were made just for this type of activity.
Use a small army of attorneys and CPAs to investigate every jihad attack. Follow 100% of the money back to its source. Track anyone involved, in any way. Then use the RICO statutes to jail, confiscated, and/or shut down any one or thing involved. That includes all (M1) mosques. Arrest all (M2) mullahs involved in any way. Follow all jihad (M3) money back to its source.
If a bank is involved, follow it back to its source. You can be sure there is Saudi money involved. Nationalize it all, legally, without military action. If even one penny of jihad money can be traced back to the Saudis, take 100% of their monies in the Western banking system. (Again legally.)
Then only allow Islam to be practiced in the privacy of the home. There should be no public Islam.
This US solution would shock the world. And that is what is needed to start a real Islamic reformation.
http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/
sadly, a reform of islam is not possible. allah himself tells the muslims again and again to obey muhammed, and that muhammed is the “perfect” man, whom they should emulate in all they do (“WWMD?”). their own “holy’ literature is replete with the monstrous, twisted acts of Pirate Muhammed (s**t be upon him); thus, if U remove him from the religion, there is no islam. and if U leave him in, U get what islam is now – a pirate cult.
Islam is a constructed cult. It is constructed from Islamic theology.
Yes, jihadi thugs will try to kill anyone who tries to change Islamic theology. And the process will be difficult because of the endless loop I describe in my thesis listed above.
But anything constructed can be destructed. The biggest and first step, in trying to take apart a cult as resilient as Islam, is a large intellectual shock. My RICO M3 plan could be the start of the process.
What’s to loose? At a bare minimum, taking all of the Saudi monies in the Western Banking system will help the national debt. And I am willing to bet RICO M3 would cause a world wide rethinking of Islam. Other countries could do the same.
Islam would never be the same.
Doing nothing assures the continued expansion of Islam.
I have read that the Saudis have plans to destroy the oil field equipment should anyone try to do this.
No one said the Saudis had a clue about reality.
Stopping the flow of money to the Saudis should be the number one goal. How it is done does not matter. If they do it themselves, all the better.
The Saudis without money is like an army without bullets.
The main fields seem to be in east part of SA where there is a sizable Shia population, persecuted by Sunni Sauds. It might be doable, when there is the vision for someone to do so.
Wahabb destroyed Mecca in 1805.
Donald Trump said several years ago that for all the money that the USA has “invested” in the region to bring democracy while the Taliban or some other group of meatheads blows up roads & schools, was to go in and take the oil and give them some gesture of payment – maybe $10 a barrel.
I’d like to see that… but only if the borders of the region are closed as well such that their barbaric practices remain in the region and are not allowed in civilised society.
Relieve Saudi, Iraq, Iran of their oil. But wait! What about the people? Throw them in the wells, they can make more oil while raising the level, making it easier to pump out. I have not yet read article.
Here’s an article that was published at Harper’s Magazine back in 1975 by Miles Ignotus (aka Henry Kissinger) about doing exactly this. Seems feasible if executed as written.
https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download&did=75435&kod=JMM705
This is an excellent idea! One of the good things about being the non-Mulsim in a jihad is that the oilfields of Saudi Arabia belong to us already as war booty. These idolaters have no right to live, let alone to treat that oil as theirs.
Interesting idea Raymond.
If the Saudis have declared war on the West and/or are actively supporting terrorism against western nations, which is an act of war, and/or are seeking to overthrown western governments through subterfuge and install sharia law in their place, which is also an act of war, then wouldn’t the western nations be justified in seizing Saudi resources in a retaliatory act of war?
I always wondered why we didn’t charge Kuwait for giving them back their freedom and putting out the fires on their oil wells . Perhaps we should have .
Yes, maybe consider oil a vital commodity like water and regulate it like they do utilities?
With the specific goal to bring gas prices down to a certain economic level?
3 days of the condor, Robert Redford, it’s an old story and should be done.
Here’s a little secret…the House of Saud is jewish. Yup. It is. Israel and SA are bestest friends. Now that you know…you know.
So mental giant, how to replace the current regime with one that is better and not worse?
That’s the million dollar question the policy makers and brainiacs can’t seem to answer when they start opening up this subject.
U don’t. U let them be, so they can busily kill one another for not being muslim enough, or for being the wrong flavor of muslim. the saudis need to be prevented from spending all that money attacking others. it is *THEY* who are making war on kufr; they don’t care what we think, just so long as we don’t think about them. mr. ibrahim’s idea is to spend the hit money they’re throwing around now on terrorism victims, poor muslims (buying food and shelter for them, not giving them the money), and then other poor people. these pirates are at the root of more than 30 000 deaths in just the last 20 years (180 MILLION to 220 MILLION over the past 1400 years), so it’s time we disarmed them.
and the saudis aren’t the only monsters. any muslim country that has a government with money (like pakistan, or even bangladesh) is more than willing to kill innocents. we should start holding them accountable, too. once they see the top monsters whacked, they’ll be more amenable to reason when we ask them (nicely, but carrying a big stick) to stop killing non-muslims and and stop shielding devout muslims (killers/terrorists). we can’t handle everybody at once, but the saudis would make a great start, and we can do all the other 56 OIC countries one at a time.
Saudis have done nothing with their oil revenue but stir up trouble.
i have advocated a complete blockade, both military and financial, but this sounds like an even better idea!
Saudi spends a whopping 100 billion dollars annually? Good grief. Anybody got a source on that?
The Brits invented Saudi Arabia, at every level, even its Wahhabism. They picked and invented its monarchy. They moved other families of the same type of Salafist liars, to be kings of other newly invented countries, one named after a river, and Iraq, they favored the Wahhabis in 1820 that is when it started. Though it goes back a little before that. They wanted to stab the Ottoman Caliphate in the back really badly, while also being its main benefactor, very very similar to the US relationship with Israel. The US plays a double game and set up the whole world against Israel, while being its main supporter, this is called military intelligence.
What is sad and pathetic is Saudi Arabia is allowed to sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Shouldn’t a country who sits on the human rights council at the very least PRACTICE and protect human rights????
Bombing the Oil Fields would doom the Saudis. Caveat: After ousting the Saudi Royal Family, there will be a vacuum as happened in Lybia — which has been disatrous. Who will take over the vacuum in Saudi Arabia?