Ninety-two blogs ago, I set out on a personal journey of exploration to better understand the glaring mal-functions within the international system. As I set out in the preamble to the first blog https://khakispecs.com/?page_id=40 I decided to become active in international politics, when the USA invaded Iraq.
The essential precursor to that event occurred some eighteen months before, while my wife and I were sitting in Air New Zealand’s Koru Club lounge at Heathrow Airport waiting to board a flight to Los Angeles. With fellow passengers we watched on Television, as the first of the doomed towers burnt, prior to its spectacular collapse and the second tower being struck by another aircraft. As this was the event which served as the trigger for the invasion of Iraq, I guess that it was 9/11 that marked the actual start of my journey of curiosity.
As I am now nearing the end of that journey of exploration, I feel it appropriate to return full-circle to the felling of the towers. This was the moment when the body politic was impregnated with the monster it subsequently was to give birth to and is the point at which any attempt to determine its parenthood should begin.
So much has been written on this subject that I would hesitate to waste readers’ time by adding to the mountains of speculation so readily accessible – were it not for a realisation that came to me recently and which, as I haven’t seen expressed elsewhere, might add to the understanding of the episode.
Fifteen years after the event, elements within the US establishment are fast becoming disenchanted with their Saudi Arabian ally. They cannot help but hold Saudi Arabia responsible for the Yemeni debacle that the USA has been dragged into by Princeling Mohamed bin Salman. Furthermore, there must be increasing questioning of the value of having a Saudi ally that insists on continuing to provide weapons to the now out-of-favour Islamic State, be it directly or indirectly.
Most alarming of all must be the reports, which seem to have been successfully kept out of the western media, that Saudi supported and armed Islamist groups in Syria have recently brought down four Syrian aircraft with MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems.) It was clearly official US policy to keep these weapons out of the hands of Jihadists. The CIA’s allied European intelligence services must be simply over the moon with the thought of these weapons percolating from Syria to the end of Heathrow’s No 3 runway!
On top of this, we have the ongoing debate as to which of the two allies is calling the shots, when it comes to oil prices. Is it Saudi Arabia taking a budget hit on USA insistence that damage be inflicted on Russia’s economy, or is it USA’s fracking investors taking an unwelcome hit, as Saudis seek to gain, or preserve market share in Asia? Policies towards Israel and Iran provide additional apples of discord between the two erstwhile partners.
The most recent indication of the troubles afflicting the USA-Saudi relationship is the decision of Congress to allow the families of those, who suffered bereavement in the attack on the Twin Towers, to seek compensation in court from the Saudi government – even though there seems little chance that Congress’s ruling will avoid a presidential veto. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-usa-congress-idUSKCN0Y8239
In the Reuters report, reference is made to the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission report to which public access has been denied. The general view is that the content of these pages demonstrates clearly that Saudi officials were involved in the planning, financing and enabling of the attack.
Here is an extract from a Laissez-Faire newsletter (Laissez-Faire is a US libertarian investment news-sheet.)
“ If you’re not caught up with the 28-page controversy, here are quotes (courtesy of 28pages.org), https://28pages.org/ from those who have read the “missing” pages…
Rep. Walter Jones: “I was absolutely shocked by what I read. What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me… It does not deal with national security per se; it is more about relationships. The information is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American people.”
“It was 28 pages and it probably took me a good hour and a half because I would have to re-read certain parts of it that I just couldn’t believe what I was reading.”
Rep. Thomas Massie: “I went into the soundproof, secret room here in Congress and read those 28 pages. And it was a really disturbing event for me to read those. I had to stop every two or three pages and rearrange my perception of history. And it’s that fundamental — those 28 pages… It certainly changes your view of the Middle East… We need to declassify those 28 pages… There is nothing in there that would affect our national security. Some of it may be embarrassing; that is why I believe those 28 pages have been withheld… the American people deserve to know what happened and what led up to 9/11 so that we can prevent the next one.”
Rep. Stephen Lynch: “It gave names of individuals and entities that I believe were complicit in the attacks on September 11. They were facilitators of those attacks. They are clearly identified…how people were financed, where they were housed, where the money was coming from, the conduits that were used and the connections between some of these individuals.”
“Twelve years after the horrific September 11 attacks, unanswered questions still remain. These pages contain information that is vital to a full understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding this tragedy. The families of the victims and the American people deserve better; they deserve answers, they deserve a full accounting, and that has not happened yet.”
Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11: “I was stunned that the intelligence community would feel that it was a threat to national security for the American people to know who had made 9/11 financially possible.”
“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.”
Rep. Rick Nolan: “The information presents a clear and startling picture of who financed the attacks.” “They confirm that much of the rhetoric preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq was terribly wrong.” “The account in those 28 pages is pretty detailed; who supplied them money, what those accounts were, what the amounts of that money were, who the recipients were.”
Former Sen. Byron Dorgan: “I am absolutely convinced that the American people deserve and need to see what’s in those pages, because only then will they fully understand that they can connect the dots to the financing and other things. It’s just sad to me that’s been labelled ‘top secret.’”
Eleanor Hill, staff director of the joint congressional inquiry: “I can’t tell you what’s in those 28 pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with information that our committee found in the CIA and FBI files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers.”
The Saudi’s were so incensed at the prospect of the release of the 28 pages that they threatened to tank the American economy by selling off billions of the dollars they have invested in it. (Hardly an impressive threat, as the Saudis would lose far more than the Americans.)
I suspect this story of 28 pages is all humbug and flummery laid on for public consumption as the two countries circle each other in their mutual stale-mate. All indications are that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash established to conceal, rather than reveal, the truth. With Philip Zelikow, a dual US-Israeli citizen, as head of the Commission appointed as gate-keeper to ensure the truth never got out. Why then would he allow any significant truth to be revealed in these 28 pages?
As the Saudis don’t know what they contain, they do have the potential to be used as blackmail against the Saudi government, should, as is now the case, the interests and policies of the two nations start to diverge, or should the Saudi party be trying to exercise any blackmail of its own. Here is a hyperlink that gives an indication of how particularly well-qualified Zelikow was for the task he was asked to perform. https://rense.com/general78/rapestory.htm It does seem a bit heavily buttered – but there is no shortage of similar such items on the Web.
If one rules out the ridiculous official assertion that 9/11, history’s most technically sophisticated and successful terrorist attentat, was engineered entirely from a cave in the Tora Bora cave complex in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan by an old man sending runners going out in all directions with written messages held in cleft sticks, one has to accept that state actors must have been involved at some stage.
In hindsight, there are four states that stood to benefit from 9/11 – but only on condition that it most illogically, should lead to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. These are the four states, which stood to benefit from his overthrow.
1. The USA: Vice-President Cheney was as ardent participant in PNAC (Project for a New American Century) As CEO of Halliburton, he was also an advocate of the USA dominating the major oil producing countries. A PNAC document of 2000 stated unambiguously, “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.“
In 2007, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, publicly revealed details of a discussion he had had ten days after the 9/11 attacks. Clark was told by a Pentagon associate, a general, that the Pentagon planned to invade Iraq. This was when Osama bin Laden, a bitter foe of the secular Baathist Socialist, Saddam, was being blamed for the terror attacks, and there was no known 9/11 link to Iraq’s government. Clark related his conversation with the general that day:
“We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”
I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
For a good sniff at the American role in the rat-pack, watch the third minute of this video clip about Rwanda. It deals with a CIA assassination squad operating in the Balkans and led by Sheikh Osama bin Laden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NHawXaOPc It makes you question reality!
2. Israel: Israel regarded Saddam Hussein as its major military threat and would happily see him removed – a removal which could also open the door for the removal of Iran and provide a stepping stone for the destabilisation of Syria and the extension of Israel’s border into Lebanon south of the Litani River. The facts that the Twin Towers were owned by an ardent Zionist and that the company responsible for their security was Israeli owned, are just two of multiple indicators that Israel was involved in the 9/11 event. Just Google ‘Israel involvement 9/11’ and you will find so much smoke that it is impossible to believe that there was no fire at the base of it.
3. Saudi Arabia: Ever since Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and fired Scuds at Riyadh, his removal was high on the list of Saudi foreign policy objectives – as too would have been the overthrow of the theocratic, Shia regime in Tehran. It would appear that the hidden 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report implicates Saudi Arabia – as would the nationality of the majority of the hijackers.
4. Iran: Having just fought a bitter war against Iraq, Iran would have been delighted to see Saddam Hussein’s demise – but only on condition that his regime was not replaced by a US puppet regime ready to provide a springboard for a US armed invasion of Iran.
Iran’s contribution to the attack on Iraq was the use of its double agent Ahmed Chalabi to help provide an excuse to the USA’s Neo-con leadership that there were Iraqi WMD waiting to be discovered. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10 The fact that the USA used Chalabi’s non-existent WMD to justify their invasion, greatly discredited the Bush Administration and significantly reduced its ability to move on from Iraq to an invasion of Iran. There is no indication that the Iranians had any involvement prior to 9/11.
To summarise the above, the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia all stood to benefit from 9/11 – but only if the loss of the towers resulted in an American invasion of Iraq. As Wesley Clark makes clear, given that there was no connection between the secular Saddam regime and the Islamist organisation held responsible for the attacks, there was no logical reason to suppose that the hijackings would result in the USA’s invasion of Iraq.
The question to ask therefore, is why should Saudi Arabia and/or Israel have cooperated in organising the attack? The only answer has to be that they had received cast-iron assurances from within the American establishment that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a guaranteed outcome of the risk they were being invited to undertake.
The conspirators will all have plenty of dirt on each other. Now that world politics have moved on and visions of national interest been adjusted accordingly, we are starting to see the conspiratorial agreement fray at the edges and the temptation to blackmail the other parties increase. One might anticipate that, one day, the bond of mutual silence will give way to such acrimony that all will be revealed.
Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below