The Saudis Just Flipped Obama the Bird

President Obama- face-WH-photo SC

If you thought you’d heard the end of Obama’s foreign policy mistakes in Syria, think again. America’s longtime Mideast ally, Saudi Arabia, is now displaying its disgust for Obama’s work.

Saudi Arabia was recently offered a long-coveted seat on the U.N. Security Council. But the Saudis unexpectedly flipped the U.N. the diplomatic bird. How shocking was this move? No nation had ever turned its back on the increased power and prestige that come with a seat on the Council.

The Saudis were blunt in their reasoning, saying that they couldn’t do the job because of others’ failures.

“Double standards existing in the Security Council prevent it from performing its duties and assuming its responsibilities… leading to the continued disruption of peace and security, the expansion of the injustices against peoples, the violation of rights, and the spread of conflicts and wars.”

The Saudis continued, “Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the U.N. Security Council’s inability to perform its duties.”

When questioned about the decision, Saudi Arabia indicated that its anger is aimed at Obama. Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan (who spent 22 years as the Saudi ambassador to Washington), made it known that relations between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are getting worse. The relationship between the two countries was already strained because of America’s missteps in Egypt, Libya, and Iran.

More importantly, bin Sultan told Reuters that Saudi Arabia will cut its cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, I would venture to guess that most Americans don’t understand the significance of this shift.

Cataclysmic Change

To understand the importance of Saudi support in the Mideast, you have to understand the sectarian nature of the fighting taking place. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, are Shia Muslim. Meanwhile, the Syrian rebels – along with Al Qaeda – are mostly Sunnis. The sectarian lines are similar to those seen during the Iraq war.

While Syria was spinning out of control, Saudi Arabia stepped up to help the non-Al Qaeda Sunni rebel factions. America encouraged this Saudi engagement and convinced the entire leadership of the Mideast that it was serious about removing Assad.

Once it became clear that Obama was anything but serious, the Sunni rebels turned to Al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim organization.

Now, according to Saudi intelligence estimates, as many as 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters have flooded into Syria. They’ve filled the power vacuum left by a retreating and inconsistent United States. In essence, the Syrian civil war has breathed new life into Al Qaeda. The Saudis believe that by spring, another 6,000 to 8,000 fighters will have arrived as reinforcements.

Losing Saudi Arabia’s intelligence support couldn’t have come at a worse time. Until now, Saudi Arabia has been a vital ally in the fight against Al Qaeda. The Saudis have allowed America to operate drones in Saudi airspace for attacks in Yemen. They’ve also cracked down on Al Qaeda and friends inside their own country, as well as in the strategically important Gulf Oil states.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has been, along with Israel, our best partner while trying to contain Iran’s nuclear program. The Saudis rightly fear a nuclear-armed Iran just across the already-tense Persian Gulf.

And now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel also fear a radicalized Syria, controlled by either Al Qaeda or Iran. America’s unorganized and hasty retreat from the Mideast leaves our one-time allies high and dry, forcing them to look to China and others to fill the power void Obama has left.

The losers in this whole debacle are the exact people America should’ve been supporting: Western-friendly Muslims who might make peace with Israel and be allied with the Saudis.


This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 



"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >


  1. Edwardkoziol says:

    For once I give credit to the Saudis for telling this useless organization the UN to stick the seat on the council up their ass.I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia because they manipulate oil to keep prices high but here they are right.

  2. MuslimLuvChrist says:

    The hacked email of 9/12/12, involved the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the CIA. The attack on the Benghazi consulate was in part due to revenge for the CIA supporting the Qaddafi regime (Qaddafi had al Qaeda under control). When Qaddafi was overthrown, the rebels found a treasure trove of documents linking the CIA to the Qaddafi regime. By 2/13/13, It was clear that it was a terrorist attack by the group Ansar al-Sharia, of which Clinton publicly stated was untrue, despite the al-Qaeda-linked group taking credit for the attack, and despite the fact that this information was sent to the White House Situation Room hours after the attack on the consulate. According to Blumenthal’s 2/16/13 email to Clinton, the Benghazi attack was well-planned and well-funded by Saudi billionaires: The attack…originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012 these financiers provided funds to AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania. These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate. The Benghazi attack was in retaliation for the CIA’s secret war—led by John Brennan, now CIA chief— against Ansar al-Sharia and other terrorist groups in North Africa. The question becomes:
    If the CIA was backing Qaddafi, why then did NATO, with Obama at the helm, decide to topple the Qaddafi regime?
    Why is Obama now backing the MB in Libya and Egypt (and Syria)?
    The answer may lie in the fact that Obama is largely aligned with globalists, and the MB’s stated goal is a global, totalitarian caliphate. Globalists tend to be uber-secularists, eschewing all forms of religion or morality, whereas the MB calls for a theocratic police state mandating strict adherence to morality through sharia. Irregardless, it is clear from Libyan President Magariaf’s close ties to the MB that Obama decided to switch sides from Qaddafi to the MB. Further, it is no secret that Obama called for the removal of long-time U.S. and Israel ally Egyptian President Hosni Muburak and is now backing MB President Mohammed Morsi. Even though Obama knew that Morsi had instituted de facto martial law, the U.S. was still planning on providing up to 1 billion dollars in aid, along with supporting $4.5 billion from the IMF. The MB is an organization that has vowed to destroy the United States, with the stated goal of subsuming the world under the thumb of a global, Islamic totalitarian government.
    Why then are Obama and his rogue CIA chief John Brennan backing the MB?
    A better question might be: Why has Congress not charged Obama and John Brennan with treason?

Speak Your Mind