Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington

[rodeodance]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101333.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; Page A23

Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, flew out of Washington yesterday after informing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his staff that he would be leaving the post after only 15 months on the job, according to U.S. officials and foreign envoys. There has been no formal announcement from the kingdom.

The abrupt departure is particularly striking because his predecessor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spent 22 years on the job. The Saudi ambassador is one of the most influential diplomatic positions in Washington and is arguably the most important overseas post for the oil-rich desert kingdom.


Turki, a long-serving former intelligence chief, told his staff yesterday afternoon that he wanted to spend more time with his family, according to Arab diplomats. Colleagues said they were shocked at the decision.

The exit -- without the fanfare, parties and tributes that normally accompany a leading envoy's departure, much less a public statement -- comes as his brother, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the highly influential Saudi foreign minister, is ailing.

[H2O Man]

1. This is important.

DUers should take note of this.

[xultar]

4. What's going on?

[H2O Man]

18. He is the "former" head

of Saudi intell, and has been involved in pressuring VP Cheney's Office to advocate an attack on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia .... the Mahdi army has an estimated 60,000 members, and is by far the strongest, best-organized domestic military force in Iraq. Remember when Dick went to Saudi Arabia unexpectedly in late November? That was why.

The result was Bush's failed meeting with al-Maliki. Bush wanted "cooperation" in an attack on al-Sadr, but al-Maliki is in power mainly because of al-Sadr. There is pressure for the US to dump al-Maliki, and engage in that "surge" that people from the ISG and others say is an option.

This is a dangerous time.

[leftchick]

20. very dangerous

Saudi Arabia: Clerics Call For Union Against Shia
December 11, 2006 16 38 GMT

A group of prominent Saudi clerics released a statement Dec. 11 calling for Sunni Muslims around the world to unite against Shia in Iraq, although the statement did not go so far as to call for a jihad. The statement was signed by 38 Wahhabi clerics and preachers, including Sheikh Safar al-Hawali, whose ideas influenced al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.


http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=281785

:(

[Chulanowa]

76. Such wonderful allies we make, no?

Why has the US always sided with the actual terrorists when it comes to fighting terrorism?

[Mich Otter]

85. The easy answer is...

just follow the money.

[amandabeech]

88. And the oil.

You can make money by means other than selling oil, but it is very difficult to make oil by using money, biofuels notwithstanding.

[Chico Man]

93. We supplied Japan will everything it needed to rape Nanjing back in the 30s

Who would ever expect us to learn from that mistake?

[w4rma]

26. Thanks. (nt)

[maddezmom]

27. and then there is this:NYT: Iraqis Consider Ways to Reduce Power of Cleric

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2649073

[H2O Man]

28. It seems likely

that the "surge" will take place soon. It is a shame that people who believe that increased violence is a rational strategy are allowed to dictate the course of events in Iraq.

[maddezmom]

32. a bit more info here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a238386a-8985-11db-a876-0000779e2340.html

a snip

Prince Turki's departure had been rumoured for some time and was not, it appeared, a direct consequence of a controversial article about Iraq written by one of his advisers last month.

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post on November 29, Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security expert and adviser to Prince Turki, said the Saudi government was preparing to revise its Iraq policy in the face of a possible US withdrawal from the country.

Options included, Mr Obaid said, providing Sunni insurgent leaders with arms and finance, establishing new Sunni brigades to combat Iranian militias and strangling Iranian funding by engineering a cut in oil prices, which would hit Tehran far harder than Riyadh.

Mr Obaid said he was expressing a personal opinion. However, after the article appeared, Prince Turki said that Mr Obaid's agreement as a consultant had been terminated in order to emphasise his independence from the Saudi government.

In a statement reported by Reuters yesterday, 38 prominent Saudi clerics called for action to support Iraq's Sunni population, who it said were being murdered and marginalised by the Shia, supported by Iran and by US forces.

[H2O Man]

36. Interesting.

This is a very strange time.

[KoKo]

30. Thanks for refreshing memories on that...

So much seems to go down the memory hole and yet this was an important story. Was it only a week ago some of us were concerned the Crazy Bush/Cheney would order an attack on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. This would cause a disaster and yet one wonders who the rational head was that pulled the plug on that operation.

Not good for the Ambassador to abruptly leave, though. Breach in the tight relationship of Bushies and House of Saud? Break with Baker and the House of Saud? This could work out badly in other ways...financially for us. Or, maybe I'm too pessimistic.

[H2O Man]

34. This falls into the

pattern of events we might expect to see if the administration were going to totally ignore the rational part of the ISG. Bad news.

[leveymg]

39. This is a bait to the Iranians to attack the Saudis

I'm afraid this means that the Saudi are committing hubris again, which is a nice way of saying that we're about to see the start of the battle for Saudi Arabia. And, that one, I fear, we'll HAVE TO get into, if there's any danger the oil stops flowing.

I sure hope the Iranians continue to be smart enough to ignore the bait that's being dangled infront of them.

Also, see my post below about what happened the last time al-Turki suddenly left his post.

[jwirr]

59. That is probably what *ss and company would do but I would

rather use the money we would use in that kind of war on alternative energy sources and screw the oil.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

65. This country could save millions of gallons of oil immediately

just by doing things like walking instead of cranking up the car to run nearby errands, riding bicycles and car pooling (particularly applicable in areas lacking public transit). We are too spoiled.

[H2O Man]

67. Iran has no history

of attacking other nations. I do not think that scenario is likely.

[Straight Shooter]

70. True. But Little Boots has set a precedent for powerful nations. n/t

[westerebus]

87. True of modern times.

Alexander the Greek defeated the Persians and conquered their empire, at the time most of the middle east and near east. That's how he got the name Alexander the Great. When the Arabs speak of Iranians, they call them Persians. The Iranians have a much different view of their place in history then what the MSM portrays. We look at the Iranian hostage crisis as the start of history. They consider that the liberation from CIA occupation. Throw in a US-Saudi sponsored war with Iraq that lasted eight years and currently,US troops on both borders.
No their is something else about to happen.

[Trajan]

90. Well said ...

Iran is Persia, and Persia has a huge place in history that many seem to ignore or forget ....

At their AND our peril ....

[H2O Man]

96. We are in

modern times. However, your point about history is important, in the sense that there are historic conflicts in that region that certainly come into play. A good introductory book for people interested in part of this history is Kenneth Pollack's "The Persian Puzzle."

There is a lack of recognition among many "westerners" of the ethnic differences in the Middle East. Persians are distinct from Arabs, though there are numerous examples of overlapping in recent times, especially in religious factions. Still, the primary water way is the Persian Gulf, although the Saudi "Royal Family" might want to consider it otherwise.

The Iranians are not going to "invade" Saudi Arabia. Again, there are zero examples of them invading neighbors in recent history. They would, of course, be able to shake the Saudi "royal family" in other ways, without invading.

[Recursion]

94. Go tell that to the Spartans n/t

[H2O Man]

97. It's important to

know history. That said, what happened in what historians know as "Ancient Persia" should not be confused with the nation of Iran. It might be worth examining the past 100 years.

[westerebus]

98. Who gets the last piece of pie?

The last thirty-forty years in modern Iran is very interesting. The nation was upgraded from a democracy to kingdom by those helpful folks at the CIA and then armed to the teeth by our military as a counter to the Soviets. Most of the middle east Arabic nations were supplied with Soviet arms and advisers during the 1960-80s.
No one has taken credit for the ouster of the Shah except the Iranians themselves as far as I know. Oddly the oil still flowed despite the warnings of the grown ups. The Iranians began what has become the horror of the Israelis, a counter theocracy in the region.
Thousands died in the Iran Iraq war which ended in stalemate. A DMZ was established at the border of the two countries. When we invaded Iraq, the Iranians reoccupied defensive position on the border with Iraq.
The Iranians have used proxy forces in the region. They have improved their army but have no air force or navy to speak of. I agree that an invasion is not an option.
How about the partition of Iraq by her neighbors? The Turks are cooperating with Iran on the Kurdish north. The Saudis get the Sunni center with the Jordanians. Iran holds the south which has the majority Shia.
All that said, that's not what concerns me. Has Bush given the Israelis a green light on Iran? Do the Saudis know that or is another attack on the US close? Is OBL back home in SA?
What ever it is, it ain't good.

[H2O Man]

99. "The Iranians have used

proxy forces in the region." -- That is extremely important for people to recognize, in order to understand what some of the most likely outcomes of increasing violence in the Middle East will include.

[leesa]

101. Puts a different spin on things when the country we are invading is our

third largest creditor though, doesn't it? We are quite screwn.

[independentpiney]

38. As intelligence chief he was responsible for distributing Saudi

money to the mujahedeen in the Afghan-Soviet war. Perhaps their recalling him to play a similar role for the Iraqi Sunnis.

[leveymg]

45. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and he's been sent packing by the "adults" in DC

If his sudden departure signals that the ISG/realists have rejected the stupid notion that the Saudis can serve as a bulwark against the inevitable Shi'a takeover of the southern part of Iraq, and the division of Iraq, then this could be a VERY GOOD THING.

I hope this means: no major escalation of the civil war.

Dnagerous times. So much uncertainty.

[Pithy Cherub]

41. The meeting with al Hakim also

set off alarm bells. And why now - that is the part that I would give a lot to read a PDB right now because something is seriously amiss. And we know how w handles stark straight out intelligence...:scared:

[leveymg]

46. That meeting, I think, signalled an accomodation with the Shi'a and Iran.

Which would be enough to send al-Turki into a rage, and out of the picture.

Bush, obviously, didn't like what he was forced to do by Baker and the ISG adults.

[Pithy Cherub]

55. And partially what Cheney was doing when he

went to kiss the King's ring in Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki is a very formidable enemy if one chooses to take him on openly, that is truly not smart. Prince Turki's ISI connections are terrifying in and of themselves. Even after his father was assassinated Prince Turki played his role, he did not "go home". Very alarming...:scared:

[leveymg]

56. Turki is the most hawkish of the Seven who rival Abdullah

What we're seeing is a civil war possibly breaking out within SA. That's exactly the outcome the oil multinationals and their allies in Washington are waiting for. The prize is all that nationalized Aramco oil.

Yes, Turki and ISI are extremely dangerous, as we've seen before.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. Access to Pakistan's nukes...

and Hmmm, didn't the US just okay a nuclear deal with India. And people are totally focused on the ME - the Saudi's are playing a much bigger game. Whew. Totally out of a fiction novel and we are starring in it. Scary Sh&T!

[leveymg]

61. They don't even need the Pakistani nukes. SA has a bunch of dirty bombs, according

to several sources. I am not going to vouch for this, but a lot of people have read it, know about it, and have discussed it. It's possible. According to author Gerald Posner,Saudi Arabia manufactered dozens of radiological devices and planted them in strategic places in their oil installations as a warning to anyone that they would exercise a "doomsday" option if anyone tried to seize the Royal family's hold over the oil fields.

<i>HUFFINGTON POST</i> EXCLUSIVE: EMBARGOED BOOK CLAIMS SAUDI OIL ...It includes the use of a series of explosives, including radioactive “dirty bombs,” that would cripple Saudi Arabian oil production and distribution systems ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/05/09/huffington-post-ex_n_480.html - 46k - Cached - Similar pages


And, this about allegations that have been floated by former Cong. Curt Weldon. I know he's flakier that a pie crust, but this is from a respectable source, a US military journal, PARAMETERS, Review Essay


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Parameters, Summer 2006, pp. 120-23.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Future of US Intelligence

ARTHUR C. WINN

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/06summer/essay.htm


The complete, and more revealing, title of the book is Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America . . . and How the CIA has Ignored it. Theorizing on why the intelligence community stubbornly refuses to work with his source, Ali, Congressman Weldon postulates several theories: incompetence, obsolete approach, institutional memory, and fear. He states: “Simply put, the United States at this moment cannot afford to become entangled in war against Iran. The intelligence community may fear that this is precisely what could happen by working with Ali.” Congressman Weldon has briefed George Tenet, then Director of the CIA; Stephen Kappes, then deputy director of operations (since resigned from the CIA); and Porter Goss, the current CIA Director, on Weldon’s contacts with his source and on the type of information that he believes Ali can provide.

Copies of Ali’s reports to Congressman Weldon from April 2003 to September 2004 are presented in Chapters 2 through 16. A brief introduction provides historical context and highlights the reports and their significance. A handwritten letter from Ali dated 7 March 2005, addressed to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, is included in Appendix One. Dr. Pry had accompanied Congressman Weldon on a trip to Paris for the first visit with Ali in April 2003. The reader should especially note Ali’s contention that “within the USA, all important targets are being protected. Consequently, two dirty bombs shall be used before the end of 2006; one within the US, one in the Persian Gulf close to Saudi Arabia.” The book’s Appendix Two is the result of a Congressional Research Service search of LEXIS-NEXIS; it shows that Ali’s record of forecasting is consistent with his claim that he has access to sensitive, inside information derived from high-ranking sources within the government of Iran.

[rodeodance]

64. thanks for connecting the dots

[wordpix]

77. if SA wants an attack on al-Sadr, why are they depending on US to do it?

Especially now that we're bankrupt, $8 trillion in the hole and our armed forces are "broken" in Murtha's words and by all accounts.

[H2O Man]

81. Again,

they want an attack on the Mahdi army. I think the reasons SA would prefer that the US military, which is in Iraq, would take the lead is rather obvious.

[krispos42]

95. 2+2=war?

Also today:

Breaking CNN: Saudis threaten to support Sunni insurgency...

So the Ambassador leaves, then only a few hours later the Saudis (Sunnis, mostly) announce they will support the Iraqi Sunni insursgency. And we're supporting the 'legitimate' government of Iraq, which is Shia-dominated.

Now I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe when war is about to or does break out between nations, the ambassadors and staffs go home and the embassies closed, yes?

Well...

[dubyaD40web]

5. Yup

Especially after the news of the Sauds funding the Sunnis.

[ewagner]

7. I agree

I'm not sure what this means because I'm ignorant of the interplay among the various factions in the House of Saud, but it doen't sound like something positive at all.

Any clues?

Speculations?

on edit: I just noticed that the article was written by Robin Wright, (who I think should be our next Secretary of State btw) It's written as a straight-up news story but I'd LOVE to hear her take on it.

[endarkenment]

42. What H2O Man said.

Very interesting development. The ambassador from the kingdom has been called home - either he has failed an assignment or the Sauds are very upset with Washington. This plus reports that oil money is flowing out of dollars into euros and yens and sterling indicates something big is up.

[babylonsister]

2. Who pissed him off and how/why? Ah, another striking day of diplomacy

from the gang who couldn't do anything right.

[OhioChick]

3. Hmmmm........

Wonder what's up?

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Oh, shit.

[peace13]

8. Incoming!!!!!

All to weird, with Shooters visit to SA last week. Better keep our eyes to the sky.

[EST]

9. If history is any teacher, look for an H-bomb attack on DC or

an Iranian attack on somewhere important. Not necessarily these two items, but something of very high moment.

[ewagner]

12. More like the terrible movie

John Goldfarb please come home! Where the Sultan keeps the American diplomats in line with the simple phrase:

"Oil Pipeline, snippy, snippy!"

[Ganja Ninja]

15. Perhaps the Saudi Army is going to go into western Iraq and

seize a couple of provinces maybe even annex them. Whatever it is I'm sure it's all part of the Bush crime family's plan.

[aquart]

21. Saudis do their own fighting? Surely you jest.

[Ganja Ninja]

23. Perhaps someone told them they would be ...

greeted as liberators with candy and flowers. :smoke:

[endarkenment]

43. Indeed.

The formidably equipped saudi army ain't fighting nobody.

[leveymg]

35. When the Royal Kuwaiti Army faced the Iraqis, they ran away,

abandoning their brand new, American and British, top-of-the-line armored vehicles. That was during the first engagements of the 1991 Gulf War. No one expects the Royal Saudi Army to do any better.

The Saudi Army is a VERY expensive joke. The only territory they'll seize is first-class seats for the generals on flights to gilded exile in Monaco and the South of France.

I'm afraid this means that Saudi are committing hubris again, which is a nice way of saying that we're about to see the start of the battle for Saudi Arabia. And, that one, I fear, we'll HAVE TO get into, if there's any danger the oil stops flowing.

I sure hope the Iranians continue to be smart enough to ignore the bait that's being dangled infront of them.

[demnan]

10. Spend more time with his family?

That's become their pat response too now to being fired?

[Canuckistanian]

11. Nothing suspicious here, nope

A former Saudi intelligence chief quits during a time of Saudi weapons sales, Iraq meltdown, Iran provocations and a lame duck US presidency. Happens all the time.

I wonder what "more time with the family" means in Saudi Arabia?

[hobbit709]

16. If you screw up big time in SA

you get shortened.

[jwirr]

60. By a head.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

33. it means, "Look into this little hole. No, this one. Over here.

This one here, at the end of this gun. Closer. Closer. Ok, now close your eyes."

[necso]

13. Generally, the abrupt departure of an Ambassador is

considered undiplomatic (it gets people "thinking"; it gets tongues wagging).

There are various things that this could signal; also consider succession* in Saudi Arabia.

Interesting times.

*: here, who replaces who; but considering that powerful positions are linked to persons, policies and each other (other positions), which themselves are subject to change.

[jody]

14. He will probably replace Prince Saud al-Faisal as foreign minister. n/t

[Shipwack]

17. What could be going on? Well...

Here are some things pulled out of my butte, with the caveat that I'm not an expert on diplomacy or the Middle East (which is ok, since neither are Bolton, Powell or Rice ,and look at the positions they were given!)

1) Someone pissed him off. Unlikely, since I would think that either they would let the world know and use the slight to their advantage in getting something they wanted.

2) He got in trouble doing something embarrassing (getting a 14 year old pregnant, arrested at a gay bath house, drunk in public, etc)and the Royal Family is calling him home to keep him safe from harm and to keep an eye on him. This is my favorite.

3) Political re-alignment of some sort. Maybe an enemy has gotten more pull lately, and wants him out of there. Maybe a friend now has more pull, and either has a better place for him, or wants him close by because he is trusted. If this were true, I would think that it would happen so quickly they couldn't use it as an excuse for a party/farewell dinner.

[wishlist]

19. Rumor that Cheney wants U.S. to back Shi'ites against Sunnis in Iraq

One of the talking heads on either CNN or MSNBC last night stated that Cheney is pushing for U.S. to take a position favoring the Shi'ites against the Sunnis, a sure formula for Sunnis to be massacred.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Everyone Will Get Massacred

The Shia have the numbers, but the Sunni have the bulk of the weapons, I reckon - e.g., remember the million or so pounds of plastic explosives that we left unguarded, and hence were liberated by the natives during our attack on Iraq?

[aquart]

25. But the Sunnis are our Saudi allies.

They're also the bulk of arab Muslims? Shia are Iran who hates our guts anyway and doesn't, really, like arab Shia all that much.

China must be smiling. Oil contracts with Venezuela and now the Saudis are looking available.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. actually, and offshoot of the Sunni. the Wahabis are rather more

radical than the Sunni, although on the basic doctrine, they both agree that the Shia are all fucked up and are following the wrong theories. Poor shia, believing Muhamed's cousin rather than the Caliphate. All will burn in hell.

The sunni have several sects themselves, and were among the first to ban certain things (images of humans, especially Allah) and turn Islam away from scientific, mathemetical, astronomical and medical gains, into a fundie religions which rivals evangelical christianity in its backwardness and abuse of nonbelievers. The Wahabi in particular, trust in violence against anyone and everyone who they disagree with.

The Shia actually fight against many such sunni ideas, and have been viewed as the more liberal and enlightened. Iran has never actively attacked its neighbors, despite the claims of Cheney and Co. The saudis probably have, at least through groups like Al Qaida and the extensive bin Laden family, (who still partner with pappy Bush) although the idea of the Saudi military, run by Wahabi generals, actually leading some attack still makes many military people smile behind their hands.

Whatever caused this is not good. First Cheney is taken to the woodshed, now this. And Baby Bush is telling Baker, the atty for the Wahabi family powers in Saud, to go fuck himself?

[IronLionZion]

68. This map should tell you all anyone needs to know about sunni/shia distribution

[rodeodance]

83. I have read this also

[wordpix]

100. thanks to dimson, we are in this position of having to take sides in a regional war with multi-

factions. He has ruined US and must be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY before he and Bushco do more harm. We can't wait 2 more years!

Of course, we will have to impeach Cheney at the same time.

[Nihil]

24. Trying to beat the rush?

Maybe he's just being helpful ... after seeing what a fuss
some people made about the Saudis being flown out while
everyone else was locked-down after 9/11?

[Captain Hilts]

29. Is their bankrolling of the Sunni factions in Iraq a problem? nt

[leveymg]

40. Yes, a BIG PROBLEM. If it leads to an all-out civil war with the Shi'a

Then Iran gets sucked into a direct confrontation with the Saudis, and us.

My hope is that this means that strategy has been rejected, and al-Turki has been sent packing by the Washington pragmatists.

[leveymg]

31. He was UBL's case officer. Last time he resigned, 9/11 happened a week later

He inexplically resigned as the head of Saudi external intelligence agency on 9/4/01.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/01_crimes.html
On September 4, The Saudi Gov't announced that Prince Turki's departure was "by his own request" . Prince Turki had been head of Saudi foreign intelligence for 24 years, and had just been reappointed on May 24 to a new 4-year term. By an interesting coincidence, this same day Prince Turki's "resignation" was announced, Robert Mueller was sworn in as FBI Director, and Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmed arrived in the US for consultations with the CIA, Pentagon and DIA during the following week. This chain of events squares with Senator Graham's observation that the true facts behind the 9/11 "intelligence failure" involve "a couple of foreign intelligence agencies", and these facts may become public in 50 years when the national archive records are finally opened.

[Efilroft Sul]

47. More here on Prince Turki

After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions.

General Wayne Downing, Bush’s former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2051

Good times, good times.

[leveymg]

58. Turki was Osama's "godfather". Until Khobar Towers, quite openly so.

Turki might be very dangerous if he believes he's been humiliated and doesn't have options. Kissinger was right about one thing - always give your opponent elbow room to maneuver gracefully, or the talks are over.

I don't like this sudden departure. Not, one bit. Would be better to keep him close by.

[wordpix]

102. OPEN the ARCHIVES NOW!!!

[Solly Mack]

44. Oh my.....interesting

Obaid in the news. National Security Report issued on SA national secuity by Obaid. al-Faisal met with Cheney and Rumsfeld in November

...and now this

[leveymg]

49. Obaid was Rummy's point of contact. Rummy's gone. Al-Turki's gone. Reason to hope?

Maybe al-Turki lost the power-play, and there won't be an esacalation?

[happyslug]

48. He is the son of King Faisal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_al_Faisal

Who was the son of King Saud I (The founder of the present House of Saud):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia

Now the House of Saud picks its Kings the sme as how Arab Tribes have ociked their leaders since at least the time of Moses, the men gather together and pick the leader.

Since the death of King Saud I, all the kings of Arabia have been his sons, with the sons to his first wife getting priory (Which is the norm in Harem situations). After the first wife the next "in line" is often the sons of th wife ho has produced the most sons (Notice succession is NOT straight down the list, it is still an election and it is even possible for a non-member of the family to be selected "King", but given the situations in most tribe the successor is more often then not the sons of the previous king).

Thus how is King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud's Health? Or is the problem that his brother's health is failing and Faisal wants to be around when his brother dies so Faisal can take over the Foreign ministry? (Just in ase King Abdullah while Faisal in in Washington) appoint someone else to the position.

As to succession, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz is the new Crown Prince (i.e. Successor in waiting if and when King Abdullah dies). Sultan is a member of the full brother of the late King Fahd (Both of whom are members of the "Sudairi Seven" who are not only close by blood, but also eat meal together at least once a week to share information. The "Sudairi Seven" are considered the most powerful group with the House of Saud, even if the present King is NOR a member of the Seven.

More eon Sultan bin Adbul Ariz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin_Abdul_Aziz

More on the "Sudairi Seven":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/sudairi.htm

More on King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

[leveymg]

52. They're all Faisal's sons. Abdullah vs. his seven half-brothers.

Also, they're all old men. When this batch dies off, there doesn't seem to be anyone in particular who's going to take their place. The House of Saud is living on borrowed time.

Any stiff push, and the regime collapses. This is the outcome the oil multinationals are all hoping for to to recapture control over Aramco's upstreeam oil supplies that were nationalized after the 1973 Middle-East War.

[happyslug]

62. And that is tis the fear also....

The problem with most hereditary Dictatorships is that about the time the cousins starts to inherit, the unity made by the founder is gone.

When King Saud I set up the present House of Saud (While the House of Saud goes back to the 1700s, the present group came to power under King Saud I) he was master of all. Saud died in 1952 and his sons have ruled since that time. Now we are coming to the time when King Saud's grandchildren and Great-grandchildren want to rule. They look at it as their turn. Their Fathers and Uncles worked together under Saud I and came to rely on each other during that period and like most Second Generations inheritary rulers worked together quite well but with increasing tensions as their age. The Third Generation have very little in common with each other other than being the Children of their Fathers (I use male terms for Arabia is a patriarchy, but you will be surprised how much power women have among the arabs, for example bin Laden calling his step mother to tell her he would not be able to speak to her for a while just before 9/11).

When it comes to the third generation Cousins always start to argue and maneuver (just like their fathers had done) but are willing to go that extra step for their grew up in different families and as such do NOT have any common life together to restrain them (Unlike their Fathers who tended to work together when under their father's house).

I lean to the resignation being tied in with someone's decision he needs to be near King Abdullah when it comes to appoint a new minster than any other reason.

[ms liberty]

50. K&R...

Like H20Man said, this is important. Eyes open everyone!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. and when you have the chance, see Syriana

Clooney is becoming one of the finest folks on the silver screen - and that plot really hits close to home on these events.

[DemReadingDU]

63. my eyes are open

waiting to see what develops

[lovuian]

51. This almost looks like Saudis are ticked off

They sold the ports to AIG

but I get the feeling they feel like Bush has sold them out

The Saudi Royal Family is in quite the precarious state

America can't guarantee their safety

[leveymg]

54. Tha Saudis are divided.

You're right about the precarious state, and your last point. They must be terrified, which is not good news for us, because they're also quite capable of doing a lot of damage if they think they've been sold down the oil river.

[mitchum]

71. The Saudi Royal Family belongs up against the wall

they are murderous and corrupt criminals

[TheDebbieDee]

73. I agree.........

And you forgot oppressive and manipulative.

Payback's a pitch!

[rman]

66. hmm,

Whatever this means exactly, it's definitely "hmm".

[malaise]

69. Wait for theSaudis to kick them

out of the kingdom. Ater fugging with the planet from 2001, Bushco is really and truly fugged.

I think man people missed McCain's suggestion to go after the Sunnis.

[hayu_lol]

72. It could also mean that the Saudis have decided to go with the Euro...

instead of the dollar for oil sales. This would enhanse the Euro and destroy--or practically destroy the value of the dollar.

A very good reason for pulling their ambassador.

Probably the primary reason Deadeye Dick went to Saudi...to plead with the Saudis not to abandon the dollar.

[malaise]

75. Bush and his goons have

fugged up everything they touched.

[lovuian]

78. I think you could be right about them going to the Euro

but that would definitely Make the US dollar not a World currency and the Euro the chosen one.
Bush has really screwed us

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

74. Sounds like a Syriana subplot.

:shrug:

[Tight_rope]

79. Now this is some serious deep shit...

I wonder what the fuck is going on. :shrug: Nevermind...I forgot the adults are in charge...No need to worry :popcorn: :popcorn:

[peacetalksforall]

80. It all revolves around Cheney and how he survives at this

critical point. His motives are independent of the President and the Baker contingent.

He could have given everyone one reason to go to SA and had his own. My gut says that when sides are chosen if sides need to be taken - he will side with Shias and/or Iranians. That House of Saud friendship is with the Bush/Carlyle/Baker group.

Cheney is PNAC. PNAC has Israel as one of its six most important goals. Israel and Iran are not friends, but Iran and Shias have the power and the most access to oil (outside SA?). Two of the six reasons for their (his?) invasion. Deals can be cut between Iran and Israel.

We're victims in a most critical game of chess where players and pieces are the most notorious charlatans and deceivers who own and want the most expensive real estate ever imagined because of our government.

Our government's choice to go with oil over other forms of clean energy may now result in untold deaths or a few more years of tense peace. Thank the oil and related corporations, their ceo's, feo's, stockholders, boards of directors, lobbyists and politicians, plus the stuffed media who facilitated it all.

An aside - something crossed my mind in reading the start of this thread - did Hussein plant 'protection' at the oil wells which PNAC considered THEIR weapons of mass destruction which they were successful in disarmning in their shock and awe era for which they declared a mission accomplished - an act relatead to the deaths of the sons, the imprisonment or disappearance of hundreds, and the death of some biological scientists? Were there real weapons of mass destruction which PNAC knew about and took care of? If not, how would you edit out that plot if you were writing one?

[amandabeech]

91. Sunni-controlled oil trumps Shia-controlled oil, even assuming

that the Shia will be in complete control in Southern Iraq. I am also assuming that the Sunni Saudis keep control of their oil and that the Kuwaitis do the same despite Shia minorities.

All this presumes some truth to current reserve estimates, which are somewhat political at best and fictional at worst.

Add that to the fact that we will never be importing scads of Iranian oil, I find it difficult to understand why Cheney would take the Shia over the Sunnis unless he is simply fixated on Saddam.

[Fovea]

82. Pre Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Japanese ambassador leaves DC.

n/t

[electron_blue]

84. link?

[rodeodance]

86. see this aslo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3013698

[uppityperson]

89. this one also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2907663&mesg_id=2907663

[mia]

92. and it's all our fault

What are we doing to save US dependence on oil today? i'm posting this message in the dark to save energy and the Bushes have fallen out of favor. I wonder what it would be like to see Kucinich at the table.