by Tanya Hsu
In spite of its progressive producer and target audience, Fahrenheit
9/11 falls in lockstep with the agenda of neoconservative hawks: rid
Arabia of the House of Saud, thereby granting the U.S. and allies full
access to the Middle East's biggest prize.
There is a growing belief on the part of members Congress, diplomats, and
the American public that the Bush administration is executing a "turnaround"
in U.S. policy toward the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of neoconservative
and interest group pressure. . . .
The U.S. has not had wholly "friendly" intentions toward the Kingdom for the
past 30 years. Any appearance of such is only the visible veneer of real
U.S. military policy. Declassified documents reveal that there has been a
constant drumbeat behind closed doors to invade Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon
has, for three decades, formulated and updated secret plans to seize Saudi
oil wells and rid the Kingdom of the ruling House of Saud. This is not only
a neoconservative cabal. Time and again, plans have been made for an
invasion of Saudi Arabia for a larger purpose: U.S. control of Middle
Eastern oil, with all the political power that would entail.
The most recent wave of charges that Saudi Arabia supports and/or condones
terrorism signifies a secondary and more public attempt to gain support for
a thirty-year-old plan to occupy Saudi Arabia. Other regional players'
objectives (such as "securing" oil supplies, or "fighting terror") may
create an unstoppable impetus for an American invasion.
Classified Plans Brought to Light
In 1973, the Nixon administration described a plan of attack against Saudi
Arabia to seize its oil fields in a classified Joint Intelligence Report
entitled "UK Eyes Alpha." British MI5 and MI6 were informed, and under
British National Archive rules, the document was declassified in Dec. 2003.
The oil embargo had been over for only three weeks but "Eyes Alpha"
suggested that the "U.S. could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for
themselves and their allies by taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, and the Gulf State of Abu Dhabi." It followed that "preemptive"
action would be considered, and that two brigades could seize the Saudi
oilfields and one brigade each could take Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.
In Feb. 1975 the London Sunday Times revealed information from a leaked and
classified U.S. Department of Defense plan. The plan was code-named "Dhahran
Option Four" and provided for an invasion of the world's largest oil
reserves, namely Saudi Arabia. . . .
Also in 1975, Robert Tucker, U.S. intelligence and military analyst, wrote
an article for Commentary magazine, owned by the Jewish American Committee,
entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention." Tucker stated that,
"Without intervention there is a distinct possibility of an economic and
political disaster bearing . . . resemblance to the disaster of 1930s. . . . The Arab
shoreline of the Gulf is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." And
this was followed in February of the same year by an article in Harper's
magazine by a Pentagon analyst using a pseudonym, Miles Ignotus, emphasizing
the need for the U.S. to seize Saudi oilfields, installations and airports,
entitled "Seizing Arab Oil." According to James Akins, former U.S. diplomat,
the author was probably Henry Kissinger, secretary of state at the time.
Kissinger has neither confirmed nor denied the charge.
Further, in Aug. 1975, a report entitled, "Oil Fields as Military
Objectives: A Feasibility Study," was produced for the Committee on Foreign
Relations. This report stated that potential targets for the U.S. included
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria. "Analysis indicates . . .
[that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and
qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed."
The real premise of an attack against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been
around since the Cold War. The idea was, however, revived under the aegis of
a new "war against terrorism" on the charge of that the Saudi state
supported strikes against the west. One nexus of this drive is Richard
Lutz Kleveman, "The New Great Game,"
Guardian, October 20, 2003