Who's falling for Saudi prince's "moderating" rhetoric in pursuit of US weapons & nukes?

In Saudi Arabia's quest to obtain US nuclear reactors and military weaponry, Prince Mohammed bin Salman has launched a PR campaign through America in an attempt to overcome justifiable concerns about its Wahabist advocacy and rejection of the Jewish state, US-ally Israel. While NY magazine headlines rush to proclaim Salman's "recognizing Israel," two, distinct Israeli journalists (one based in Amman, Jordan) and an American Arabist-expert offer a more sober perspective on the Saudis' charm-campaign. 

Saudi Prince Mohammed courts Pres. Trump to sell US nuclear reactors and weapons systems amidst concerns could spark a nuclear arms race among Muslim states and nuclear terrorists.  (photo: The Atlantic, 20 March 2018)

"Our Fair-Weathered Saudi Friend" Opinion by Caroline B. Glick in THE JERUSALEM POST April 4, 2018

Have we entered a new period of sweetness and light with our Arab neighbors? On Monday, The Atlantic published an interview which the magazine’s editor Jeffrey Goldberg conducted with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman.  

Hours after its publication, the responses began pouring in. The basic line, repeated by all major newspapers, is that the Saudi crown prince recognized Israel’s right to exist. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt gushed about it on his Twitter feed. 

Referring to the interview as “amazing,” Greenblatt wrote that “all should watch [Muhammad bin Salman]. 

He is far from perfect [and] there is a long road ahead, but in a region long dominated by hateful despots, [the prince] envisions a very different future for Muslims, Jews, Christians and all in the Middle East.”  Other commentators were even more exhilarated.

Are the prince’s fans correct? Is his ascendance to the Saudi crown the harbinger of a reformation of Islam and the beginning of a new era in Islamic relations with the Jews and the world as a whole? Not really. 

Most of the reports on the interview have focused on the prince’s remarks in which he ostensibly recognized Israel’s right to exist. But did he actually recognize Israel’s right to exist? Did he distinguish himself from all the other Arab leaders who to date have recognized that Israel exists but not admitted it has a right to exist? Let’s check the text. 

. . .  As Dr. Harold Rhode, a recently retired adviser on Islamic Affairs in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense explains, during much of his conversation with Goldberg, Muhammad engaged in the Islamic practice of “taqiyya,” or dissimulation for the benefit of Islam. 

According to the Koran, Muslims are permitted to lie about Islam to advance the faith.

This conclusion is easily reached when considering his responses to other questions, which like his answer regarding Israel, were deliberately imprecise. Goldberg asked Muhammad simple direct questions and he responded with answers that were either misleading or open to multiple interpretations. 

Dr. Harold Rhode explains the Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in Mid-East


Consider their discussion of Wahhabism. Since Saudi Arabia was established 85 years ago, it has been governed under Wahhabist Islam. Wahhabism, a school of Islam founded in the 18th century by the radical Islamic scholar Ibn Abdel el-Wahhab, views itself as the only legitimate version of Islam. Wahhabism calls for the abrogation of all novel interpretations of Islam. It aspires to Islamic global dominion. And upholds jihad.

Since at least 1979, the Saudis have invested billions of petro-dollars in spreading Wahhabist Islam throughout the world.

But when Goldberg asked Muhammad about those petro dollars, the crown prince acted like he didn’t know what Goldberg was talking about.

“This Wahhabism, please define it for us. We’re not familiar with it. We don’t know about it,” Muhammad said innocently. 

Goldberg responded with amazement, “What do you mean you don’t know about it?” Unmoved, he responded, “What is Wahhabism?” Goldberg replied, “You’re the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. You know what Wahhabism is.”

Muhammad countered, “No one can define this Wahhabism.” 

He then proceeded to deny any connection with the creed of Saudi Arabia while boldly and entirely dishonestly presenting the kingdom as a paragon of religious tolerance where all forms of Islam, including Shi’ite Islam, are treated equally.

Another statement from Muhammad that generated significant interest was his claim that there is no Islamic religious duty to propagate Islam in the non-Islamic world today.

In his words, “Today in non-Muslim countries, every human being has the right to choose his or her belief.

Religious books can be bought in every country. The message is delivered. Now it is no longer a duty for us to fight for the propagation of Islam.”

While Muhammad’s statement is refreshingly straightforward, its meaning is less so. He made his statement as a way of arguing that the calls for jihad and the establishment of a caliphate by the Muslim Brotherhood are un-Islamic.

Certainly, it would be significant if the Saudis stopped funding the radical mosques they founded worldwide.

It would be even more significant if he said that his regime is ordering the mosques the Saudis established throughout the world to preach peaceful coexistence with the non-Islamic world and to reject jihad. But he said nothing of the sort.

Moreover, it is hard to take his claims seriously since he then went on to deny any familiarity with Wahhabism, the creed that has ruled his kingdom for four generations.  

Read more:  www.CarolineGlick.com

Does the Saudi Crown Prince’s Rosy Rhetoric Indicate Real Change? by Zvi Bar'el in Ha'aretz, Apr 4, 2018

Prince Mohammed was not asked, and therefore did not share his thoughts, about what is usually referred to as the “deal of the century” that the Trump administration is cooking up. (Or is it already ready in President Donald Trump’s kitchen?) 

Does the Saudi crown prince still insist on Israel’s full withdrawal from all the territories, as the Arab Initiative demanded? Would Saudi Arabia permit changes to the agreement? Would the prince be willing to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Does he have an opinion about the 1967 borders?
These questions might not have come up in the interview because it was agreed ahead of time not to bring them up.

. . . Will this interest lead Israel to agree to Saudi Arabia’s launching its own nuclear program? Will Israel encourage the U.S. Congress to approve the sale of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to Saudi Arabia, or will it continue to thwart the nuclear reactor deal between Washington and Riyadh?

. . . The crown prince’s vision to diversify the kingdom’s sources of income and reduce its dependence on oil, as called for in the Saudi 2030 plan, is still awaiting proof, while meanwhile he has to deal with a budget deficit caused by plummeting oil prices and heavy expenditures on the war in Yemen. We should wish him success, because Saudi Arabia still carries great weight in shaping pro-Western policies in the Middle East. And if need be, it can wrestle quite a few Arab and Western arms. But anyone who sees Mohammed bin Salman’s statements as a sign that an Israeli flag will soon fly in Riyadh should examine whether Saudi Arabia really has a partner in Israel.

Read more:

Politicon '15: Feminists seek Islam reform- Mona Eltahawy, Ani Zonneveld, moderator Nina Burleigh

Feminism in Islam panel at Politicon 2015 convention, Los Angeles, Oct 9, 2015

Mona Eltahawy and Ani Zonneveld, moderated by Nina Burleigh

With photo-ops with Netanyahu in the album, Obama denies ally Israel's reasoned requests vis a vis Iran sanctions, ceding strategic land to Palestine, Russia / Syria WMD

Updated: Amos Harel in Ha'aretz || Analysis Oct 9th: When it comes to Iran, Israel is walking a fine line in Washington 

Lobbying Congress for tougher sanctions against Iran risks incurring Obama Administration’s wrath.

Israel is conducting a diplomatic campaign aimed at blunting the success of the so-called charm offensive led by Iranian President Hassan Rohani during his visit to the United Nations last month. After the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive speeches, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who is now in the United States, is focused on persuading the Americans not to allow any relaxation of the sanctions on Iran before Tehran signs a binding agreement that will slam the brakes on its nuclear program. In the background, Israel is canvassing Congress with a more ambitious goal in mind – intensifying the sanctions, a move that could lead to a confrontation with the Obama administration, which opposes doing so at this stage.   . . .

Jerusalem now realizes, perhaps more than at earlier stages, the full ramifications of conducting an independent military strike on Iran against the will of the United States. A former senior defense official, who played a major role in recent years in the relations between the two countries, told Haaretz this week that an Israeli strike after an agreement is reached between Iran and the world powers and against the latter’s will, on grounds that the compromise reached was insufficient, could be likened to “an act of strategic suicide.”

'Don't say I didn't warn you' || Ahead of Iran talks, Netanyahu tries to convince Europe not to ease sanctions by Barak Ravid in Ha'aretz Oct 10 21:04

In a series of press interviews, Netanyahu urges European countries to stop Iran’s race for a nuclear bomb while it’s still possible; insists Israel is not isolated.

 On Thursday, Netanyahu gave interviews to several leading media outlets in the three European powers participating in the talks – France, Britain and Germany. The other members of the P5+1 are the United States, Russia and China. In Britain, he spoke to the Financial Times and the Sky television network, in France to Le Monde and the France 24 network, and in Germany to Frankfurter Allgemeine and the ARD network.

A press statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office said that in these interviews, Netanyahu urged European countries to stop Iran’s race for a nuclear bomb while it’s still possible.

“The [Iranian] regime is currently smiling and saying, ‘You know what? Let me continue enriching uranium, let me keep my plutonium plants, and I’ll give you tactical concessions, cosmetic concessions, and you’ll ease the sanctions,’” the Hebrew-language statement said, summarizing Netanyahu’s message.

“But if the sanctions are eased, the sanctions will collapse. They’ll get everything they want, and we, collectively, won’t get anything. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. The Jewish people has been around for 4,000 years. They tried to destroy us over and over, but they didn’t succeed, and we also won’t let people like the ayatollahs succeed. It’s important to stress that this isn’t just an Israeli issue; this issue also affects you.”

In an exclusive interview with France 24, Netanyahu urged France to take a tough stance on Iran and look past Prime Minister Hassan Rohani’s “smile campaign.”

“I don’t have any problem telling the truth even if it’s not popular. It so happens that I’m not isolated - Israel is not isolated,” Netanyahu said.

“Just about every country in the Arab world agrees with our position; some say so openly, some say that less openly. There’s one country who doesn’t agree with us: Syria’s Assad, of course, because he supports Iran’s regime that continues to help him in the mass murder of women and children.”

Islamist sources to media & government

The credibility of Jihadist sources came into popular doubt recently with Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad's televised denial at NY's Columbia University of the existence of homosexual people in Iran. This should have put the Islamist-revisionist history of the Israel-Palestine conflict into the same category of the Islamist world's Holocaust denial campaign.

But this week, Hamas created a false humanitarian crisis for the global media which it blamed on Israel and painted itself as the victim. And in Washington it was revealed that the firing of an counter-Islamist educator, Major Stephen Coughlin, at the behest of the Arab-Muslim, Defense Department advisor, Mr. Hesham Islam, exposed the extent to which both this Administration employs commercial oil and military industry-bred executives in policy roles, as well as the pro-Islamist/anti-Israel nature of their advisors on Islamic-related matters.

Claudia Rosett of the Center for the Defense of Democracies exposes (in National Review Online) an example of journalist Paul Sperry's allegations in his 2005 book, Infiltration, of the extent to which Washington is trusting the untrustworthy.

..."According to his Pentagon biography, (Egyptian-born and Iraqi-educated) Hesham Islam went on to serve on a number of (US Navy) ships, in largely technical and operational posts, before hooking up with Gordon England and finally arriving at his current job in the Pentagon. So, what qualifies Islam to serve as an adviser to whom Gordon England listens all the time, and whose advice England takes? According to Kevin Wensing, England’s pubic-affairs aide: “Mr. Islam brings 20 years of experience in the U.S. Navy and international relations to his current assignment.”

This includes an M.A. in national-security affairs, awarded in 1992 at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. For this degree, Islam wrote a 139-page thesis about the Middle East, entitled “Roots of Regional Ambition.” In it, he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored “Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity.” He argued that U.S. support for Israel “has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East.” He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab “retaliation” against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of “defensive arms to friendly Arab states.”

Whether Gordon England (or Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for that matter) considers such views a relevant qualification for Islam’s current duties is unclear. But what’s emerging at the Pentagon is a landscape in which Stephen Coughlin’s insistence on crafting doctrine based not on politically correct assumptions, but on facts, is apparently deemed a bridge too far. Meanwhile, from the office of Deputy Secretary England, Hesham Islam continues his bridge building. The question isn’t just whom to believe, but who’s running this show?"

An interesting primer explaining Islamic culturally-sanctioned deception is posted on Jihad Watch.

Jeffrey Breinholt has an excellent primer on the Coughlin Affair in "Coughlin for Beginners" published in the Counterterrorism Blog.