Exposed: The deal struck between the Obama administration and the House of Saud on Libya

[Better Believe It]

Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal
By Pepe Escobar
April 2, 2011

You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like war business, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry.

Read the full article at:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak01.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Words defeat me.

:(

[nc4bo]

2. Meet the new boss blah-blah-blah. nt

[mazzarro]

4. Yeah - meet the new boss...

He is ans stinking naked as the old boss - he has no clothes when it it comes to "war-on forever"!

[JoePhilly]

3. Funny how the exact same text in this article has been put forward

multiple times from different sources in the last few days as if EACH of those sources obtained this info on their own.

Kind of reminds me of how the Bush administration would leak something to multiple members of the press, and then use the multiple press reports as separate accounts of events.

In this case, each time a new source puts out the same exact text pretending it is based on their own reporting, that article generates a new OP on DU as if it was a new story.

In this case, we have the Asia Times, quoting unnamed diplomats from foreign countries, telling us how the US and the Saudis made a secret deal.

I like the part where they throw in a list of scary groups who must clearly be part of this conspiracy.

Each time I see this story, I read the article trying to find out which reporting group takes responsibility for it. They each put it forward, as if they're reporters got the story, and yet each story used the exact same text to describe the events.

That's probably just a coincidence. It is very likely that multiple independent news agencies would end up with the exact same 2 or 3 paragraphs of text.

[Better Believe It]

6. Can you cite articles that used the exact, same text as this article?

Links for verification please.

[IScreamSundays]

7. I read your post and immediately remembered a post in the dungeon I read last night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x310969#310992

That is right, it was moved to the dungeon. Also I noticed several threads concerning Libya that were "relocated" to the dungeon as well. All of them pretty much advocating the same position as this OP. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

[Exilednight]

15. Same position doesn't mean much if you're trying to discredit an article. If anything

it strengthens it.

[Better Believe It]

18. So your claim that you read articles with the exact same test wasn't true.

So why did you make that false claim?

You certainly won't gain any credibility here engaging in such behavior.

[joshcryer]

21. You are responding to a different poster.

[IScreamSundays]

50. I never said that. I only mentioned that I have read

a few articles that were moved to the dungeon that were discussing CIA/State Dept involvement in the uprising in Libya. I never said anything about the text. I was actually siding with you. I have been around here since before 9-11 and have seen some of the gatekeeping that has taken place.

[KoKo]

68. I've seen it also.

Apparently "Global Research" is now not an "approved DU site" and even an "Asia Times" Story on this revelation about the "secret deal" was sited as "not appropriate for DU" and locked or moved or something and yet there is an "Asia Times" article about "Taiwanese told to Stay Inside to Protect from Radiation" right now up on DU's Front Page.

Gatekeeping indeed. Selective.

[TheMadMonk]

29. Can't suply a cite. But I too concur with Joe.

I have seen another article with that exact same text 2 or 3 days ago. If one, then quite possibly more.

Identical acoounts from supposedly independent sources is always reason for suspiscion.

[bluestate10]

35. The very same article was posted here on DU days ago.

Of course a canned conclusion is always passed off as a scoop. Come back with fresh information.

[JoePhilly]

48. Here's one ... starts on DU, goes to an article that uses same words

from a different source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=642494&mesg_id=642494

[Luminous Animal]

52. Your "different source" was reporting on the article written by Pepe Escobar... the same journalist

in the OP's linked article.

[Hannah Bell]

56. So again, they can't support their claim.

[nashville_brook]

12. that's quite a conspiracy theory.

[Swede]

28. Here's another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x642494

[Nevernose]

34. All I can find is the same story reprinted

Like what the AP does, or any of a hundred other organizations. That's really no big deal.

And although I'm inclined to believe this story -- it rings true and would be EXACTLY the way the US worked, based on our long sad history -- I, too, have trouble with any article citing "unnamed sources." I lean in favor of the accuracy of this article, but without proof or names, I'm not ready to fall all the way.

[Luminous Animal]

53. That is because it is the same article written by Pepe Escobar reprinted in different news

media.

[Jakes Progress]

55. Why all the logic? You can't distract and discredit if you actually address the isssue.

Why, if people go around actually addressing issues rather than try to play games and run the topic off into he said/she said, then those issues might actually be discussed. We can't have that now. Best to just stick to discussions about the emperor's pretty new clothes.

[ecstatic]

63. Pepe Escobar is not a credible source. Google him

Truther stuff and New World Order conspiracies are all he prints.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Then your contention

is that the US made no such deal with the Sauds. You do not believe that this was an arrangement?

How about a comment on the subject of the OP? What would be your reaction if the administration made such a deal?

[ecstatic]

69. If it were true, I'd be surprised

and weirded out, of course. But how would Pepe have exclusive access to private meetings between Obama and the Saudis? Not very likely, especially when you look at his body of work.

[Jakes Progress]

70. Ducking the question. Weirded out?

That's it? Disregarding the source - even a blind man hits a target sometimes - and the discussion of sources, is a little weird the only reaction this would create in you?

Actually, a nice tangental discussion might be why so many Democrats would believe that this might be so? I know the faithful like to talk about hating and stuff, but really. What has happened in two years that so many who campaigned and marched and caucused and voted for the man, so many that literally sang when Obama was elected, would find this story even remotely believable? This is the issue that the candidate needs to address. We already got the blindly faithful, but there are just so many of those (a number that is shrinking daily) and let's hope (there's that word) that the candidate will have more to appeal to the disaffected than a campaign based on "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy".

[Jefferson23]

71. Complete slander you have here about Escobar.

Too bad no one in the MSM has even half his intelligence and voracity for accuracy as this guy.

Two weeks before 9/11, he wrote this:

Get Osama! Now! Or else ...
By Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH30Df01.html

As well as writing for Asia Times Online he works for The Real News Network.

[Newest Reality]

5. Business as usual ... sigh.

Cue the army of locusts. Release the economic jackals. Unleash the pigs of profit. Mate the Fascist ferrets and let their bastard spawn prey upon the people and feast upon the entrails of collateral damage.

Conjure the demons of pseudo-capitalism and dance them around the camp of neo-barbaric thieves, plotting yet another huge heist in their boardroom caves, dressed luxuriously in their uniforms of lavish neckties and expensive suits.

Slam the hammer of power and money down on the weak and those who aspire to be free. Break the backs of the peasants at each juncture and spatter them with bullets and shrapnel. The invisible hand of the market is simply a facade for what is actually a boot, now poised, to stomp on human faces forever.

[truedelphi]

61. I think that the

Nightmare you cite as reality has really been making the rounds.

And with Ahnold having left the building, did the new Dem governor signal to Obama that it's okay to also make war on the medical marijuana dispensaries?

[KG]

8. it all makes Perfect Sense

but first, our global anthem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvUs5ugUcQk

[Scuba]

10. I thought this was our global anthem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVoP5SvqJVo

[RC]

9. Makes ya proud to be a USA'n

Not.

[nashville_brook]

11. holy f'n shit. if Bush were doing this DU would be on fire with outrage.

but, it's our Democratic president and, what can you do? don't want to hurt his chances for re-election.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

14. Pyrric victories are good enough for some.

[SpartanDem]

16. So Gadaffi wasn't killing peaceful protesters

because lets remember how this started, as peaceful protest. We merely imagined the attacks on Miserata and his troops heading toward Benghazi. It never ceases to amaze me the crackpot conspiracy bs people will lap up and some here have nerve to laugh at the right for doing the same thing.

[joshcryer]

17. It'd be OK if it was coherent, but it's many many many conspiracies one on top of the other.

The more conspiracies are trotted out, the more likely I am to just write them off, which is unfortunate, because there's probably a lot of truth in those reports, but they're being overblown or exaggerated, etc.

[Better Believe It]

22. What conspiracy? It's not hard to believe a deal was made with our "friend" in Saudi Arabia.

Is it?

And is the report on the Arab League vote inaccurate?

[joshcryer]

32. Such a deal was not requsite on our fulfillment of the UN resolution.

Saudi's could've said no, it would've still happened, ergo, stupidity.

[anaxarchos]

40. Twaddle...

Here is Susan Rice's statement, citing the Arab League vote as a primary rationale.

http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/March/20110318130126su0.8235241.html

Here is the Arab League vote being used as a primary rationale in the Security Council resolution itself and being underscored in the comments of the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

There are literally dozens of articles which emphasize the significance of this vote and I doubt whether you could quote two which dismiss it as you have.

The idea, that if this important justification had disappeared, they would have made up a different one... that actually supports a conspiracy theory worthy of neocons.

[joshcryer]

42. Arab League isn't "The Saudi's."

Ambassador to the Arab League is Hesham Youssef, an Egyptian. Amr Moussa, another Egyptian, is the head of it. The Arab League has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League">22 states. http://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2768.aspx">15 of them signed on board.

Saudi Arabia is conspicuously absent.

[anaxarchos]

45. Double twaddle...

"Explain" it again. Maybe it will sound better this time.

In addition to Saudi Arabia, the GCC is Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait. Together, they don't have the population of the suburbs of a small midwestern city and are completely in the shadow of Saudi Arabia. The last time they voted against the Saudis on something important was... never.

If there were only 11 member states voting, Saudi Arabia already had the resolution locked up. The subsequent letter is meaningless. There is a long history of attempts to present a common front in the League after the fact, just as there is in the OAU.

Explain to me about Hesham Youssef and Amr Moussa, too... both of whom worked for Mubarak (Moussa was Foreign Minister) and are well known toadies.

And then, here is Clinton saying that the Arab League vote, "changed minds".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/clinton-says-arab-league-vote-for-no-fly-zone-changed-minds-1-.html

It is inconceivable that she didn't know the make up of the vote or that the Saudis didn't at least talk to her first.

"They really changed our minds, after we changed theirs."

What a load of crap.

[joshcryer]

46. Egypt, Yemen, Algeria and Morocco and Sudan make up around 215~ million people.

Your efforts to deflect by mentioning small states that signed is ridiculously transparent.

The Saudi's weren't necessary, they are irrelevant.

I doubt they want a fostering democracy in their neighborhood, anyway. Especially if it bleeds over to Egypt and other states, right down their fucking throat.

And that'll be the eventuality.

[joshcryer]

47. Note: contrast with the 340~ million in the Arab League.

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Exaggerated indeed.

As intended.

[EFerrari]

19. Peaceful protesters are being killed all over the ME

but Obama decided to go into Libya. You do the math.

[joshcryer]

20. How many people do you believe have been killed in Libya?

How many people do you believe have been killed in every other middle east or Arab protest?

People keep singling out Libya as if there's some sort of overarching US Exceptionalism conspiracy, and while on a viability level there most certainly is a US/EU conspiracy (they would not have seen Libya as viable until 10x more people were killed, like Bosnia), the United Nations is who made the decision.

I honestly thought that once the United States pulled back its military operations as it has done there'd be less US bashing, but I was kidding myself.

[SpartanDem]

23. Like you wouldn't be saying that if we didn't go in

only the conspiracy would be that Obama let the rebels get crushed in order get oil production back to business as usual. That is exactly what would happened if the rebels had been they been crushed. I have hard time believing that given the lucrative oil contracts and recent arms sales with the West that there would not be an attempt to associate our ignoring the rebels request for help with those contracts. So the same people and conspiracy loving nuts condemning Obama for attacking Libya for oil/the mic would be condeming him for letting a pro-democracy movement, that asked for our help, get crushed. Pretty convenient argument, eh? No which matter which angle you take you can find to whip up a conspriacy that involves Obama and the US.

[EFerrari]

24. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's all out in the open.

It's just policy.

[SpartanDem]

26. My point is you're taking something that just plausible and turning it into fact

that there is a potential for another motive doesn't make so, especially when you can make a case with either course of action. Unlike Iraq with the obvious WMD lies and Halliburtion ties the case against Libya is weakly circumstantial.

[defendandprotect]

59. Conspiracies do happen in the open --Federal Reserve, Bilderbergers, DLC ---

renewal of tax breaks for the wealthy, recent finanical coup, bail outs --

Obama's back room deals with Big Pharma and the Private health care industry --

moving jobs overseas with taxpayer money -- 2000 election -- 9/11 lies -- our pretend

Department of Justice/Holder -- Signing Agreements -- Wiretapping - Torture --

Drones flown into Pakists -- bribery of ou relected officials called "campaign finance" --

Not to mention Obama appointing the very people who created and organized the financial

coup to his administration!

Needless to say, capitalism is another of the out in the open conscpiracies --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organzied crime!



The really frightening part of it is how well right wing propaganda still works to

sell these ideas and make them seem acceptable!

[joshcryer]

31. +1, that is precisely what these people would be saying.

"UN didn't intervene, US could've made the UN intervene, they were begging for it, now Egypt has 100k refugees. And Gaddafi has silenced all of the dissidents! The oil is flowing again! Fucking western imperialism backing a goddamn tyrant!"

And so it goes, the forward march of irrationality.

[inna]

39. what an utterly disgusting comment.

"No which matter which angle you take you can find to whip up a conspriacy that involves Obama and the US."

vile.

[SpartanDem]

41. What did I say that wasn't true?

You're telling you can't make case that oil companies could've benefited by not intervening in Libya. That there wouldn't be accusations that we let a pro-democracy group get defeated to help them?

[bertman]

57. I have to agree with you, SpartanDem. Although, I don't discount the idea

that there were deals struck as part of the go-ahead for the no-fly zone. The Saudis don't give a flying fuck what happens to the Libyans. So they made the best deal they could under the circumstances.

International politics sucks.

But, we did stop a fricking slaughter of major proportions. Which is okay with me.

[defendandprotect]

60. Also been criticism because rebels actually restored oil production -- !! Rather ...

US Treasury: Crude oil sales by Libyan rebels would not be subject to US sanctions if...

Crude oil sales by Libyan rebels would not be subject to US sanctions if they are completed outside of the National Oil Corp or any other entity connected to Gaddafi's regime, a US Treasury Department official said on today.

The rebels, who regained control of a number of oil fields and terminals in eastern Libya over the weekend, would have to establish payment systems that do not utilize Libya's central bank or involve any other government entity, the official told Reuters.

The rebels are not part of the government of Libya. They are not subject to the sanctions.

17.59:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindi...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x756874#758932

[Distant Observer]

30. EVIDENCE PLS! Both US Intelligence and BBC reports suggest NOT beyond what was typical

of security personnel (acting either under orders or as rogue elements) as in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia
etc

AND NOTHING COMPARED WITH SUDAN, BURMA, SRI LANKA ETC

Of course there was the nasty framing of "Blacks killing innocent protestors," all over the MSM which
seems to have made everything 1000 times more evil, monstrous and criminal than it would be taken if it
was about the IRA being beaten down in Northern Ireland.

[JohnyCanuck]

25. For gawd's sake folks.

Just read and remember my sig line.

[inna]

37. thank you for the great line and for the link.

"the innocents" is way too sugarcoating of a term, though.

[Flubadubya]

49. Yeah, "the ultimate dupes"...

works a lot better for me.

[louslobbs]

33. Why exactly do they call it a "Peace Prize"? And it's given to those who do what?

Lou

[Distant Observer]

36. Don't Blame Barack. The STRATEGIC INTERESTS of the real powers drive these decisions

Libya and its poor people are not strategic.

The Israel-Arab conflict is strategic,

Gulf Oil power is strategic,

It is strategic to distract from whatever the Saudis need to do to keep the Arabian gulf under control
(by all necessary means)

Turning the focus away from the Gulf was the paramount interest of the West and of the Potentates.

Gaddafi was expendable, Libya was expendable. Its huge unexplored Oil reserves is useful in that
control of them provides more stability for the Euro.

It is completely logical that "Gaddafi must go."

[louslobbs]

38. First off, i don't think you know the President personally if you want to defend him have respect

and address him as President Obama otherwise your argument, from the start, loses all effect. Second, my question never suggested or mentioned our President. And finally, you never answered my questions, you simply went off on a lecture to defend "Barack" your pal and like Sarah Palin, avoided my question entirely and answered the one you wanted to. Now, I'd be happy to hear your answer to the questions I asked rather than your defense of a President, that quite frankly, does not need your help.
Lou

[Distant Observer]

43. Sorry. I obviously missunderstood the intent of your question. I defer to google, with respect.

[louslobbs]

51. Thank you, apology accepted and we're totally cool, thanks also for the google reference

Lou

[The Northerner]

44. K&R nt

[neoralme]

54. That's all she wrote, for me.

[defendandprotect]

58. If true, unusual that Obama actually got anything in return!!!

[ecstatic]

62. Pepe Escobar is a full time conspiracy theorist

If he were a member of DU, all of his OPs would end up in the 911 forum, as he is a truther, and a big believer in the New World Order. I don't necessarily disagree with some of his questions about past events, but he is definitely not someone I'd check in with for real news.

[Prometheus Bound]

64. What crap!

He drives authoritarian types crazy though.

[ecstatic]

65. Which part is crap?

The truth sometimes hurts, but that doesn't make it "crap." And again, I agree with some of his questions about certain events, but I don't get my news from conspiracy theorists. Sorry, I just don't.

[Prometheus Bound]

66. That he's a full time conspiracy theorist.

He's not presenting news. He's presenting background to the news.