• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Saudi Arabia Help ISIS To Force The US Back To The Middle East?

Did Saudi Arabia Help ISIS To Force The US Back To The Middle East?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • No

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Total voters
    5
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Every since I heard that the Sunnis in charge of the Iraqi Army in the Sunni areas of Iraq abandoned their posts and let ISIS take over, I have been wondering if Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel have helped ISIS rise to force the US back into the Middle East. While pondering this today, I came across this very interesting article from back in July:

Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa'ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.
................
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed.

This also came on the radar today

Saudi king warns of terrorist threat to Europe, US

The king of Saudi Arabia has warned that extremists could attack Europe and the U.S. if there is not a strong international response to terrorism after the Islamic State group seized a wide territory across Iraq and Syria.

While not mentioning any terrorist groups by name, King Abdullah's statement appeared aimed at drawing Washington and NATO forces into a wider fight against the Islamic State group and its supporters in the region.
.............
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed.

I personally think it's quite possible that Saudi Arabia may have paid those officials in the Iraqi Army to abandon their posts so that ISIS could take over and the US would have to come back into Iraq.

So what do you think? Did Saudi Arabia facilitate the rise of ISIS so that the US would be forced to come back into the Middle East with military force?
 
MildSteel said:
So what do you think? Did Saudi Arabia facilitate the rise of ISIS so that the US would be forced to come back into the Middle East with military force?
Click to expand...

Back during the early years of the Afghanistan wars, the (Sunni) al-Qaeda second-in-command Zarqawi said, "Brothers, do not give up the fight against the great satan America, but never forget that the real enemy are the apostate Shi'a." That's not an exact quote since it's from memory, but it's very close and the meaning is exactly the same. America, Europe, and the Jews are NOT the main enemy to the Sunnis - the Shi'a are. We're just the excuse, the means of fund-raising and staying relevant in the media. And the Shi'a know this, which is why they're not similarly outraged at our assistance in bombing ISIS.
 
I've heard this about IS and other Terrorist groups. Is there any proof to such a claim?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Back during the early years of the Afghanistan wars, the (Sunni) al-Qaeda second-in-command Zarqawi said, "Brothers, do not give up the fight against the great satan America, but never forget that the real enemy are the apostate Shi'a." That's not an exact quote since it's from memory, but it's very close and the meaning is exactly the same. America, Europe, and the Jews are NOT the main enemy to the Sunnis - the Shi'a are. We're just the excuse, the means of fund-raising and staying relevant in the media. And the Shi'a know this, which is why they're not similarly outraged at our assistance in bombing ISIS.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that the Sunnis perceive the Shia to be bigger enemies than the US et al. I can't offer any proof, but my gut tells me that the Sunnis and Shia are capable of uniting against the US. I say that because although the Sunnis and Shia may be enemies, they both share a common culture with similar values, whereas the culture of the West is diametrically opposed to both. But that's just pure speculation on my part. If you have more to add, please do so.
 
Van Basten said:
I've heard this about IS and other Terrorist groups. Is there any proof to such a claim?
Click to expand...

I don't have any direct proof, but we do know that both the Saudis and those generals who abandoned their posts in Iraq are Sunnis. It is also widely accepted that the Saudis have provided support to extremists, such as ISIS, who were fighting Assad in Syria. We also know that the Saudis were extremely displeased that the US did not step in and overthrow Assad. It stands to reason that it is quite possible that the Saudis could have paid the generals to abandon their posts. At the very least, the abandonment must have been coordinated for such widespread desertion to materialize. It is natural to look for motive, and the Saudis would be highly motivated to make such a move.
 
Van Basten said:
I've heard this about IS and other Terrorist groups. Is there any proof to such a claim?
Click to expand...

What's been coming out for some time is that it has been very wealthy saudi citizens that have been funding these groups, not the Saudi government itself. Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century created his own sect of Wahaabism and in 1744 gained support of the Saudi family. Whaabism is a particulalry vicious form of fundamentalist Isalm and has been at work for many years. It can only be concluded then that Wahaabism is a big part of the financial and working forces of ISIS.
 
MildSteel said:
I'm not so sure that the Sunnis perceive the Shia to be bigger enemies than the US et al. I can't offer any proof, but my gut tells me that the Sunnis and Shia are capable of uniting against the US. I say that because although the Sunnis and Shia may be enemies, they both share a common culture with similar values, whereas the culture of the West is diametrically opposed to both. But that's just pure speculation on my part. If you have more to add, please do so.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go read "The Shi'a Revival" by Vali Nasr, who is a Shi'a...and who taught at our Naval Postgraduate School. His book was recommended reading for U.S. Naval officers.

And if you read that book, you begin to realize that the Shi'a/Sunni schism is not like the Catholic/Protestant schism. Instead, you find out that the schism - and the hatred - between the two major sects of Islam run much deeper. Once you read this book, you'll start seeing why it was so stupid for us to go into Iraq, among other things....
 
MildSteel said:
We also know that the Saudis were extremely displeased that the US did not step in and overthrow Assad. It stands to reason that it is quite possible that the Saudis could have paid the generals to abandon their posts.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense. Before, we wanted the rebels to get rid of Assad even if we didn't help them do it the way Saudi Arabia wanted us to. Now we want to get rid of the rebels (isis) even if it means tolerating Assad. I've read that Assad himself supported Isis by releasing jihadists he had locked up, buying their oil, and concentrating his attacks on the secular rebels. That makes sense to me: making it so that the only two forces in Syria are Isis and Assad so that the US will have to chose the lesser of two evils. Why Saudi Arabia would want the alternative to Assad even less palatable to us then Assad himself makes no sense to me. That said, I think it's quite possible that the Saudis supported Isis in the past due to a failure to foresee the threat that it posed.
 
Van Basten said:
I've heard this about IS and other Terrorist groups. Is there any proof to such a claim?
Click to expand...

No. It mostly comes down to a desire to avoid the actual problem by blaming identifiable third-party actors.

Saudi Arabia is probably willing to export its' troublemakers to Iraq, and take steps to ensure they aren't able to come back. That is very different from active enablement, and is a position akin to the one currently held by (for example) Europe and the US, both of whom do not go to lengthy efforts to stop people from going to fight Jihad, but do try to find out who is doing so, so that we can make sure to track them when they try to return.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I suggest you go read "The Shi'a Revival" by Vali Nasr, who is a Shi'a...and who taught at our Naval Postgraduate School. His book was recommended reading for U.S. Naval officers.

And if you read that book, you begin to realize that the Shi'a/Sunni schism is not like the Catholic/Protestant schism. Instead, you find out that the schism - and the hatred - between the two major sects of Islam run much deeper. Once you read this book, you'll start seeing why it was so stupid for us to go into Iraq, among other things....
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's really amazing the amount of chaos that is based on religious misunderstandings that exist in the world today.
 
zoetherat said:
That doesn't make much sense. Before, we wanted the rebels to get rid of Assad even if we didn't help them do it the way Saudi Arabia wanted us to. Now we want to get rid of the rebels (isis) even if it means tolerating Assad. I've read that Assad himself supported Isis by releasing jihadists he had locked up, buying their oil, and concentrating his attacks on the secular rebels. That makes sense to me: making it so that the only two forces in Syria are Isis and Assad so that the US will have to chose the lesser of two evils. Why Saudi Arabia would want the alternative to Assad even less palatable to us then Assad himself makes no sense to me. That said, I think it's quite possible that the Saudis supported Isis in the past due to a failure to foresee the threat that it posed.
Click to expand...

It makes sense when viewed in the light of the fact that the Saudis are very displeased with Obama's position that the US should avoid taking an active role in these conflicts in the Middle East. The fact is that ISIS is a dead end street. They are too extremist and isolated diplomatically to form a credible state. It will collapse under it's own weight. Therefore raising them up would be a small price to pay for getting the US to take a more active role in the Middle East.

I find it very difficult to believe that Assad would buy oil from ISIS. They have simply taken over too much Syrian territory and natural resources for Assad to give them such assistance.
 
MildSteel said:
I find it very difficult to believe that Assad would buy oil from ISIS. They have simply taken over too much Syrian territory and natural resources for Assad to give them such assistance.
Click to expand...

Here's the article that makes this assertion.

"By last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments."
 
zoetherat said:
Here's the article that makes this assertion.

"By last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments."
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, I have heard this line of reasoning before. Again, I just don't buy it because ISIS has become much too powerful for Assad to make such a huge gamble. Although ISIS can pose a threat to the Saudis, at this point, they are not a direct threat to the Saudis. In the case of Assad, this is not so. ISIS poses too much of a direct threat to Assad for him to support them in this way.
 
How should I know?

Ask Saudi Arabia.
 
DA60 said:
How should I know?

Ask Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Ask Saudi Arabia? That's like asking Dick Cheney to admit he authorized torture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom