ISIL is unique among all terrorist groups in history—not because of its ideology, its apocalyptic orientation, or its cruelty, but because of its WEALTH. That wealth allows it access to the weaponry, supplies, and services necessary to wage not only war within several countries in the Middle East, but in several continents. ISIS is certainly the wealthiest underground terrorist organization ever. And why not? What other international terrorist organization (besides, of course, Al Qaeda) has been funded by oil magnates?
Before the discovery of Arab oil, the Arab states were geopolitically insignificant, but for the fact that they stood between the more powerful states of Europe and Asia, and hence had value as staging areas in war. The Arabs themselves were poor, largely uneducated, living in a relative wasteland, and the Industrial Revolution passed them by. They were colonized and exploited by European powers, with little to say regarding their national boundaries or political leadership. Hell, the very existence of the state of Israel says everything about their impotence at that time! But the advent of the oil boom of the 1970s changed all that. Every shred of power that the Arabs have accumulated over this time has been attributable to oil, including the financial industry center in Dubai. Without oil, the strategic worth of the Arabs is approximately nothing. They cannot build vehicles, manufacture high-grade weapons, make cellphones, or in any other way sustain themselves industrially in the modern world. Virtually everything they have, including much of the food they eat, is purchased. And the money they use to purchase those goods is oil money.
It is, of course, common knowledge that most those who sponsored the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, Osama bin Laden was a member of a prominent Saudi Arabian family with close ties to the Bush family—all this is well known. Saudi Arabia was of course Mohammed’s homeland, and the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina are there. It is the home of Wahhabism, the virulently militant and puritanical strain of Sunni Islam that is the ideological engine of both Al Qaeda and ISIL. The teaching and spread of Wahhabism has had explosive growth since the oil boom of the 1970s. The emergence of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism as an international issue can thus be seen as nothing more, or less, than a noxious side effect of the Arab oil economy.
So my proposal to initiate the destruction of ISIS is this: An immediate economic blockade of Saudi Arabia, accompanied by the freezing of international assets. This would be done by agreement of all the major economic players, starting with the G8+5. The exclusion of Russia following their invasion of the Crimea should, in my opinion, be set aside, since Russia has reemerged as a major player in the Middle East—and of course, war necessarily makes strange bedfellows. An agreement there should be followed by initiation of a UN resolution, but not dependent on its passage. All these actions should IMHO be pursued without prior negotiation with the Saudi Arabian government, who has clearly demonstrated that it will not act in good faith with the international community. Then the Saudi government should be informed that these actions will be remain in place indefinitely, until such time that they have demonstrated complete cooperation in international efforts to investigate, prosecute, and convict ALL individuals who have participated in and financed international criminal terrorist acts.
This would of course encounter significant resistance within American industrial interests who are currently doing business with Saudi Arabia. However if this should become the topic of discussion among the American body politic, who is going to have the guts to defend those interests? I can think of many Republican candidates (and possibly one Democratic one) who might hold private reservations about such a dramatic proposal—but who would dare to speak them aloud? The Saudis as a whole are not our friends. They have taken oil money from the Western economies, and then used that money to ideologically brainwash their populace and others to despise Western values—and to fund terrorist attacks against Western nations. (As well as many non-Western ones, I might add.) They are in my opinion not to be trusted, or funded, any longer.
The economic fallout of such a move would, of course, be considerable. Russia would certainly benefit, since it would allow them to charge more for its oil and natural gas—which I’m sure would encourage their participation in the embargo. China and India have their own problems with radical Islamic terrorism. But it is a given that many of us are going to suffer pain in this world as it is now—not only from the loss of life, but our lost sense of security in the wake of these attacks. The anticipated pain of military intervention is already be discussed openly in many quarters, and in my opinion cannot be ruled out. But wouldn’t this sort of economic intervention vastly preferable to any more foreign military intervention, especially one that involves boots on the ground??? What would be the potential effectiveness of such an economic intervention, should it be diplomatically possible?
I think it would be devastatingly effective. Many Saudi assets are located internationally, among many nations who have already been the victims of Islamic terrorism—since the Saudi royalty cannot be too sure that they will remain in power indefinitely. I’m quite sure that many in the economic elite know who the major sponsors of Islamic terrorism are, if they are not sponsors themselves. The cessation of business with the Saudis will be bad for everybody’s business there, and there would be significant pressure to cooperate internationally if anyone there wants to continue to the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. Loss of oil money would also gravely threaten their ability to retain political power in their own country. So the pressure to cooperate with the international community would be substantial.
And without money, what does ISIL have? No cell phones, no transportation, no weapons except the steadily depleting leftovers from the US occupation, no native industry to speak of. The ONLY thing they would have is a plenty of fuel, but very little to put it in. A military power that cannot produce weapons has to buy them—without money, they have nothing to fight with. The potency of ISIL will wither, as their sponsors wonder how much they can afford to divert from their attorney fees, bribes, and and a nest egg for their diminishing prospects for safe exile.
It goes without saying that such a move should be accompanied by the adoption of a moonshot mentality in accelerating our development and utilization of renewable energy resources to diminish our dependence on foreign oil—which might finally become the sort of patriotic enterprise that it was meant to be! So why isn’t Bernie Sanders advancing this proposal??? Hell,why isn’t Donald Trump proposing it, and telling Republicans that Jeb! is unfit for the Presidency because the Bush family is too damn cozy with the Saudis??? You tell me.
(NOTE: I’m sorry I’m not performing PC gymnastics and using terminology other than “Islamic terrorism/terrorists”. I am NOT equating said terrorists with anyone else in the Muslim world. They are terrorists who identify their cause as Islam. I assure you that if I was talking about terrorists identifying their cause as Christianity, I would call them “Christian terrorists”. And since I myself am a Buddhist, feel free to use the term “Buddhist terrorists” when appropriate to the occasion. No bigotry is intended whatsoever.)
ADDENDUM: Many of the comments I’m reading seem to reflect an entrenched cynicism regarding the democratic process, and possibilities for the near future. If you haven’t noticed, the attacks in Paris had a galvanizing effect on the world. The US and Russia are already pursuing a war footing, and complete inaction becomes increasing insensible to our European allies. The problems Europeans are facing are more acute than ours are, and an immediate remedy that would not involve military intervention becomes increasingly attractive. Economic sanctions proved effective in moving Iran diplomatically, and would be infinitely more desirable to the rest of the world community. Funding terrorism is international criminal activity, and such an intervention would be in accordance of international law.
But most importantly, very many of these countries are functional democracies. How much of the American public would support or oppose an economic embargo on Saudi Arabia in accordance international law? How many Republicans? How many Democrats? How many Europeans? And how many would vastly prefer it as an alternative for war? I think the corporate interests involved would shut up and sit in the corner. They would figure out how to mark off their losses, and exploit the new environment. Their cause is politically inarguable, and arguing it would do more damage to them then moving on.
Citation of a proposal’s dim prospects for fruition is not unlike the familiar logic of telling someone that they should not support the candidate they choose because there is no way he/she will win. It cynically devalues the promise of democracy, assuming that the majority of the population cannot possibly notice a really good idea, and that this popularity could not possibly become very powerful. I can’t think of any new idea potentially more popular than this one would be--were it to be introduced into the, ahem, fertile political conversation we’re already having in this country.
And for those who, understandably, see this as too precipitous: Why is there no public discussion of at least implementing economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia for their support of terrorism--immediately and with threat of escalation? Why is Bernie Sanders not saying this? It seems very clear to me that the current policy of accommodation is maintained in the interests of the corporatocracy, not necessarily the citizenry. And consideration of such outside-the-corporate-box thinking might add some foreign policy heft to his campaign.
Poll
48
votes
Show Results
Is this a good idea?
48
votes
Vote Now!
Is this a good idea?
Comments are closed on this story.