Contents
- Birth of the Petrodollar
- Challenges to the Petrodollar
- Who Did 9/11 and Why?
- The US Treasury Bond Market
- China
- SWIFT vs. CIPS
- Key Events: 17 July to 10 September
- The US Military Is “Broken”
- Collapse of US Hegemony & Global Nuclear Risks
- Conclusion
1. Birth of the Petrodollar
Formation of OPEC
American oil companies entered the Middle East from the late 1920s through the 1930s, first in Bahrain and Kuwait and then in Saudi Arabia by the early 1930s. British oil companies were active in Iran and Iraq.
By the end of World War II, in 1945, US oil companies began an aggressive campaign to control more oil provinces in the region. Another key asset that New York was interested in was the Suez Canal, which was still under the joint control of the Anglo-French Rothschild interests.
The CIA pushed Nasser to foment a coup in Egypt, replacing a pro-British king, and then pushed for the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. This prompted an invasion of the Sinai and Suez by Britain, France and Israel.
The Americans were furious and imposed financial sanctions and an oil embargo on the three countries. They withdrew, and Nasser became a champion of the Arab world.
The Suez Canal was now under Egyptian ownership. This happened in 1956.
Nasser’s moves awakened nationalist trends throughout the region. Not long afterwards, Nasser began speaking about Arab oil nationalism, questioning why oil policies were being made in New York, London and Paris rather than in Baghdad, Riyadh, Kuwait and elsewhere.
This alarmed David Rockefeller, who then began a new plan: the formation of OPEC.
“Arab oil is for the Arabs.” — Nasser
As we have detailed in our previous article, the CIA put Nasser into power in order to wrest control of the Suez Canal away from Rothschild control. He was successful in this.
Then the three Rothschild countries — Britain, France and Israel — invaded Egypt in 1956. Under massive pressure from the US, the three countries were forced to withdraw in total humiliation.
This adventure boosted Nasser’s popularity until he began questioning Arab oil policy, asking:
“Why must Arab oil policy be decided in New York, London and Paris — why not in Riyadh, Baghdad or Kuwait?”
This brought about what the article describes as his death sentence from the Rockefeller Empire, which then subcontracted the destruction of the Egyptian military in June 1967.
Another challenger to the Rockefeller Empire was eliminated.
Wanda Jablonski
Wanda Jablonski was an investigative reporter, publisher and power broker who came to wield exceptional influence on twentieth-century geopolitics by shedding light on the secretive world of oil from the 1950s through the 1980s.
Jablonski unveiled many mysteries of the “oil club”, an elite group of Western executives who once controlled the international petroleum business.
Nicknamed the “midwife of OPEC”, Jablonski undermined Big Oil’s dominance by exposing the vulnerabilities of the major oil companies and encouraging the rise of oil nationalism.
Her scoops, commentaries and private networking helped shape the debate that led to the creation of OPEC, the oil shocks of the 1970s and what the article describes as the largest transfer of wealth in history.
Since oil is the bedrock of the Rockefeller fortune, Wanda knew who held the power in this business. She was employed by a Rockefeller publication and was given a new mission:
“To persuade the oil producers to form a producers’ cartel.”
Since the mid-1950s, she worked tirelessly on this project, which eventually culminated in the formation of OPEC in 1960.
This move neutralised objections from nationalists, as oil pricing and quotas were now in the hands of the producers. It would take another 13 years before this power would become a reality.
Wanda coaxed her way into exploration sites in Middle Eastern deserts, drilling camps in the Venezuelan jungle, male-only boardrooms in New York and London, and even the king’s harem in Saudi Arabia.
She survived threats, boycotts and suspicions of espionage as she gathered information and insight from CEOs of the oil giants and political leaders, including the Shah of Iran.
Working for the Journal of Commerce and other New York publications, Jablonski defied the prevailing view that a woman reporting on business had no credibility.
In 1961, a year after the formation of OPEC, she was divorced and suddenly jobless. She took a big gamble by starting her own newsletter, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, which was soon dubbed the “bible” of the oil world.
Challengers to the Rockefeller Oil Empire
Enrico Mattei Challenges Big Oil
Mattei was an Italian industrialist. The Italian government made him the head of ENI, the Italian energy company.
The major oil companies refused to do business with him, forcing Mattei to reach agreements with many oil-producing countries. He succeeded by offering 50/50 partnership agreements.
He was so successful that many other oil producers began asking for similar deals.
In October 1962, he was killed when a bomb exploded on his private jet during take-off from Sicily.
Rumours have it that this was the work of the CIA’s Rome office. The CIA station chief, Thomas Karamessines, left soon afterwards without explanation.
Another challenger to the Rockefeller Empire was eliminated.
David Rockefeller and Anwar Sadat — Egypt
Nasser passed away in September 1970. David Rockefeller was one of the first to greet his successor, Anwar Sadat.
He and Sadat agreed “to stay in touch”. A covert communications link was established between Sadat and Kissinger.
Then, in September 1973, David flew to Egypt, met with Sadat and urged him to “take action”.
A month later, the war broke out.
The Fed’s “Gold Window” Closes
John D. Rockefeller, David’s eldest brother, was the “uncrowned king” of Asia — the continent that had been gifted to him by his father in 1945.
Both the Korean and Vietnam wars can be laid at his door, according to the article. The Rockefellers used loans to finance the Vietnam War. Raising taxes would have made this an unpopular war.
This, together with the offshore investments made by US companies in Europe, Asia and other regions, resulted in a huge outflow of dollars.
When inflation began to erode the value of these dollars held by foreign central banks, these governments took their “surplus” dollars to the New York Fed and exchanged them for gold.
By early 1971, the outflow of gold began to accelerate.
In August, a senior British delegation visited the White House and informed Nixon that Britain was there to exchange dollars for gold. This was on a Friday.
They were told to come back on Monday.
On Monday, 15 August, they were informed that the US had closed the gold window and that the practice of exchanging surplus offshore dollars for gold was officially over.
The British were furious, but they could do nothing.
As a senior Treasury official reportedly remarked afterwards:
“We have run rings around the British Empire.”
When Nixon closed the gold-dollar window at the Fed in August 1971, he effectively withdrew the gold backing of the dollar.
Over the next two years, the dollar fell by 40% against the other major currencies.
To instil confidence in the paper dollar, David Rockefeller conceived an idea that would make the dollar a sought-after currency.
At Nasser’s funeral in Egypt in September 1970, one of the first foreign dignitaries to greet Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s new leader, was none other than David Rockefeller.
They agreed to “stay in touch”.
In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar still vivid, a group of 84 of the world’s top financial and political insiders met at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, the secluded island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg family.
This gathering of David Rockefeller’s Bilderberg Group heard an American participant, Walter Levy, outline a “scenario” for an imminent 400% increase in the price of oil.
The purpose of this secret meeting was not to prevent the expected oil price shock, but rather to plan how to manage the impending flood of oil dollars — a process Kissinger later called “recycling the petrodollar flows”.
What the powerful men grouped around Bilderberg had decided that May was to launch what the article describes as a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order to tilt the balance of power back towards Anglo-American financial interests and the dollar.
To do this, they were determined to use their most prized asset: control of the world’s oil flows.
Bilderberg policy was to trigger a global oil embargo in order to force a dramatic increase in oil prices.
Never in history, the article argues, had such a small circle of interests centred in London and New York controlled so much of the world’s economic destiny.
Henry Kissinger and the Creation of the Petrodollar
Rockefeller’s geopolitical operative, Henry Kissinger, spearheaded the next phase of this project.
Without going into the details, Kissinger orchestrated the entire lead-up to the outbreak of the war, including events while the war was underway.
The result, according to the article, was that the price of oil shot up by 400% from its price a year earlier.
The next step was to enforce this “new petrodollar” system.
The key was Saudi Arabia.
As the largest oil producer in OPEC, Saudi Arabia had the clout to get what it wanted. The plan was for Saudi Arabia to announce that, from then on, all oil sales would be priced in dollars and in no other currency.
The war broke out in October 1973.
The entire war and its subsequent developments were, according to the article, choreographed by Henry Kissinger as US Secretary of State.
By December of that year, the price of oil had increased by 400% compared with the beginning of the year.
By January 1974, the dollar went from being an “orphan currency” to being one of the most in-demand currencies.
Why?
Because Saudi Arabia had agreed to sell its oil for dollars only. As Saudi Arabia went, the rest of the oil exporters followed.
This, the article argues, was the birth of the petrodollar.
But before it could get there, the Rockefellers had to convince the Saudi leadership.
The Saudis were resisting and hesitating.
The Rockefeller Threat to Saudi Arabia
In late 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.
The oil embargo had been over for only three weeks, but “Eyes Alpha” suggested that the US could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for itself and its allies by taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf State of Abu Dhabi.
It followed that “pre-emptive” action would be considered, with two brigades potentially seizing the Saudi oilfields and one brigade each taking Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.
In November 1974, both the Saudi Foreign Minister, Omar Saqqaf, and the head of SAMA, the Saudi central bank, Anwar Ali, went to the US to discuss the issue of selling oil for dollars.
Both had instructions not to agree to anything but to report back to King Faisal first.
Because these two Saudi officials were not in agreement with many of the fine points proposed by the Rockefeller interests, the article claims that New York made a decision to eliminate them.
On 14 November, Anwar Ali was found dead in New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel.
That same day, in Washington, the Saudi Foreign Minister, Omar Saqqaf, was also found dead.
The article argues that this was not a coincidence and attributes the deaths to the CIA.
The Rockefeller Threat to the Saudi Royals
In February 1975, the London Sunday Times revealed information about this.
The plan, drawn up by the Pentagon, was code-named “Dhahran Option Four” and provided for an invasion of the world’s largest oil reserves, namely Saudi Arabia.
The Take-Over Plan
Source: London Sunday Times, February 1975
This was followed in the same month, just before King Faisal’s murder, by an article in Harper’s Magazine by a Pentagon analyst using the pseudonym Miles Ignatius.
The article emphasised the need for the US to seize Saudi oilfields, installations and airports and was entitled “Seizing Arab Oil”.
According to James Akins, a former US diplomat, the author was Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time.
Kissinger has neither confirmed nor denied the charge.
Further, in August 1975, a report entitled Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study was produced for the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The report stated that potential targets for the US included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria.
It concluded:
“Analysis indicates … [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed.”
The Saudi royals got the message — loud and clear.
There was no more opposition to David’s petrodollar system.
Suddenly, an unwanted currency — the US dollar — became the most sought-after currency.
Nations needed to import oil, and to pay for oil imports, they needed dollars.
What a turnaround for the dollar.
One consequence of the directed recycling of these petrodollars into London and New York was the emergence of American banks as giants of world banking, paralleling the emergence of their clients, the Seven Sisters oil giants, as giants of world industry.
The Anglo-American oil and banking giants so overwhelmed the scale of ordinary enterprise that their power and influence seemed invincible.
Kissinger and David Rockefeller had, in effect, replaced the old gold exchange standard of the post-war world with their own “petrodollar” standard, which the article argues was controlled by the Rockefellers.
The Assassination of King Faisal
In the aftermath of the October 1973 war, Kissinger initiated his famous “peace shuttle” between Israel, Egypt and Syria.
His principal aim was to take Egypt out of the conflict, thus making it easier for Israel to expand without fear from its most powerful adversary.
In February 1975, Kissinger landed in Riyadh to meet with King Faisal and persuade the King on two issues.
The first was to give the green light to establishing a separate peace treaty with Egypt first, followed by Syria later. Kissinger had no desire or instructions to negotiate a peace deal with Syria.
The second issue was to authorise the new policy of selling oil for dollars only.
Since Omar Saqqaf, the Saudi Foreign Minister, had been murdered in Washington the previous November, there was no one to receive Kissinger.
King Faisal therefore sent his Oil Minister, Zaki Yamani, to meet Kissinger.
At the meeting between King Faisal and Kissinger, Yamani explained that Kissinger requested King Faisal’s permission to make a deal with Egypt first, followed by Syria.
Faisal’s reply was that they had both fought Israel together and that a peace deal with them must be done together.
When Kissinger kept pressing Faisal on this issue, Faisal replied:
“No, I will oppose that.”
Kissinger did not achieve what he wanted.
He left empty-handed.
On the way back to the airport, Yamani recalls that Kissinger was nervous and biting his nails, all the while muttering:
“Now we will not have a second agreement.”
The Other Point
The other point discussed in this meeting was the sale of oil in dollars.
Even here, King Faisal was reluctant to be tied down to one currency only.
He preferred, besides the dollar, other currencies such as the pound, the French franc, the German mark and the Japanese yen.
The article argues that Faisal understood that, as long as he opposed the second agreement — a second disengagement agreement between the Israelis and Egyptians — Egypt would never have signed it over Faisal’s opposition.
Then, one month later, Faisal was assassinated in his office by a disgruntled nephew, Faisal bin Musaid.
The article claims that he was brainwashed by the CIA under a programme called MK Ultra.
Kissinger subsequently got his agreement between Egypt and Israel.
The article therefore argues that, within a matter of three months, the CIA had murdered an Arab king and two of his senior cabinet members.
On 25 March 1975, King Faisal was assassinated by his nephew, Faisal ibn Musad.
The Petrodollar Is Born
Kissinger left nothing to chance.
David Mulford, who was heading White Weld & Co.’s London Eurodollar operations, was appointed director and principal investment adviser to SAMA in January 1975.
His job was to guide Saudi petrodollar investments to the appropriate banks in London and New York.
The Bilderberg scheme was operating just as planned.
It took a war and three murders to make this possible.
2. Challengers to the Petrodollar System
Iran
Let’s fast-forward to 1972.
The British Empire was very broke. Its financial position forced it to withdraw from many areas around the world.
The Persian Gulf was one such region.
The Americans moved in and replaced the British.
The Americans placed the Shah of Iran as their new regional policeman.
Due to rising oil prices, Iran had the ability to buy huge amounts of arms from the US. It had the financial means to industrialise its economy as well as modernise its armed forces.
The Shah now came more firmly under American control.
Iran’s oil revenue increased dramatically after the 1973 war between Israel and the Arabs.
This huge influx of cash went to the Shah’s head.
He then initiated two economic deals that sealed his fate.
The Romania Deal
In January 1975, the Shah clinched a barter deal with Romania, brokered by Moscow.
A week later, a meeting took place in New York at the offices of David Rockefeller, whose family, according to the article, were the uncrowned kings of oil and finance globally.
David’s office was on the 17th floor of the Chase Manhattan Building, in a side office called “Middle East Oil”.
He was described as the most powerful individual in America and the head of Chase Manhattan Bank, America’s largest bank.
The Rockefeller oil portfolio included Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and many others.
The Tripartite Deal — South Africa, Germany & France
Having read the transcript of the meeting in New York in January 1975, the plan to topple the Shah went into action, according to the article.
To make matters worse, a month later France and Germany approached the Shah of Iran with a proposed economic deal.
It went something like this.
The French and Germans had been badly affected by the 1973 rise in oil prices. They wanted to secure a long-term supply agreement with an OPEC nation, and they chose Iran.
They proposed a deal whereby Iran would supply these two countries with oil under a long-term agreement.
Payment would be made in francs and marks, not dollars.
In return, both countries would industrialise Iran with the best technology available, and at a faster rate than either Britain or the US.
This idea very much appealed to the Shah.
The Shah did not want to end up with foreign currency that was weak.
So he told the Europeans that the only way he would accept their currencies in payment for oil was if the franc and mark were made stronger.
The only way this could be done, according to the proposal, was to back the currencies with gold.
And South Africa was the place to get the gold.
So South Africa was drawn into this tripartite deal.
The final deal went something like this:
- France and Germany would supply Iran with advanced industrial goods in return for a long-term oil supply agreement.
- Iran would accept the franc and mark as payment for oil instead of the dollar.
- France and Germany would purchase gold from South Africa to give their currencies stronger gold backing.
- South Africa would benefit through a better price and a long-term oil supply agreement with Iran.
- France and Germany would accelerate a programme of supplying South Africa with advanced industrial goods.
One of the results of this was the nuclear reactor at Koeberg in the Cape, among many other deals that took place as part of this tripartite accord.
In Europe, Germany and France led the European Community (EC) in the formation of the European Monetary System (EMS).
The idea was to marry the EMS to OPEC.
OPEC countries would deposit their surplus funds in select French and German banks, which would then lend the money to other countries in the developing world.
With those credits, underdeveloped countries could begin to gain access to European high-technology exports.
As far as Washington and London were concerned, the Shah was already a dead man.
The Iranian Revolution
When London discovered that it could not dissuade France and Germany from the EMS project in 1977, using ordinary deterrents, the green light was given to speed up the destabilisation of Iran.
The chief countries of Western Europe, along with Japan, were totally dependent on their oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region.
By bringing down the Shah and spreading chaos throughout the Middle East, the Anglo-Americans calculated that they could knock out Europe with the threat or actuality of an oil cut-off.
In October 1979, Business Week made the threat public:
“It may be that an Arab banking system funneling petrodollars through the European Monetary System will replace the current domination of the world’s financial system by American banks. This depends, of course, on OPEC’s willingness to play the power-broker part. If it refuses there is another scenario that many still think unthinkable, open warfare, in which either the industrial West as a group, or the US acting alone, gives up trying to work with OPEC and instead invades the oil fields.”
An invasion would not be calculated to seize the oil supply for the US, but to deny it to Western Europe and Japan.
The body blow to the Western European economies would knock out the EMS.
Until Khomeini took over, Iran was on its way to becoming the premier example of the process of industrialisation in the developing world.
The driving force of the country’s industrialisation was oil production under the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
In 1978, NIOC was the second-largest oil company in the world after Saudi Aramco.
In the year before the revolution, it produced more than 6 million barrels of oil per day (bpd).
The Shah’s economic advisers were also planning for the future.
In 1978, 32 nuclear power plants were either under construction or on the drawing board, most of them expected to come online before 1990.
Within six months, Khomeini’s revolution had completely reversed the work to pull Iran out of the Middle Ages.
Immediately, $52 billion worth of contracts in a dozen different areas were cancelled.
This led to depression, as hundreds of other smaller projects went down the tubes as well.
It is worth noting that Henry Kissinger was heard to mutter when he heard about these deals:
“We are not going to create any new Japans!”
Khomeini landed in Iran in February 1979.
Within three months, David Rockefeller knew that Khomeini had double-crossed him.
And so began a counter-plot against Khomeini.
What followed was something no James Bond movie could ever imagine: the hostage-taking and capture of the US Embassy in Tehran, the failed rescue mission, the seizure of Iranian funds by David Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan Bank, the Mecca siege and much more.
More details are said to be available in the article The Iran File, dated 25 January 2026.
Iraq
After the US drove Iraq out of Kuwait in the Desert Storm war of 1991, the US then sanctioned the country economically and financially.
When Saudi Arabia told the US that food and other essentials had to be allowed into Iraq, David Rockefeller instructed the UN to form a UN “oil-for-food” deal, supervised by the UN.
This was done in 1995.
The bank that would receive these funds and then disburse them according to the UN mandate would be the most important part of this deal.
David thought it would be one of his banks — Chase Manhattan or Citibank — but, to his great anger, it went to a Rothschild bank, Société Générale.
David then fired the UN head, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in 1996, as he was supposed to make sure it was a Rockefeller bank.
Then London and Paris incited their African allies to call for another African to lead the UN.
So David chose an African from Ghana — Kofi Annan.
Amschel Rothschild
Around the same time, we find the sudden and mysterious death of Amschel Rothschild in the Bristol Hotel, an ultra-luxury hotel.
Rumours have it that he was found hanging or that he died of a heart attack.
Now, we know that the oil portfolio of the Rothschild family is held by the French branch.
Could it be that the CIA exacted some form of retribution against the Rothschilds for daring this move?
Amschel was one of six sons of Victor Rothschild, the founder of the “lottery gambling” system and wartime head of British Intelligence.
He had been considered the most likely candidate to succeed his 64-year-old cousin, Sir Evelyn Rothschild.
There was no love lost between the two families.
Iraq and the Euro
The French Rothschild back-channel to Saddam Hussein in Iraq was running so smoothly that, under “whispered suggestions” by the French, Saddam announced on 14 September 2000 that, henceforth, Iraq would sell its oil in euros.
Saddam did not realise it at the time, but the article argues that he had been played by the Rothschilds, who knew very well that the Rockefeller family would now be forced to invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and occupy the country.
This would remove the second-largest threat to the Zionist state, after Iran.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Saudi Arabia
Terror Attacks Within Saudi Arabia — A Covert War Between the Saud and Rockefeller Families
Unwritten agreements between American presidents and Saudi leaders have been a key part of the relationship between the two countries since 1932.
As a Saudi official put it:
“We know our interests — both of us. We have special differences and special points of agreement.”
Aramco is the largest oil company in the world.
Started by four Rockefeller oil companies, it sold its shares to the Saudi government in the late 1970s.
Between 2001 and 2006, the American media exhibited an anti-Saudi bias, and within the country many terror attacks took place between 2003 and 2006.
The article argues that a covert war was being fought in the shadows between the Saudi leadership and the Rockefeller family.
And since the Rockefeller family is described as being in firm control of Washington, the article argues that the US-Saudi conflict was something that no one had picked up.
The article presents this as the truth behind those events.
Remember, always:
“Follow the money.”
Our story starts in 1995, when King Fahd suffered a stroke.
His brother, Crown Prince Abdullah, took over the running of the country.
Abdullah was a no-nonsense man.
In 1996, oil prices began sliding, leaving Saudi finances in poor shape.
After countering speculative attacks on its currency, Abdullah introduced budget cutbacks among many other measures.
Abdullah then put out a welcome mat to the international oil companies, or IOCs, in August 1998, inviting them to invest in the country’s oil industry.
In February 1999, Abdullah changed the focus from oil to gas.
The idea was to use the gas that was being flared and wasted for power generation, water desalination and petrochemicals.
This was called the “Saudi Gas Initiative”, or SGI.
Over the next two years, the heads of the American, British and French oil companies regularly flew into Riyadh.
In June 2001, Saudi Arabia signed preliminary agreements with seven IOCs.
The planned gas projects were divided into three areas:
- Core Venture 1 — South Ghawar
- Core Venture 2 — Red Sea Coast
- Core Venture 3 — Shaybah
Intense opposition from the Rockefeller group of oil companies — Exxon, Conoco, Marathon and Chevron/Mobil — to this SGI deal emerged.
One has to remember that it was the Americans who originally started the oil business in Saudi Arabia and ran it until the Saudis took over in the late 1970s.
The Americans wanted these three deals to be limited only to American companies and not given to European, or Rothschild, oil companies such as BP, Shell or Total.
David Rockefeller was very upset with Abdullah, to say the least.
Pressure from Washington and New York intensified on the Saudis to change the terms of the deal, as well as to grant exclusivity to the American firms.
Abdullah refused to budge.
America then began to increase the pressure on Riyadh.
It was at this time that the 9/11 attacks took place.
Very conveniently, 15 of the 19 hijackers were identified by the FBI as Saudi nationals.
Saudi intelligence conducted its own research and found that all the hijackers were alive and well and residing in Saudi Arabia, with one exception who had passed away a few months earlier.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal even invited the international media to go and interview these hijackers.
But the damage was done, and this “fact” became firmly rooted in the minds of the public.
Between 2004 and September 2006, Riyadh managed to neutralise all the CIA-controlled Al-Qaeda cells within the Kingdom.
With the defeat of Israel in 2006 by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Washington changed tack.
When America invaded Iraq in 2003, it deliberately incited, encouraged and brought about a civil conflict between the Sunni and Shia populations of Iraq.
The article argues that this was done in order to speed up the break-up of Iraq into three areas — a plan that had been on the drawing board since the early 1980s.
It then began a new policy of siding with the Sunni Arabs against the Shia forces.
A reconciliation with Riyadh was carried out.
They were friends again.
The Saudi intelligence services told the Sunni fighters in Iraq to stop attacking the Americans and to redirect their fire at all Shia groups in Iraq.
Furthermore, most of the radicals and terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda were freed from jail and told to go to Iraq and fight the Americans and the Shia militias there.
King Abdullah solved many security problems with this masterstroke.
From late 2006, the US focus shifted to Iran.
It would take another 19 years before these forces clashed on the battlefield.
This, the article argues, proves that Saudi Arabia is not America’s puppet, contrary to what the media and many others believe.
They have shared interests, but at times have opposing policies.
This was one of those times.
To know more about this, further details are provided in the article The US-Saudi Nexus, Part 2, dated 25 June 2028.
The story continues in Part 2…