J. Michael Springmann served as a diplomat with the U.S. State Department's Foreign Service, with postings in Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He left federal service and currently practices law in the Washington, DC, U.S.
In an exclusive interview with the English section of Khamenei.ir, the former head of the U.S. visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and author of the book Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World, sheds light on Saudi Arabia’s ties with the U.S. and Israel as well as the Kingdom’s support for terrorism across the globe:
What’s the motive behind Saudi rulers mounting hostility towards Iran?
In my opinion, there are several reasons: the Islam in the Kingdom is of the more fanatical, intolerant Wahhabi/Salafi kind. This fanaticism leads, I think, to provoking a sectarian split. Not being an Islamic scholar, I would say that, over the intervening years, the two branches of Islam have come to a modus vivendi. I've met Arabs who have parents from both Sunni and Shii Islam.
That said, the Saudi Wahhabis, in my view, want to weaken Iran religiously, preventing it from being seen as a model religious state or scaring it into submitting to the Kingdom's fundamentalist view of the religion.
Politically, Saudi Arabia wants to be seen, I believe, as the pre-eminent Arab state, able to counsel other countries in the area on foreign and domestic policy. Since Iran is the dominant non-Semitic state there, Iran becomes the natural opponent, in Saudi eyes, of its role in the region.
Despite public tiffs with the United States, it's my view that the ties between the Kingdom and America to be tighter than ever, cf. US support of the Saudi war in Yemen. Additionally, the United States views Iran as the source of all evil, despite being unable to prove any concrete act against American or any other country's interests. (This latter point is a view expressed by Richard H. Black, a Senator in the Virginia State Senate.) With Saudi Arabia cooperating with the US in opposing Iranian economic, political, and foreign policy interests, the Kingdom is assured of strong backing for its provocations of Iran.
In my opinion, with King Salman taking the throne after the death of his half-brother Abdullah, Saudi foreign policy became more aggressive, possibly due to the influence wielded by his son, Mohammed bin Salman, now Defense Minister. When I was in Jeddah, the joke among expatriates was that Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, and Korea got the contract to defend the country. Now, likely due to the change in leadership and ascendancy of Mohammed, the Kingdom is much more aggressive and downright eager, sometimes, to project force and influence outside the country. Painting Iran as the enemy helps the Saudis distract the rest of the world from its clandestine ties with Israel, the real enemy of all countries, Arab and otherwise, in the area. It is Israel which is responsible for destroying Palestine and helping terrorists seeking to overthrow the government of Syria. If the Kingdom devoted only part of its efforts against Iran to opposing Israel, the Middle East would change greatly.
What message does Prince Turki al-Faisal's address to the gathering of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK) in Paris convey?
I've got to say that this is evidence, perhaps not as solid as a brick wall, that the Saudi Arabian government seeks the overthrow of Iran's government. He was speaking to a proven terrorist organization. And, given Prince Turki's background as former ambassador to the US, his position as one-time head of the Saudi intelligence service, and his prominence as a member of the royal family, he was certainly speaking authoritatively. Those were not the words of a lowly bureaucrat with little experience in foreign affairs.
In fact, it was the first time in over 30 years, that a Muslim Arab expressed support for the exiled terrorist group. In 1997, US President Bill Clinton classified the MEK as a terrorist group. But, in 2012, due to intense lobbying by the group, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delisted the MEK as a terrorist entity. According to the Guardian of 23 Sept. 2013, "Nonetheless, a large group of prominent former US government officials from both political parties has spent the last several years receiving substantial sums of cash to give speeches to the MEK, and have then become vocal, relentless advocates for the group, specifically for removing them from the terrorist list."
Many of high ranking US officials took part in the gathering; is this not an evidence of US hypocrisy in fight against terrorism?
Yes, it is direct evidence of hypocrisy in the fight against terrorism as well as blatant corruption. The Guardian article wrote on how it was done: "'Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.' . . . The contracts can range up to $100,000 and include several appearances."
As I noted in my book Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World, the US recruits, trains, supports, and directs terrorists around the world, originally in the Middle East, and now, in Europe. America began this in an organized fashion in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Besides recruiting through the CIA's Jeddah consulate, there were 52 recruiting offices for the mujahideen in the US, including one in Washington, D.C. Originally, America's partners in doing this were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
UK MPs urged Saudi to stop royal families funding Daesh; what’s your take on that?
I'd say that was entirely true and that I am surprised UK MPs actually came out and said it.
The recently-declassified (with many redactions) 28 Pages of the US Congressional Report on intelligence failures relating to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks showed conclusively that Saudi government and Saudi private money went to organize the brutality. The pages name Saudi officials and private individuals who transferred money to the perpetrators.
Moreover, again, in my book Visas for Al Qaeda, I set forth the links to Saudi involvement to international terrorism. Daesh is just a brand name change: Saudi-funded and American-organized Islamic terrorism began with the mujahideen who were later re-named Al Qaeda who then became ISIL or Daesh. Here are relevant quotes:
According to another Al Jazeera story, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is at the bottom of many terrorist attacks. In a meeting at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s residence, comprising al-
Maliki, US Army General David Petraeus, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the prime minister blasted the kingdom and its leadership, saying, “Most terrorists here are Saudis; the Saudi people have a culture that supports terrorism.” Furthermore, al-Maliki held the head of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence service, Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, responsible for provoking sectarian violence in Iraq.
Global Research News, along with the FARS News Agency reported on January 4, 2014, that Saudi Arabia was continuing to support the culture of terror. It asserted that the kingdom is still backing the al-Qaeda “terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.” Moreover, the House of Saud (which essentially owns the country) has been clandestinely shipping small arms, explosives, anti-armor, and antiaircraft weapons into and through Iraq from the Saudi city of Nakheib and the Ar Ar border crossing.
On March 8, 2014, BBC News reported more of Nouri al-Maliki’s extremely negative remarks on Saudi support for terrorism in Iraq. Citing an undated interview with French television channel France 24, the BBC recounted al-Maliki as saying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had “effectively declared war on Iraq” and that Saudi Arabia supported “global ‘terrorism’.”
Are all of Saudi tussles indicators of edging towards the final days of Saudi monarchy?
I would not go so far as to say that the external tussles of the Saudis show that the Kingdom's days are numbered. I would say that, unless the government there ends its external destabilization efforts in Iran, in Yemen, in Syria, there will be increased unrest internally in Saudi Arabia. The country already has its hands full with unemployment, aided by hiring foreigners to do the jobs Saudis don't want, such as anything other than managerial positions, as well as its total segregation of women in education and employment. The country produces little except oil and has no real economy. It has a large number of young people educated abroad and who have seen how other countries, in the West and in the region, deal with domestic issues.
When I was in Jeddah, long-term expatriates told me that revolution is coming to the Kingdom. Not this year, not next year, but it will eventually come, they said. While I don't have a crystal ball, I would estimate that unless Saudi Arabia makes great internal and external changes, including putting limits on the king and the thousands of princes, there will be, if not, a revolution, a great political and social upheaval in the country. And that the US will be powerless to control, change, or direct it.
Comment