An FBI probe and strained relations -- Lamis Andoni traces the roots of the anti-Saudi campaign in the US It all started when a joint congressional committee investigating the 9/11 attacks came across a mention in an FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) file that the organisation was looking into whether a charitable contribution by a member of the Saudi royal family may have indirectly benefited two of the hijackers. Less than 48 hours after this leaked tidbit appeared in the media, the probe effectively became a launching pad for a full-blown campaign suggesting that Saudi Arabia helped to finance the 9/11 hijackers. "Why didn't we pursue these Saudi leads before they became public? It seems every time the Saudis are involved, we stop," said Senator Charles Schumer (D-Florida), who was part of a cast of congressional leaders taking aim at Saudi Arabia on the influential Sunday talk shows. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, the leading Democrat on the congressional panel that uncovered the FBI file, questioned whether "only two of the 19 hijackers received this kind of support". Statements by Schumer and Graham underscore a strong trend among American policy-makers and opinion leaders that holds Saudi Arabia responsible for the 11 September terrorist attacks. More significantly, the disclosure of the FBI file provided an opportunity for the powerful Zionist- neo-conservative-Christian axis to advocate aggressive policies ranging from "seizing Saudi oil fields" to even "tearing up the kingdom into three parts". The congressional hawks wasted no time in using for their own purposes the administration's aggravation over the Saudi refusal to allow American troops to use Saudi bases in a war against Iraq. "Our government has been very lax in our efforts to make the Saudis co-operate in a broad variety of ways," said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), a strong voice since the 2000 election of George W Bush. "The list of Saudi failures goes on and on," he added. The FBI probe has not established any direct ties between officials and the hijackers. According to published reports, Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, gave money to the family of Osama Bassnan, a Saudi citizen, to defray medical costs for his wife. Omar Al-Bayoumi, a friend of the Bassnans, helped two of the 11 September hijackers, Khalid Al- Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, by providing them with introductions to members of the California Muslim community when the two men arrived in San Diego in 2000. Al-Bayoumi hosted a party and helped Al-Mihdhar and Al- Hazmi with rent payments. It is suspected that money sent by Princess Haifa ended up being used, through Al-Bayoumi's intercession, to aid the two hijackers. Both Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan had at the time of the initial investigation, been detained and then released by the FBI. The Saudi royal family is known to make contributions to Saudi citizens who appeal for help. The accusations against Saudi Arabia, however, have typically been ones that could be substantiated; for instance, Riyadh has financed conservative Wahabi mosques in the US and had funded Islamists in the past. The Saudi role in financing Islamists during the CIA-backed mobilisation of the war against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan is no secret. However, the US fully shares Saudi accountability for funding the armed Islamist mujahideen movement, which it supported primarily as a tactic to counter communism. The US, it seems, finds it convenient to place all of the responsibility on Saudi Arabia for the disastrous backlash. Osama Bin Laden, once hailed by some in the American media as a "freedom fighter", turned his anger against the US and the House of Saud in protest against the American troops arrival and consequent stay in the kingdom during the Gulf War. But this story, well documented as it is, does not figure much in the discourse on Saudi Arabia in Congress or the mainstream media. Such selective recourse to history seems to serve not only American policy, but also the neo- conservative and Zionist web of policy advocates connected to the administration, and particularly to Vice- President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. People with influence over the policy directions taken by the administration, such as Bill Kristol and Simon Henderson, were among the voices that set the tone for the debate on Saudi Arabia since the US declared its "war on terrorism". Kristol, a long--time associate of Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and Henderson, who is affiliated to the pro-IsraeliWashington Institute for Near East Studies, started arguing for a divorce with Saudi Arabia shortly after 11 September. But it was a briefing submitted to the Pentagon (Defense) advisory board, calling for the seizure of Saudi oil fields, that provided the first glimpse into the neo-conservatives hawks' designs for the kingdom. "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadres to foot-soldiers, from ideologues to cheerleaders," argued Laurent Murawiecs, a Rand scholar, who wrote the briefing at the invitation of Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon Defense Advisory Board. According to the Washington Post's summary, Murawiecs urged the US to issue Saudi Arabia an ultimatum to "stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields". Meanwhile, supporters of the war on Iraq have been promoting alternative ways of "dealing with Saudi Arabia"; control of Iraq (and of its oil) would undercut Saudi influence and place it at Washington's mercy, Kristol has advised. Thus, the FBI probe, judging from its cast of staunchly pro-Israel policy-makers (Graham, McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman, D- Connecticut) who are leading the anti-Saudi campaign, has become the new ammunition in the drive to recast the relationship with one of America's closest Arab allies.
