Aerial view of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Aerial view of Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaiStock

In a recent article in Newsweek, Jonathan Tobin provides an intense and in-depth analysis of the logic behind various middle east negotiations, and especially the latest coup for the Peoples’ Republic of China which brokered a de-escalation of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Tobin seems committed to “playing the game” of diplomatic chess —join with this one to offset that one. Aim for the king (dominance) by getting the queen (power configuration) into a more awkward place. The assumptions of negotiations should be continually questioned, and the goal is somehow to come out on top. In this case, he concludes that the U.S. should be a bit more cozy with Saudi Arabia than it has been. He writes, “By stepping up to formally assure the Saudis of American support, Biden can advance stability in the Middle East with a sequel to the Abraham Accords. Doing so would send a message to Iran, and the Russians, that the United States is still a "strong horse" that can't be slighted or ignored.”

This combination of boot licking and bribery was tried by the kingdom of Judah in the late 7th and early 6th centuries B.C. as they were in continuous “negotiations” with Egypt and Babylon. But that ended poorly with the destruction of Judah including Solomon’s temple. Our game-playing may not result as with Judah in our utter destruction, but it is resulting in our weakening as our resources are unduly strained. Hate-filled bad guys can only be placated for so long. Then, as the saying goes “all hell breaks loose.” What if Iran and the Saudis together decide to raise the price of petroleum to exorbitant levels? What if they agree that the enemies of Allah have been placated too much and decide to fund and organize another all-out attack on the West as they did on 9/11? Then what?

Another sinister aspect of negotiations is the tie-in of multinational corporate profits with so-called peace negotiations (read: aiding and abetting terrorism in pursuit of corporate profits). For example, as part of the original Obama Iran deal Boeing was enabled to sell large numbers of aircraft to Iran. Translate this as meaning the placating of terrorists in order to make a buck. Remember Eisenhower warning us about the corporate-military alliance? Well, the original Iran deal represented the corporate-terrorist alliance which was being facilitated by the Obamacrats. We need to never forget the insidious implications of negotiations with evil doers.

Yes, the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, was managed by 15 of the 19 hijackers who were from Saudi Arabia and some had been given visas despite incomplete visa applications (indicating thereby payoffs to U.S. personnel), yet the Bush administration continued to remain cozy with Riyadh. Various Saudi officials were allowed to quietly leave the USA in the aftermath of that horrific attack, and to the best of my knowledge there were no firings and no resignations in disgrace nor suicides by any U.S. personnel. At the same time, a U.S. federal court found that the 9/11 attackers had been financed by Iran. Was this not an example of evil regimes cooperating even before the present show-off “deal” to de-escalate tensions?

This writer is all for rebuffing King Salman but for us to do so we have to ramp up our oil production, but Biden has suppressed our domestic oil supply which undermines any legitimate reason to rebuff. And please let us not rebuff the Saudis only because of the murder of the journalist Kashoggi and King Salman’s purported involvement as it seems Joe Biden did before he became a supplicant for more Saudi petroleum. When dealing with Arab states, murder is nothing exceptional. Murders (notice the plural “s”) are part of the regular diet of those evil doing states. Focusing on one murder as being an affront is more than a little disingenuous.

We should repudiate Saudi Arabia because they promote an ultra-militant extremist Islamic philosophy known as Wahhabism. This is a hyper-strict and aggressive form of Islamism that leads to many murders. The movement was associated with violence from the beginning, and its founder, Abdul Wahhab was expelled from his hometown for his excessive strictness. After Wahhab's death, his followers became more violent, murdering their way across the land, and, in 1803, forced Mecca to surrender. In 2013, Strasbourg's European Parliament declared Salafism/Wahhabism to be the main source of global terrorism, with a report linking it to the Benghazi attacks and the war in Syria among other atrocities.

The enemies of the Jewish people (and Christendom) cannot be negotiated with nor tolerated. We should not be envious of the PRC for brokering the recent agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is a charade. They do not need a written agreement in order to cooperate with each other to harm others. This deal is to convey the impression that the three parties involved are peaceful players and understand the ethics of official cooperation – which they do not.

Instead of competing with the PRC to play the role of deal maker with parties as unreliable as Iran and Saudi Arabia, it would be more realistic to call for a policy of militant isolationism towards the middle eastern Muslim world. We should have as little economic and programmatic involvement with those countries as possible.