When the world gets tired of hearing you say: “gimme, gimme,
gimme,” you change your tune to a variant that sounds like this: “give them to
gimme,” which sounds just as boring and more disgusting. Moreover, to get
yourself into a position of being able to say that them are threatened by the
same menace that's threatening you, you make the comical assertion that you can
see things through the eyes of “them.”
This is what Clifford D. May has done in his October 24,
2013 article in National Review Online which came under the title: “Iran
Through Saudi Eyes” and the subtitle: “The Saudis don't think we comprehend the
magnitude of the threat. They may be right.”
Clifford May is not the only one to have written about the
Saudis this week, so did Karen Elliott House who had a longtime interest in
writing about the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, having spent a month in that
country to study the people close-up and get to know them better. Her latest
piece was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 25, 2013 under the
title: “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup” and the subtitle: “Furious over Obama's
Mideast policy, the Saudis are shifting away from the U.S. – but where else
will they turn?”
There is no doubt that something has happened to fray the
relationship between Saudi Arabia
and the United States .
Thus, Karen House tries to get to the bottom of the matter by doing what any
journalist would do which is to dig up the history of Saudi Arabia in matters
concerning their national security, and show how that history could be acting
on the Saudi leaders now. It is a genuine attempt to see things through Saudi
eyes even though she does not say so in the title of her piece.
Karen House goes on to tell how America 's
response to the current events in the Middle East is reviving memories of what Saudi Arabia
had to endure when threats from outside the kingdom were unsettling its rulers.
And so, she tells how the Saudis responded to the American response. She says
they canceled the speech that their foreign minister was to give at the UN
General Assembly, and then turned down an invitation to take a seat at the
Security Council. This push against the body that is seen in the region as
being America 's
playground, is “intended as a blunt message to the Obama administration,” says
House.
In addition, Saudi
Arabia has its own collection of internal
issues to manage while managing its external affairs. Those issues have to do
with the matter of succession which seems to consume the royal family at this
moment given that the time has come for the power to govern the kingdom must be
handed down from the geriatric crowd to the younger generation.
Karen Elliott House goes on to say that the Saudis have no
one else to turn to for protection, thus she concludes that the apparent rift
with the United States
does not look like a divorce but a trial separation.
As to the Clifford May column, he does not see the matter
through Saudi eyes despite the title he chose for the piece. Instead, he sees
the matter through eyeglasses tainted with all the hues that would be
recognizable in a typically Jewish presentation.
Clifford May takes half the length of his article to
describe the current situation from his point of view which happens to be compatible
with the Jewish spin. But where he gets to talk like an authentic megaphone in
the service of the Jewish propaganda machine, is when he invokes such names as
Dexter Filkins whom he anoints for this occasion as being “among the top
foreign correspondents in the world,” general Stanley McChrystal, formerly of
the Joint Special Operations Command, and US Ambassador Ryan Croker. And the
reason he invokes these names is to make the point that Iran is bad for America
which is euphemism for “Iran
must be destroyed because it is bad for Israel .”
And instead of doing what Karen House did which is to give
background in what concerns the history of Saudi Arabia (the subject about
which they are both writing,) he gives a history of what he says is Iranian
mischief-making around the world – from Beirut to Berlin to Buenos Aires to
Washington DC.
By now, Clifford May feels he might as well drop the mask
and stop pretending he is writing about Saudi Arabia. So he mentions “Senator
Mark Kirk who proposed a plan that would operationalize an idea first floated
by Mark Dubowitz of the think tank I head.” And this idea would be to freeze Iran 's
remaining assets.
He goes on to tell what else should be done with Iran , at which point he remembers that he is
supposed to be writing about Saudi
Arabia . So he ends his presentation by
saying something about Saudi Arabia :
“Years ago, the Saudis began pressing Washington
to take action against Iran
… Here again the Saudis had a point.”
These people are hopeless in that they cannot do anything
that does not benefit them, and them only.