They won’t let Trump into the White House; Clinton’s politics are closely tied to the oil monarchies – 2024-07-31 09:42:49

/ world today news/ The interview of the founder of “Wikileaks” Julian Assange before the Russian channel RT, just days before the presidential elections in the USA, contains two main revelations: the influence of the banks, the Military-Industrial Complex, intelligence, large foreign corporations, etc. have finally united in support of Hillary Clinton. Her campaign was also generously supported by the oil monarchies of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia occupies an important place in the plans of the financial capital of the USA, whose interests are protected by the “old mother Hillary”, as Zaki Khalfan – former minister of the interior of the United Arab Emirates – fondly called her in her “Twitter”. In other words, the so-called Islamic State and Clinton’s campaign activities are financed by the same sources. (Russian ez.)

Trump will not be allowed to win, and Clinton’s policy will be tied to the Middle East

Islamic State and Clinton campaign were funded by the same sources

Interview with the creator WikiLeaks Julian Assange’s Russia Today piece, which focused mainly on the US elections and appeared three days before the elections themselves, contains two very important points.

First. The outcome of the election is predetermined: “Trump will not be allowed to win this election… The banks, the intelligence, the military-industrial complex, the big foreign companies, and so on – they have all united behind Hillary Clinton.”

Second. The choice of Clinton by the top of the US ruling class is linked to the interests of this top in the Middle East: “Without knowledge of Saudi Arabia, it is impossible to truly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, given her close ties to that country…,” says Assange, adding: “The war in Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war more than anyone else’s… Clinton played a key role in the destruction of the Libyan state.”

…In March-April 2011, when the aggression against Libya began, many analysts wondered about the reasons for the sudden outbreak of hostility in the West towards Muammar Gaddafi. It seemed that the leader of the Libyan revolution was “one of our own” among Western politicians: he met with Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, Condoleezza Rice, his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, educated at the best British universities, was an intermediary between the Western elite and the leadership of the Jamahiriya. According to the concluded Libyan-American agreement, a joint Export-Import Operations Fund was created, into which the Libyan side transferred 1.5 billion dollars to American accounts, and the American side transferred 300 million to Libyan accounts.

And all this was crossed out in one moment.

Experts are convinced that Gaddafi’s plans to abandon the US dollar for oil payments and switch to a new currency – the gold dinar – were ruined. According to Canadian researcher Peter Dale Scott, $130 billion in Libyan assets frozen in American banks were to be used to implement three African continental projects: the creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte (Libya); the African Monetary Fund with headquarters in Yaounde (Cameroon) with an authorized capital of $42 million and the African Central Bank in Abuja (Nigeria). The war against Libya was, in fact, the execution of an order from a powerful dollar producer – the US Federal Reserve System.

Speaking about Clinton’s ties to Saudi Arabia, Julian Assange referred to a letter addressed to her campaign chairman John Podesta, which states that “ISIS (a terrorist group banned in Russia – pRoman ed.) is financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the governments of these countries.” It is known that the Clinton Foundation received about 25 million dollars from Saudi sponsors and from one to three million dollars from well-wishers from Qatar. That is, the “Islamic State” (IS) and Clinton’s election campaign were financed from the same sources.

However, the picture painted by Assange requires clarification. At the initial stage, IS owed its rise to Qatari sponsors, but by 2014 it became clear that the most combat-ready unit of Syrian militants was the pro-Saudi Jabhat al-Nusra, while Qatar, which began subversive actions against the government of Bashar al-Assad in 2011, was gradually being pushed out of the Syrian direction. In these circumstances, in order not to be late in dividing up the Syrian pie, Doha hastily strengthened the Iraqi jihadist organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), which transferred its activities to northeastern Syria. As for Riyadh, it viewed the emergence of the Islamic State with apprehension, given Saudi Arabia’s long border with Iraq and Yemen and threats by “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to end his jihad in Mecca.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia retains an important place in the plans of US financial capital, whose interests are defended by “Mother Old Hillary” (as former UAE Interior Minister Zaki Khalfan affectionately calls her on Twitter). Saudi Arabia, being one of the two largest oil-producing countries in the world (along with Russia), plays an important role in maintaining the dollar’s monopoly in oil payments. According to Peter Dale Scott, after the 1973 oil embargo, which showed America’s vulnerability, Washington and Riyadh made behind-the-scenes agreements that included two points. The Saudis promised, firstly, to maintain the peg of oil prices to the dollar, and secondly, to invest part of their oil revenues in the US economy. It is appropriate here to recall the strange death in 1975 of King Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz, the only Saudi monarch who sharply opposed Washington on the Palestinian issue. His successor was Fahd, “the best ally of the United States in the Middle East,” who finally tied the Saudi economy to the US economy.

One of the forms of Saudi dependence on the United States is the regular payment of tribute, disguised as the purchase of expensive American weapons, which the Saudis cannot properly master. According to the French journalist of Lebanese origin René Nab, in 1990-1991 the kingdom spent about 45 billion dollars on the purchase of American weapons and the financing of the military operation “Desert Storm”. At the same time, one of the reasons for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was the unwillingness of the Persian Gulf monarchies to delay the payment of the Iraqi debt. In 2010, new contracts were concluded for the purchase of American weapons by the Gulf countries in the amount of 123 billion dollars. The largest part (85 billion) went to Saudi Arabia. The noisy campaign on the topic of “Iran’s nuclear weapons” and rumors about possible American bombing of Iran became the information cover for these contracts. And all these contracts (attention!) were signed during Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Persian Gulf countries at the end of 2010 – just before the start of the “Arab Spring”.