If there is a country Saudi Arabia and Iran despise more than Israel, it’s each other. When it comes to Syria, Iran’s most prominent ally, the prospect of removing Bashar al-Assad has a pavlovian effect on the Saudis. After the Chemical weapons attack on August 20th, al-Assad’s removal was seemingly so close, it could be tasted.

Saudi Prince Bandar: Angry with U.S.

Then, Putin beat Barack Obama and John Kerry like a couple of drums. While Obama saw an opportunity to spin a resounding defeat into an opportunity to back down under the guise of a diplomatic stalemate as the preferred option, there were consequences. One of those consequences involves Saudi Arabia’s anger with the U.S. for not dealing with Assad.

Consequences aren’t necessarily good or bad; they just are.

Speaking of consequences, Saudi Arabia didn’t face nearly enough of them for its role in 9/11 but more on that later. First, let’s take a look at one of the consequences of Obama’s defeat at the hands of Putin, via the Daily Mail:

Upset at President Barack Obama’s policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.

Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a ‘major shift’ in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria’s civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said. {emphasis ours}

Some might remember that about one week after the August 20th attack, Associated Press / BBC writer Dale Gavlak co-authored a piece with Yahya Ababneh for MintPress News in which Prince Bandar’s name came up as a complicit agent in the attack:

Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

Saudi Prince Bandar at Bush Ranch in 2012

There were plenty of reports that pointed to the Saudi-backed rebels being involved in the attack for the purpose of exploiting it to their advantage. We chronicled many of those reports here.

The Daily Mail brings up another Saudi who Americans should be quite concerned about:

In unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama’s policies in Syria ‘lamentable’ and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

‘The current charade of international control over Bashar’s chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,’ said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence. {emphasis ours}

It is interesting that al-Faisal has such an interest in the welfare of the Syrian people, especially in light of his behavior after 9/11/01. From our report, 3000 Americans for 3 Saudi Princes, check out this excerpt from an article that appeared in the Baltimore Chronicle about Al-Faisal:

All together, the hijackers made at least six trips to Vegas. Yet, a few days after 9-11, 31 passengers were allowed to fy out of Vegas, including one passenger named Al-Hazmi. One Saudi royal aboard was Prince Turki bin Faisal, famous as the head of Saudi Arabia’s bloodstained and much feared intelligence service from 1977 until he was abruptly fred in August 2001.

The Chronicle later scrubbed that article and radically altered it to include accounts that didn’t square with confirmed reports; all references to al-Faisal were removed.

Turki al-Faisal: Never vetted over 9/11?

We wrote further about al-Faisal:

The removal of Turki’s name from the Chronicle’s article makes his presence in the U.S. immediately before and after 9/11 – which has since been confrmed – even more suspicious. The Global Security website made reference to Turki’s fight out of the United States shortly after 9/11 as well.

Considering what was known about Turki at the time – he had recently ended his tenure as Director of the General Intelligence Directorat, Saudi Arabia’s foreign intelligence service, after 24 years – it is at a minimum, curious that he was not interviewed. Later, Turki would become the Saudi ambassador to the United States and was welcomed to the Oval Offce during the Bush administration in 2006. Turki would serve in that capacity from 2005 – 2007. {emphasis ours}

Al-Faisal (far left) and Bush (far right) in 2006.

Perhaps more disconcerting is al-Faisal’s dealings with the Taliban leadership just a few years before 9/11, coupled with the urgency of the Bush administration relative to allowing him to leave the U.S. just a few days after 9/11:

The 9/11 Commission report itself spoke of dealings Turki had with Taliban leader Mullah Omar during the Clinton administration in 1998. Apparently, it was not deemed appropriate to revisit the former Saudi intelligence chief’s dealings with the Taliban before allowing him to fy out of the country after 9/11 without being questioned.

There’s more…

In a 2009 New York Times article penned by Eric Lichtblau, it was reported that lawyers for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that sought justice for the 9/11 victims, had come into possession of documents that implicated members of the Saudi Royal family, to include Prince Turki Al-Faisal. In fact, a link to many of those documents was posted in Lichtblau’s piece.

In particular, one document that stands out is the transcript of a sworn deposition conducted by the plaintiffs of the 9/11 families in a civil lawsuit. The Muslim man who was deposed (name redacted) allegedly fought against the Taliban (presumably for the Northern Alliance); his testimony implicated none other than Prince Turki Al Faisal. {emphasis ours}

Despite the Syrian rebels’ connection to al-Qeada and despite evidence that the Chemical weapons attack was perpetuated by those rebels, Republican Senators like John McCain (RINO-AZ), Bob Corker (RINO-TN), and Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) as well as Republican congressmen like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Peter King (R-NY) wanted to attack Assad.

While fighting against forces that are loyal to Iran may seem noble, consider that the Christians in Syria have been choosing Assad.

Also consider that the Bush administration let the Saudis off the hook after 9/11. Based on that, why would we side with them on anything until true justice is served relative to 9/11?

Bandar meets with Bush and Cheney on 9/13/01.