I returned from a three-day vacation around my birthday, when I was cut off from the world and encountered the same news, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, and Palestine, and Barack Obama, etc. But I also found more news than usual about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the West, where I live and work, the rule is “no news is good news,” meaning that if there is no news, then there must not be any bad news; for news to deserve its name, there must be murder and destruction, or economic collapse. I am not being obsessive here; I do not believe that there is a conspiracy behind every news item. I read news items to which I did not devote much time, since they were outside my field of specialization or interest. There was news about Saudi Arabia's determination to purchase more weapons, particularly aircraft, while there were two items, in The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, about the Saad Group, Gulf banks and individuals; I put all of them aside, in the likelihood that I will return to them in the future. Amid these ordinary news items I took note of two articles – one was an old-new one about Saudi financing of terror, and an attempt to link Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the 11 September 2001 attacks, while another was a return to the Khobar bombing of 1996. I know a great deal about these two things and can correct some of the information that was published. About the terror of 2001 – I wrote about it at the time and my colleague Samir Saadawi followed the topic through Pakistan and Afghanistan, before he also wrote about it. The beginning involved Pakistani military intelligence, which embraced the Taliban and convinced the Americans of them, in order to eliminate the warlords following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia followed Pakistan and the US in assisting the Taliban. Today, we cannot deny the American role in this issue and how other parties became involved. I published in al-Hayat, before the terror of 2001 and afterward, what I knew about the Taliban, and how the relationship was established and ended. Today, they write about the topic and forget that al-Qaeda targeted Riyadh and Khobar with its terror, years before New York and Washington, and the group continues to plan attacks against Saudi Arabia. Before the terror, Saudi Arabians were all able to tithe a share of their money to assist local charity associations, in every Muslim country. After the terror, the country became more cautious and halted its support for organizations that were accused of supporting terror; all that remained were the terrorists and their supporters. The terror attack at Khobar was different than what had preceded it. It was carried out by a group from Saudi Hezbollah; terrorists were arrested, as is well-known, and tried and convicted. However, I am now reading a series by Gareth Porter, whose first two parts (out of five) say that Saudi Arabia submitted false or missing information to David Williams, the deputy head of the FBI. My information on the subject is from Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the defense minister, and other Saudi officials. I put it at the disposal of the writer, as it might help him; there is more information, which is not for publication at present. What happened after the Khobar bombing was that the Americans asked to conduct the investigation themselves, but the Saudis refused. Louis Freeh, the head of the FBI, came to Saudi Arabia several times and asked to participate in the investigation, but the Saudis refused again, for reasons having to do with national sovereignty. They finally agreed to let American investigators submit written questions that the Saudi investigators would put to the accused, and American investigators would listen to the responses from behind a two-way mirror. The first article in the series was entitled “Saudis tried to pin Khobar bombing on Iran,” but the truth is that Saudi Hezbollah, supported by Iran, carried out the operation. Saudi Arabia tried to prevent the US from arriving at incomplete information, out of the fear that the White House would use it as a pretext for a military strike, as in an aerial bombing or two, against Iran, which would engulf the region in terror for years to come. I believe there is a gap in the information or leaks from sources that would like to exonerate themselves from any mistakes or shortcomings in their work. However, the damage will appear if the other side does not put forward information explaining its stance and providing a complete and honest picture, instead of seeing less than the full picture come out when it involves issues where the witnesses are still alive. I do not know what next week will bring in the way of news, but I believe it is a case of the less, the better.
