By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Saudi Crown Prince reportedly urged President Trump to strike Iran, even while publicly advocating for diplomacy, according to The Washington Post. Following stalled nuclear talks and accusations of Iran resuming aspects of its nuclear program, the US and Israel conducted joint strikes against Iranian targets. In retaliation, Iran launched attacks on the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi cities, leading to regional condemnation and a deepening crisis. The situation escalated significantly with the reported death of Iran’s Supreme Leader in further strikes, prompting warnings of intensified Iranian retaliation against Israel and US bases.
Read the original article here
The narrative emerging suggests a clandestine push from a Saudi prince for military action against Iran, a move reportedly orchestrated with former President Donald Trump. While the specifics of “quiet lobbying” remain open to interpretation, the underlying sentiment points towards a deeply entrenched geopolitical rivalry and financial entanglements fueling the push for war.
It’s widely understood that Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have harbored long-standing animosity towards Iran, viewing it as a significant regional threat. This long-standing tension, coupled with substantial financial investments aimed at influencing American policy, paints a picture of deliberate efforts to steer US foreign policy in a direction favorable to Saudi interests. The idea of a “widely known secret” suggests that these motivations have been apparent to observers for some time, making the alleged lobbying less surprising and more a confirmation of existing suspicions.
The language used, particularly the repetition of “quietly lobbied,” appears to be a deliberate understatement, likely serving as a euphemism for financial inducements. The suggestion that this is “media slang for ‘bribed'” highlights a public perception of transactional politics, where significant sums of money may have exchanged hands to secure a desired outcome. The focus shifts from genuine diplomatic engagement to the transactional nature of influence, implying that financial incentives played a crucial role.
The article implies a direct correlation between financial dealings and potential policy decisions. Mentions of a $142 billion arms sale, substantial investments in individuals close to Trump like Jared Kushner, and favorable business deals such as the LIV Golf tournament and the Paramount deal, all suggest a pattern of financial benefits flowing in Trump’s direction. This creates a strong implication that these financial transactions were not merely coincidental but were instrumental in shaping his stance on military action against Iran.
The argument is made that the primary motivation behind this alleged lobbying effort is the deep-seated animosity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, rooted in historical and sectarian divides. The assertion that “Sunni Islam seeks to take out Shia Islam” points to the profound religious and political schism that has long defined the regional power struggle. This rivalry, it is suggested, is not a new development but a continuation of centuries-old tensions, now being amplified through modern geopolitical and financial channels.
There’s a strong undercurrent of skepticism regarding the notion of “quiet” diplomacy when large sums of money are involved. The idea that a wire transfer to an offshore bank might be considered “quiet” underscores the perceived surreptitiousness of the dealings. The question of “what was the price?” or if it was “prepaid with the billions to Kushner and trump coin” directly questions the transparency and legitimacy of the alleged lobbying efforts, suggesting that the “price” was paid in advance through various financial channels.
The commentary suggests that individuals in positions of power, like former President Trump, are susceptible to influence from those who can offer substantial financial rewards. The notion of Trump being “on a leash” by Saudi princes implies a level of control or leverage gained through financial means. This perspective casts doubt on the independence of decision-making, suggesting that foreign policy might be dictated by the financial interests of powerful individuals and entities.
Furthermore, the article touches upon the hypocrisy that can arise when actions are framed as serving noble causes, such as promoting democracy or civil liberties, while simultaneously being driven by the interests of what are perceived as corrupt or authoritarian regimes. The point about cheering for “liberation” while potentially serving the interests of a “corrupt evil theocracy” raises ethical questions about the motivations behind foreign policy interventions and the potential for unintended consequences.
The idea that the United States might be used as a proxy for regional conflicts, fighting “down to the last American,” is a recurring concern. This perspective suggests that while other nations might benefit from a conflict with Iran, they are eager to see the US bear the brunt of the military action, thus avoiding direct involvement while reaping the strategic advantages. The comparison to Israel’s alleged role in pushing for war also introduces the complexity of multiple actors vying for influence and projecting their agendas onto US foreign policy.
Ultimately, the narrative presented is one of perceived corruption and transactional influence, where financial incentives may have driven a push for military intervention. The repeated emphasis on “quiet lobbying” as a veiled reference to bribery, coupled with the extensive financial dealings mentioned, paints a picture of a political landscape where wealth and influence can significantly sway foreign policy decisions, particularly concerning volatile geopolitical situations. The underlying message is a call for vigilance and a critical examination of the true motivations behind calls for military action.