The Saudi kingdom has kept a suspicious silence over President Barack Obama and his Western allies’ deal with Iran, but one of its wealthiest billionaires princes, who owns lots of shares in Twitter, Apple and News Corp., has minced no words to express no confidence in Obama.

He also happens to be a nephew of King Abdullah.

“There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran,” Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, told Bloomberg News.

Then he blurted out a whopper by saying. “We’re really concerned.” The “we” is “Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East countries,” he said.

It is no secret that Riyadh and Jerusalem are privately in cahoots again Iran, but when the king’s billionaire nephew publicly states Israel is an ally against the White House, somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should start cleaning out his ears.

His comments came hours before the deal with Iran was announced, but he presumably figured Obama would surrender and let Iran win the bargaining session.

“Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obamacare. That’s scary for him.”

Open criticism of Obama playing politics on the life-or-death issue of a nuclear Iran is pretty harsh stuff and might have made it a bit easier for the Kingdom to refrain from saying what it really thinks – that Obama does not understand anything about the Middle East or simply could not care less.

Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan a few weeks ago said that if President Obama continues to accommodate Iran, it might make a “major shift” away from Washington. And “away” from the White House means closer to the Zionist entity. It is amazing what some people will do to survive.

Prince Awaleed’s openly lumping the Kingdom with Israel and “other Middle East countries” cannot be shooed away as a one man’s opinion. Bloomberg noted that his “public statements are often interpreted as a barometer for the thoughts of Saudi’s rulers.”

Obama may be buying off Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States by offering them more security guarantees, but after Obama ditched Saudi Arabia and backed off its threat to attack Syrian President Bassar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, who trusts Washington any longer?

It is assumed Israel has nuclear warheads, and Saudi Arabia already has not kept it a secret that it would try to get its hands on nuclear weapons via Pakistan if Iran goes nuclear, so what guarantees does Washington have to offer?

The agreement with Iran by the Western powers, headed by Obama, puts the president in the saddle for the time being.  Except for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, no one – not even Saudi Arabia – is going to second-guess Obama and not give the deal a chance.

Obama has neutralized Israel and silenced Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and, according to Israel’s Channel 10 television, he will use the deal to promote its agenda to solve all of the problems in the Middle East.

The television station reported that Obama will now figure it can pressure Iran, and even Russia, to help solve the Syrian civil war.  With that under his belt, it is only a short hop skip and a jump to crown the Palestinian Authority as the non-nuclear weapon to destroy Israel by squeezing it into its old “Auschwitz borders” until the next step of flooding it with Palestinian Authority “immigrants.”

Given President Obama’s track record on Obamacare, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and about every other country outside of Antarctica, it is a fair assumption that things will fall apart quickly. If it indeed is Obama’s plan to march to world peace with Iran at its side, the man forgets, or doesn’t even know, that he really does not understand the Middle East or simply could not care less.

The ink was hardly dry on the deal when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani already interpreted it differently.

Tehran said the agreement leaves it with the right to enrich uranium, even if its low grade, while Kerry denied that the deal recognized Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium.

Perhaps a “bad deal” was better than no deal because once the bad deal is exposed for what it is, the Western powers can go back to square one and start over with common sense.

Of course, that assumes it is not too late.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry denied reports that he is ready to impose a U.S. peace plan on Israelis and Palestinians.

“Let me categorically dispel any notion that there is anything other than the track that is formally engaged in between Israel and the Palestinians,” Kerry said when asked by reporters Monday about the purported plan in Riyadh, where he met with his Saudi Arabian counterpart, Saud al Faisal.

A number of reports over the last week, including one from Zehava Gal-On, the leader of the left-wing Israeli Meretz Party who said she had learned of the plan from U.S. and Palestinian officials, said that the secretary of state was frustrated with the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian teams and was ready to introduce a U.S. plan in January that would be based in the 1967 lines.

“The only plan we have at this point in time is to pursue that discussion and the discussion track that we’ve always talked about, which is the leaders track, which is the discussions between President Obama, myself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas,” Kerry said. “So it’s just incorrect. There is no other plan at this point in time.”

Kerry continued from Saudi Arabia to Israel and the Palestinian areas, where he was to meet this week with leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Palestinians and Israelis renewed talks this summer after intensive lobbying by Kerry.

Saudi traffic police had a field day in Riyadh on Saturday, fining at least 16 women who broke the tradition that prohibits women from taking the wheel.

The threat of $80 fines doused plans for a massive feminist turnout following a campaign of “women’s driving is a choice” that had gained support with more than 16,000 signatures.

The women who defied the ban posted videos on social media of their brazen act, and after being caught, they had to sign a pledge “to respect the Kingdom’s laws.” Police kept the women by their vehicles until a male guardian appeared to take the wheel, but some women were taken to the police station.

Given the traditional Muslim veil that women in Saudi Arabia usually wear in public, women drivers indeed could be a public danger. Who wants to ride with someone whose face is completely covered except for two slits for the eyes?

For the time being, it is the Saudi kingdom that has limited vision because it may only be a matter of time before it caves in and accepts the ugly Western influence of a female carrying out the masculine task of driving a car.

“Despite the strong opposition, the women believe that time is on their side,” The New York Times reported. “They point to the huge numbers of Saudis who study and travel abroad and return with new perspectives on their culture. They also suggest that the kingdom’s youthful population and the tremendous rise of social media will over time make the country more open to change.”

Saudi Arabia has the privilege of being the only country in the world where women are barred from driving, but the prohibition is a custom of the kingdom and not written in law.

The issue is not to be treated frivolously or with sarcasm. Saudi cleric Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan  in late September gave a very good reason why women should not drive.

“If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards,” he told the Senior Council of Scholars, one of the top religious bodies in the country.

“That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees,” he said.

Iran’s government-controlled Fars News Agency reported on Sunday that Syrian forces seized “Israeli-made missiles, machine guns, rifles and communication devices” in clashes with rebels in the Daraa region.

Saudi Arabia has been known to be a major supplier of weapons to opposition forces, so if the report has any validity, it raises the fanciful scenario that the oil-rich kingdom is buying weapons from Israel and then shipping them to Al Qaeda terrorists who are using Zionist guns.

Ever since the seventies, the world has become accustomed to the split in the Middle East, between those countries that support the West – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco and Israel, and we might add Turkey to this list as well, and those countries that were members of the opposing, Soviet, coalition: Syria, Libya, Iraq and South Yemen. Lebanon was then between the democratic hammer and the Syrian anvil.

Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the eighties, there were no big shifts in political orientation, and the countries that were faithful to the Western bloc led by the United States remained faithful to it until recently, mainly because a new hostile bloc was formed, led by Iran and supported by Russia and China. The stronger the Iranian threat became, the more the pro-Western countries depended on America for support.

Lately, however, the pro-Western coalition has begun to crumble, and two key countries – Saudi Arabia and Egypt – are searching for a new political crutch, ever since it became clear to them that the American crutch is nothing but “a broken reed” (Isaiah, 36:6). A few more countries can be added to this list, mainly Turkey and the Gulf Emirates.

Saudi Arabia

In an unprecedented move, the Saudi kingdom has refused to become a member of the most powerful body in the world, the Security Council of the UN, a body authorized to deal with the world’s security problems and, with the power of the authority vested in it, can even declare war as a world body on a country that violates its resolutions. The question that immediately arises is: why did Saudi Arabia refuse to become a member of the body that is perhaps the only one capable of dealing with Iran’s military nuclear project? Why did Saudi Arabia reject the opportunity to influence events in Syria from within the Security Council? Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia take advantage of the most important stage in international policy in order to take action against Israel?

The superficial reason is that which the Saudi foreign office published, expressing an ethical position: the kingdom will not agree to enter the Security Council until the Council undergoes reforms that will enable it to fulfill its role, which is to maintain world peace. The obsolete apparatus, the wasteful practices, and double standards used by the Security Council all prevent it from fulfilling its role. There are many examples of this: the Palestinian problem has not been solved despite it having been created 65 years ago, and despite the fact that the wars stemming from it have threatened the peace of the entire region and the world several times. The Council allows the Syrian dictator continue slaughtering his citizens for almost three years without imposing effective sanctions, and the Council has failed to achieve the goal of turning the Middle East into an area free of weapons of mass destruction because it has not managed to create an effective method of oversight for military nuclear projects.

Despite the fact that the Saudis do not speak specifically about Iran in their official announcement, it is clear that their reference is not to Israel, from whom they fear no danger, but to Iran, whose nuclear plans do keep them awake at night. However, it is specifically the Iranian nuclear issue which should have pushed Saudi Arabia to become a member the Council; membership could have granted them an active role in making decisions against Iran, so why not join?

In part, the reasons relate to the way that the Saudis see the international alignment of countries recently but is also connected to the customary culture of honor in the Middle East, without which it would be impossible to understand the behavior of the Saudis, proud sons of the desert.

First of all, a person of honor does not join a club where he is considered a class ‘B’ member. In the Security Council there are class ‘A’ members – the five permanent members (the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China) who have nuclear weapons and veto power, and there are class ‘B’ members – the ten countries with temporary membership, who are not allowed to attain nuclear weapons and do not have veto power. Saudi Arabia would in no way agree to be a class ‘B’ member of any organization, and would prefer not to join because honor is more important to it than anything else.

Originally published at Gatestone Institute.

A stated Islamist goal, to replace Western civilization’s liberal democratic order with a Sharia-governed Ummah [community of Muslims], now seems to involve an effort to delegitimize Western international organizations, as seen this week by Saudi Arabia’s refusing a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Saudi Arabia’s refusal likely reflects its view of itself as helping to establish an alternative international order based on Sharia law. For Islamists, the United Nations, like all secular international organs, lacks legitimacy.

OIC vs. UN

The Islamic world threw down the gauntlet to the secular international order in 1990 when it drafted an alternative declaration of human rights, the Kairos Document, based on the Sharia law. The 56 countries of what was then called the Organization of Islamic Conference, since renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC], criticized the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as being insensitive to religious concepts of the non-Western world. In Saudi Arabia’s UN Ambassador Abdallah al-Mouallimi’s October 13, 2013 statement, explaining the sudden and unprecedented rejection of a seat on the Security Council, he cites Saudi Arabia’s “historical responsibilities toward its people, Arab and Islamic nations as well as toward the peoples aspiring for peace and stability in the world.” The Saudi explanation continues by enumerating a litany of UN failures to solve problems in the Mideast. This statement underscores Saudi Arabia’s role as the capital of a shadow-caliphate alternative to the current liberal democratic international order.

Riyadh’s sentiment was preceded by last summer’s rebuttal — which revealed the global scope of Islamist objectives — by the Pakistani Taliban fugitive, Adnan Rashid[1], to the UN address by the heroic Pakistani Malala Yousafzai (then 15 years old), shot by the Taliban for having asked for women’s education. In a letter, Rashid denounced Malala’s naiveté for placing trust in an international organization that he claimed is a tool of the West with which to punish Islamic nations.

Rashid’s riposte, however, has an unwritten corollary. He and his fellow Islamists bear allegiance to an alternate network that exists in parallel with the institutions of the current international order, the most visible symbol of which is the OIC.[2] The OIC, which promotes Islamic social, economic, and political solidarity, is, in fact, already the second-largest international organization after the UN. It has not only attempted to negotiate disputes among Islamic factions in Muslim-majority countries, such as Iraq and Somalia, but has also helped to mediate disputes between non-Muslim-majority states and their Islamic minorities, as in the Philippines and Thailand. In adjudicating these disputes, the OIC has employed, as the legal frame of reference, the principles of Sharia law rather than international law.

One has only to examine the flag and the logo of the OIC to realize its ambition. A crescent moon encompasses the entire globe. The earth rests on a sea of green, the color of Islam, with the Kaa’ba in the center of the globe. The flag resembles the national banner of the al-Saud Kingdom (the only country among all the embassies in Washington D.C. that, on 9/11, did not lower its flag). The OIC, however, is just one of several all-Islamic multinational organs that parallel secular international community structures. There is also, for example, the International Association of Islamic Banks and several other organs for cooperation, such as the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Islamic States Broadcasting Organization.

Jihadi terrorists, as a matter of targeting policy, strike at representative symbols of the existing international order. One of the initial targets of Iraq-based al-Qaeda terrorists was the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq.[3] Pakistani and Nigerian Muslim terrorists have routinely assassinated international volunteers, even those working to eradicate deadly diseases such as polio. The most extreme assassinations have occurred in Sharia-governed northern Nigeria and Pushtun tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan, where, in both places, the murders closely followed sermons that vociferously denounced ongoing inoculation campaigns. Any form of assistance from international organizations is rejected by Muslim extremists as part of a Western conspiracy to influence Muslims to abandon their faith. Inoculations against polio, for instance, have been described by Islamic extremists as a plot to sterilize Muslim children.[4] It is more likely, however, that the radical clerics who urge believers to renounce such aid efforts are more concerned about losing control of their constituency.

Just a day after having won a seat (for which it had lobbied) for the first time on the United Nations Security Council, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the coveted seat.

The reason?

“Saudi Arabia … is refraining from taking membership of the U.N. Security Council until it has reformed so it can effectively and practically perform its duties and discharge its responsibilities in maintaining international security and peace,”it said in a Foreign Ministry statement.

What is really going on seems to be that someone at the highest level in the kingdom is furious over international relations with respect to the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia is particularly disgusted by U.S. failure to halt Iran’s move towards hegemony in the region. Close second and third concerns are the failures, in its view, of the U.S. to support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and to conclude the ongoing civil war in Syria.  Both of the latter two conflicts are also seen as proxy wars for Iranian control.

Although nearly every nation expressed some level of surprise over the Saudi Security Council seat rejection, the kingdom had sent a strong signal of displeasure last month when the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal cancelled his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. The reason given at the time was displeasure over the body’s inaction on vital matters in the Middle East.

The only other time anyone can recall that a member nation of the U.N. rejected a seat on the Security Council is back in 195o, when the Soviet Union boycotted its permanent seat for half a year in protest at Taiwan’s occupation of the Chinese seat instead of Beijing.

It had to happen.  You knew it was going to happen.

What with Iran getting a lead role on the Disarmament and International Security Committee, and Syria having been selected to serve on UNESCO’s Human Rights Committee, it had to happen.  Saudi Arabia, the bottom feeder of human rights, especially for women’s rights, has received the nod and now gets to sit at the big table.

On Thursday, October 17, Saudia Arabia was one of five countries to “easily win seats on the UN Security Council,” according to the AP. Two of the other three newly elected members also have horrific human rights records, so apparently that is no bar to a position on the most elite grouping of the global forum.

Well, is it such a problem if known human rights abusers are selected to serve on the Security Council? Why yes, because the mandate for the group includes giving members leading voices in matters of international security and providing oversight to UN peacekeeping forces.

Chad – notorious for its use of child soldiers, and Nigeria – have we not heard enough about the delightful Boko Haram to know that any place that group is comfortable should not be on the UN Security Council, are the other two controversial seat winners.

The two non-controversial choices for the elite seats were Lithuania and Chile.

Regional groups nominate members and the selections are made to ensure that all the regional groups are represented.

There are about 60 member countries of the U.N. which have never been chosen to sit on the Security Council.  Israel is one of those.