2

The Trap is Set

America is in a highly compromised position of servitude after decades of concessions

with the Saudis in order to preserve invested interests and to obtain oil. In order to do business in
the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, the United States is compliant to wishes that are both
unconstitutional and unhealthy for Americans. Submissiveness to Saudi rules has placed America
in a state of dhimmitude, or servitude to Islamic conditions, that extends into the arena of energy,
security, policy, education, finance, and religion.
The U.S.-Saudi alliance began as a result of the need for oil and the desire for U.S.
corporations to cash in on new business opportunities. Initially well-intended and lucrative, the
relationship became compromised when oil companies began to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia.
With oil and American company’s interests at stake, the Saudi’s began using oil as a weapon to
create a powerful anti-Israel lobbying force in Congress. Saudi political interests have been
shamefully imposed on hundreds of thousands of organizations, businesses, politicians,
financiers, and educators, to influence American policy and American public opinion. From the
beginning of the dubious relationship, ARAMCO officials, the U.S. Department of State, and the
Defense Department had pressured the Truman administration not to recognize the new state of
Israel because they correctly feared it would anger the Saudis and endanger future American oil
company profits.
King Saud needed a new source of revenue in 1933 so he agreed to grant Standard Oil of
California exploration rights for oil when he was facing bankruptcy. Since pre-Islamic days, tax
dollars collected from pilgrims visiting Mecca provided a major source of revenue, but the
number of pilgrims had decreased by 20th century. Exploration led to discovery of oil in 1936 and
the formation of the Arabian-American Oil Company Oil (ARAMCO) before the end of the
decade with Texaco, Mobil, and Exxon joining to become a giant multinational oil consortium.
The National Security Council, the Treasury Department, the State Department, and
officials of the oil companies, agreed to transfer American oil companies tax payments from the
U.S. Treasury directly to the Saudis instead of having to pay foreign aid to the Saudi Kingdom.
The Saudis were satisfied with the arrangement, but in the 1970’s the newly formed OPEC
countries started exercising more control and demanded assets and partial control in some oil
companies.
Successor to the Saudi throne, King Faisal, was increasingly at odds with America over
U.S. policy with Israel, and nationalization of the oil companies became a threat when the king
demanded that American oil companies actually work to change U.S. policy toward Israel. That
policy included extorting the U.S. into trying to force the Israelis out of the territory they had
acquired as a result of the Six Day War in 1967 and even out of Jerusalem completely. As
foreseen by the Truman Administration, King Faisel warned the president of ARAMCO that
American oil companies must prove their loyalty to Saudi Arabia or suffer higher oil prices, and
perhaps lose all their investments in Saudi Arabia. So, in order to keep their investments intact
American oil companies began hiring lobbyists to influence Congress. “American national
interest” then began to reflect Saudi interests and officials began public relations efforts such as
lobbying, media projects directed at efforts to improve the Arab image and change America’s
opinion regarding Israeli concerns and Israel’s right to exist.
Lobbying involves public relations campaigns at the taxpayer’s expense. Foreign
governments contract lobbying firms to get Congress to pass specific bills or to sway opinion for
investments in the U.S. that are not always best for Americans. Sometimes lobbying efforts
involve enticements to attract American investors out of America and into foreign countries, such
as domestic tax hikes achieve. Thousands of lobbyists, lawyers, public relations firms, and
political consultants are paid to push the agendas of foreign governments, foreign corporations,
and foreign leaders at the American taxpayer’s expense. Lobbyists in turn earn millions of dollars
for ostensibly traitorous propaganda efforts.1
In 1972 an agreement allowed oil-producing countries to receive 25% of each American
oil company’s profits allowing for a gradual transfer of ownership that would reach 51% by
1983. The American oil companies did not realize that loopholes in the agreement would allow
the Saudis to demand additional money per barrel in the future.2
Oil as a weapon in the struggle against Israel was regularly proposed at Arab Petroleum
Congresses. The Six Day War in 1967 led to the 1967 oil embargo in a joint Arab decision to
deter support for Israel. Several Middle Eastern countries limited their oil shipments. Some
1
Morris, Dick & McGann, Eileen; Fleeced, Chapter 7, p135, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2008
2
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 2, pp. 26-35, Franklin
Watts Publisher, 1985
embargoed only the U.S. and the United Kingdom, while others placed a ban on all oil exports.
In an effort to define what countries would be included in the embargo, several Arab countries
issued a statement with the following two resolutions:

“Arab oil shall be denied to and shall not be allowed to reach directly or indirectly
countries committing aggression or participating in aggression on sovereignty of
any Arab state or its territories or its territorial waters, particularly the Gulf of
Aqaba.”

The Gulf of Aqaba is a large gulf of the Red Sea that shares a coastline with Egypt, Israel,
Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The second provision was:

“The involvement of any country, directly or indirectly in armed aggression

against Arab states will make assets of its companies and nationals inside the
territories of Arab countries subject to the laws of war. This includes the assets of
oil companies.” 3

After the Six Day War in June 1967, Persian Gulf members of The Organization of Arab
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut oil production by 5% a month until Israeli forces
evacuated Arab lands. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC)
headquartered in Kuwait, composed solely of Arab Countries including Algeria, Tunisia, Libya,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, was formed in 1968 to coordinate energy policies specifically for Arab
nations with the original intention to control oil as a weapon.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria attempted to over run Israel in the Yom-Kipper War and
declared it would no longer ship oil to the United States and other countries that supported Israel.
The 1973 oil embargo was a result of America’s decision to resupply Israel militarily. OPEC
members subsequently raised world oil prices, but after negotiations at the Washington Oil
Summit in March 1974, the embargo was lifted.4

3
1967 Oil Embargo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Oil_Embargo
4
1973 Oil Crisis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
 Syria and other Arab states put pressure on Saudi Arabia to use their petrodollars against
Israel after the price of oil quadrupled in 1973. Previously just $3.00/barrel, some Arab countries
were earning $12.7 million dollars an in 1974.5
The 1973 oil embargo was the first sign of using oil as a weapon for political gain. From
then on, a number of OPEC and OAPEC countries would use their control to renegotiate
contracts, particularly with American companies. 6
Steven Emerson, journalist and former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, wrote an eye-opening book about anti-Israeli activities promoted by prominent
Americans in order to get Saudi petrodollars. Emerson, who is now the executive director of The
Investigative Project on Terrorism, described in his book “The American House of Saud: The
Secret Petrodollar Connection” how Arab petrodollars have been diffused throughout American
society with scandalous political consequences. Emerson’s book revealed how American officials
in Saudi Arabia and the United States, through political funding, have severely manipulated the
political process and the free market to influence American policy in their favor.7
Non-oil producing companies involving politicians, lawyers, financiers, the education
system, and the media were drawn into a scheme comprised of an influential “petrodollar” class
that is far more powerful today. Emerson’s book revealed how American corporations, business
executives, and former government officials became zealous lobbyists to gain wealth from Saudi
petrodollar investments,for Saudi political interests in a decades long secret agenda of anti-
Semitic goals.8
Saudi anti-Semitism is so extreme and controlling that they ban companies doing
business with Israel to a “black list.” The blacklist forbids American companies from doing
business with American companies that do business with Israel.9

5
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 4, p. 45, Franklin
Watts Publisher, 1985
6
Yom Kipper War; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
7
Ibid; Chapter 1, p. 18
8
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 1, p. 14, Franklin
Watts Publisher, 1985
9
Ibid; Chapter 4, pp. 61-64
 Saudis enticed and contracted thousands of American business leaders to industrialize
and modernize Saudi Arabia with their enormous new wealth. American companies were
encouraged to open subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia with offers of free land, suspension of taxes, and
interest-free loans. The American businesses included goods manufacturers, defense
manufacturers, investors, bankers, contractors, architects, universities and executives. Some of
the companies that received mega contracts early on included Litton, Hughes Aircraft, Turner
Construction, Holiday Inn, Hyatt, Hilton, Marriot, Sheraton, Westinghouse, Pillsbury, Pan
American Airlines, Borden, and General Motors10
The Saudis also loaned billions of dollars to leading American companies. As early as the
1970’s Chrysler was indebted to the Saudis for $100 million. IBM was granted a $300 million
loan, and AT&T received a loan for $650 million.11
The relationship between the Saudis and the Americans was not only one-sided with
regards to Israel. It was also biased when it came to religion. Daniel Pipes cited in a Winter-
2002/2003 article, “The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations,” an example of political subservience
when President George H.W. Bush went to the Persian Gulf region in 1990 at Thanksgiving to
visit 400,000 American troops who were protecting the Saudis from an Iraqi invasion. When the
Saudi authorities learned of President Bush’s plans to say grace before Thanksgiving dinner, they
objected and informed him that Saudi Arabia recognizes only Islam. Bush complied with the
Saudi’s and decided to celebrate Thanksgiving on the U.S.S. Durham in international waters.
In April 2002, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at Waco complied with Crown
Prince Abdullah’s demands while he was travelling across Texas to visit President George W.
Bush when Prince Abdullah did not want any females on the ramp or talking to the airplane.
In 1991, the U.S. military had taken the initiative requiring female personnel based in
Saudi Arabia to wear Islamic religious attire. When off-base, the American government required
the women to ride in the back seat of vehicles driven by men. The highest-ranking female fighter
pilot in the U.S. Air Force at the time, Lt. Col. Martha McSally said in 1995:

10
Ibid; Chapter 3, pp. 54-55
11
Ibid; Chapter 3, p.56
 “I'm able to be in leadership positions and fly combat sorties into enemy territory,
yet when I leave the base I hand over the keys to my subordinate men, sit in the
back, and put on a Muslim outfit that is very demeaning and humiliating.”

McSally filed a lawsuit in early 2002 citing violation of free speech, the separation of
church and state, and gender discrimination. After McSally filed her lawsuit, the Department of
Defense changed the clothing requirement and rescinded the policies of sitting in the back of a
vehicle and requiring a male escort. However, women are still “strongly encouraged” to follow
rules giving “host nation sensitivity” a priority.
“The American House of Saud” revealed that the leading U.S. companies in Saudi
Arabia; ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco and Boeing did not employ women, at least in the early
eighties. At that time, several other U.S. companies, including Citibank, Saks Fifth Avenue,
Philip Morris and Procter & Gamble, had women on their payroll, however, following Saudi
custom, they worked in separate offices from men. American businessmen say that the
companies follow Saudi customs so they will not jeopardize their investments.
The United States does not stand up for freedom of speech, assembly, the right to travel,
women’s rights and religious liberties in Saudi Arabia, and these breeches in freedom almost
always stem from Islamic laws. For example, Saudi and Islamic laws give Saudi fathers custody
of children in divorces, and the State Department even accepts those laws when Saudi fathers
abduct children from the United States. The State Department has not made a genuine effort to
confront the Saudi authorities over domestic cases, nor made effective efforts to free children
who are held against their American families’ wishes. In cases featured at a June 2002 hearing in
the House of Representatives and many others, the U.S. government did not stand up for the
mothers or the children.
Saudis will not tolerate Christians at prayer. An incident involving American troops in
Saudi Arabia in December 1990 describes how formal Christmas services were forbidden on
Saudi soil. Christmas trees were not allowed, and American officials were expected to seize and
dispose of Christmas decorations and other Christmas symbols. Christmas cards sent to
Americans through Saudi post boxes were destroyed and U.S. stamps portraying religious scenes
were torn off packages and letters. Labeled “C-word morale services,” all Christmas gatherings
were to be undetectable to the Saudis.
 Timothy Hunter, a State Department employee during 1992-95 described methods he was
told to use to discourage Catholics and Protestants from worshipping while he was based in
Saudi Arabia. With Hunter’s communications limited to Catholics, he was told to pretend he did
not know of any worship services. Even though there actually were religious services held on
Tuesdays referred to as “Tuesday Lectures,” Hunter was to avert the questions as long as
possible. He was told to arrange a meeting with any inquisitor who persisted to gain a sense of
their credibility. Hunter said that he never actually admitted anyone to the Tuesday Lectures.
Non-Catholic Americans were directed to the British Consulate but since the U.K. services were
usually full, most of Americans did not attend.
Hunter explained a long-standing procedure of prohibiting Jews from the Kingdom.
Though select senior diplomats of Jewish origin were allowed to visit Saudi Arabia on official
business, Jewish-American diplomats of low or mid level standing were not permitted to be
stationed in the Kingdom. Hunter described that it was the duty of the Foreign Service Director
of Personnel to screen all Foreign Service officers who applied for service in Saudi Arabia,
denoting Jewish officers’ names with the letter “J.”
Congressional hearings in 1975 exposed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its
subcontractors of excluding both Jews and Blacks from projects in Saudi Arabia, even though
U.S. law states “U.S. companies cannot rely on a country’s customs or local preferences and
stereotypes to justify discrimination against U.S. citizens.”
The arrangement was challenged in 1959 when the New York State Supreme Court
condemned the practice of asking prospective employees if they were Jews. New York
condemned the discrimination by ruling that ARAMCO had conformed to the practice of not
hiring Jews in an effort to appease Saudi Arabia:

“. . . our basic documents of freedom are never to be subordinated to immediate

business gain…no matter what the King of Saudi Arabia says…” 12

The New York Court enforced the ruling and told ARAMCO:

“Go elsewhere to serve your Arab master but not in New York State.”
12
Ibid; Chapter 2, p. 25
 Dynalectron, a firm that hired helicopter pilots headquartered in McLean, Virginia,
arranged for its employees to convert to Islam. In another case, a female employee of a hospital
service and supply firm in Abu Dhabi sued her employer for firing her because she referred to
Israel as “The Holy Land” in a company newsletter she had written.13
World Airways, who boasted of having more Hajj pilgrims to Mecca than any other
airline in the world, was charged in 1975 for demanding proof from it staff, of church
membership, baptism or marriage in churches for traveling to Saudi Arabia.
A man who worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, ARAMCO, and Raytheon Corp,
said that mail censors confiscated a photo of his 95-year-old grandmother because the photo
disobeyed Saudi laws regarding women.
In 1995, when five Americans were killed in Riyadh, the Saudi Kingdom executed the
suspects before the U.S. law enforcement officials could interrogate them. Saudi’s were also
uncooperative in the investigation surrounding American troop deaths in the 1996 terrorist attack
on Khobar Towers, a housing complex used to house foreign military personnel. When King
Faisal held a state dinner for Henry Kissinger in the1970’s, he accusingly informed the Secretary
of State that Jews and Communists were working together to undermine the civilized world and
that the creation of Israel was a Bolshevik plot to divide America from the Arabs. In order to
avoid a confrontation instead of challenging the ridiculous statements, Kissinger took the role of
dhimmi by changing the subject and asking the king a question about palace artwork.
Regarding dissatisfaction with U.S. and Israeli alliance, Crown Prince Abdullah wrote to
President Bush in August 2001, just prior to 9/11:

“. . . a time comes when peoples and nations part. We are at a crossroads. It is

time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests.
Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of the people and respond to it will
suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.”

Abdullah’s plan for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict required that Israel retreat to its 1967
borders, a serious concern to President Bush. In a statement featured in the U.S. press in April

13
Ibid; Chapter 4, p. 69
2002, a leading Saudi figure warned that the Kingdom would contemplate joining forces with
America’s worst enemies if necessary:

“. . . we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Libya's ruler
Muammar Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a
brother, so be it.”

The statement had no apparent effect on U.S. policy. Reports from a following summit
indicated that Abdullah gave warning to President Bush that if an agreeable position was not
reached regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict the two countries would part ways. 14
After September 11, 2001, the U.S. government did not reassess policy with, or sue the
Kingdom for punitive damages, and Saudi cooperation with American efforts to track down the
financing of Al-Qaeda appears to have been useless. Author Daniel Pipes noted that Americans
strive to tolerate customs and religions beliefs of other countries, but the lack of reciprocity from
the Saudis suggests a payoff.
In “The American House of Saud,” Steve Emerson wrote that a comment by the Saudi
ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, provided an evocative reason for the
one-sided relationship with American politicians:

“If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave
office”…“you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just
coming into office.”

A former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Hume Horan, said:

“There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll, and they
work as advisers and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging
and promoting relationships like that. Money works wonders, and if you’ve got an
awful lot of it, and a royal title-well, it is amusing to see how some Americans
liquefy in front of a foreign potentate, just because he's called a prince.”
14
Pipes, Daniel; “The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations, National Interest,” Winter 2002/03
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/995#_ftn30#_ftn3
 The statement explains why American officials will overlook national security, human
rights and democratic values regarding Saudi Arabia and Arab states interests.
National Review’s writer, Rod Dreher noted that the number of ex-government officials
“who now push a pro-Saudi line is startling.” He wrote:

“. . . no other posting pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one
is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests.”15

A National Post analysis written by Matt Welch declared:

“. . . former ambassadors have carved out a fine living insulting their own
countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth.” 16

Matt Welch wrote that Americans who have worked with the Saudis in official capacities
often remain connected to them when they leave public office. Some of them include former
President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton who have given speeches for cash. Jimmy Carter
promotes the Saudi agenda with outspoken anti-Israel sentiment and has received millions of
dollars from Arab countries. Walter Cutler, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, ran the
Meridian International Center, an organization that promotes international understanding through
education and exchange. Cutler acknowledged that during his 17 years as President for the
center, Saudi donors were “very supportive.”
Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson reveal that the Kingdom has paid off many ex-
Washingtonians such as Spiro T. Agnew, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John B. Connelly, Gerald
Ford, William E. Simon, and various former ambassadors. 17
Hundreds of former congressional representatives such as minority leader Richard
Gebhardt, Congressman Thomas Downey, and Bob Dole were paid consultants and lobbyists for
15
Dreher, Rod; “Their Men in Riyadh”, National Review, June 17, 2002
16
Matt Welch, “Shilling for the House of Saud”, The National Post, August 24, 2002
17
Pipes, Daniel; “The Scandal of U.S. and Saudi Relations,” Winter 2002/2003,
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/995
Arab countries. Their services included setting up meetings with members of Congress, making
travel arrangements, working on media campaigns to promote the Arab image, highlighting
countries specifically important to the United States with no regard for human rights. Lobbyists
and political consultants regularly manipulate U.S. foreign policy by influencing Congress, the
executive branch, and the American public.18
Edward Walker, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, President of
the Middle East Institute in Washington, which promotes understanding with the Arab world,
said Saudi contributions covered $200,000 of the institute’s $1.5 million budget in 2001.
Walker’s board chairman then was former senator Wyche Fowler, ambassador to Riyadh in the
second Clinton administration.19
Robert Gray, a former secretary to the Eisenhower cabinet member opened a public-
relations firm in 1981. The country of Turkey paid Gray an annual retainer of $300,000 to use his
expertise for military aid in defense issues. Kuwait hired Gray to council them on how to handle
press inquiries regarding their purchase of Santa Fe International, an oil drilling firm with a
nuclear technology subsidiary. Gray worked to reverse American foreign policy and change
public opinion regarding Israel for the Saudis.20
After intensive lobbying by private corporations, Jimmy Carter agreed to sell F-15’s to
the Saudis, and Reagan sold them AWACs. After Reagan sold the AWACs, Greyhound
announced a $90 million contract. Three weeks after the AWAC vote, Westinghouse announced a
$130 million contract. According to a memo, Westinghouse had paid the public relations firm,
South and Baroff $75,000.21
In May 2008 President Bush went to Saudi Arabia and it was reported by the press that
the trip was in an effort to ask the Saudis to keep oil prices down and sell us oil. This was at a
time when oil process had risen sharply and the reason for the hike still remains unclear. The

18
Morris, Dick & McGann, Eileen; Fleeced, Chapter 6, pp 117-132, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2008
19
Washington Post, February 11, 2002
20
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 17, pp. 337-343,
Chapter 11, p. 193, Franklin Watts Publisher, 1985
21
Ibid; Chapter 10, p. 174, Chapter 11, p. 193
Saudis did not agree to sell us more oil, and as it turns out, another reason for the trip was that
the Saudis wanted to discuss a future nuclear program.22
Since 1974, U.S. Presidential administrations have kept strategic Saudi investments in
America a secret. Critical information about the nature of investments by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and the United Arab Emirates is routinely suppressed from the public, the press, and Congress.
According to “The American House of Saud,” the Treasury Department, investment in the
U.S. by Middle East oil exporters was $74.6 billion at the end of 1983. Nearly $40 billion of the
total was in government securities, such as Treasury bills and bonds. The remainder included
$5.1 billion in corporate bonds, $8.6 billion in corporate stock, $6.7 billion in deposits in
American banks, $4.3 billion in non-bank liabilities, $4.8 billion in direct investments, and
another $5.1 billion in U.S. government debts.
The office of Saudi Arabian Affairs was established in the Treasury Department23, and the
last year that the Treasury Department released deposit statistics on the Middle East oil
producing countries was 1982. At that time, their deposits totaled $13.3 billion. Arab deposits
were limited at that time to six U.S. banks: Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank,
Citibank, Manufactures Hanover, and Morgan Guaranty.
The U.S. agreed to secrecy and would not disclose Saudi investments when Arab oil
producers began accumulating tens of billions of dollars 1974 after the embargo. In an effort to
keep Saudi investments a secret, the U.S. agreed to recycle the petrodollars, and not disclose
Saudi investments. Inducing Saudis to purchase U.S. Treasuries required confidentiality from
then on. The Treasury Department and other federal agencies have not been able to monitor all of
the Arab investments in the United States with offshore tax havens that include dummy
corporations, laundered money, and Swiss bank accounts. The lack of adequate government
controls has enabled billions of Arab surplus funds to enter the U.S. with estimates that were up
to $200 billion as early as 1983.
As part of legislative supervision in the mid seventies, the Senate Subcommittee on
Multinational Corporations, chaired by Frank Church, began to look into the relationship
between expanding international debt, the concentration of petrodollars in American banks, and a

22
Stearns, Scott; Bush in Saudi Arabia for Nuclear Deal, Voice of America News, May 16, 2008,
http://voanews.com/english/archive/2008-05/2008-05-16-voa23.cfm?CFID=72599019&CFTOKEN=57388718
23
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 3, p. 47, Franklin
Watts Publisher, 1985
compromised American foreign policy. The subcommittee sent questionnaires to 36 major banks
asking for a breakdown of deposits from 22 countries including the OPEC nations. Fearing
retribution from the Arab depositors, banks refused to comply. In early September 1975,
Kuwait’s minister of finance, Abdul Rahman Atiqi warned Senator Charles Percy and Assistant
Treasury Secretaries, Chester Cooper and Gerald Parsky that

“Kuwait would definitely pull its funds out of the U.S. Banks if its position was
revealed.”

Two years later, the subcommittee released an in-depth study titled “International Debt,
the Banks and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The report by Karin Lisakers revealed a shocking picture of
the potential foreign advantage wielded over the banks and the American government.
Lisakers’ report warned of a possible “money weapon” regarding the billions in assets in
the U.S. held by the oil producers. At least half of the assets were liquid such as Treasury bills
and short-term bank deposits, and movement of the funds would be very disruptive to the
financial system. The report concluded:

“In the event of another major outbreak of hostilities in the middle East, in which
the United States and Saudi Arabia are likely to find themselves on opposite ides,
can one be sure that they will continue to act in the best interest of the Western
financial system? Saudi Arabia did not hesitate to use the oil weapon against the
United States In the last (1973) Mid-East war, despite earlier warm U.S.-Saudi
relations. There is no guarantee that next time they won’t wield the money
weapon, too.”

Under Ronald Reagan, Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal wanted to declassify

documents that he believed would reveal problems associated with OPEC investments.
Changes in Arab investment strategies and increased threats to the stability of American
financial markets caused Rosenthal to declassify 17 documents provided by the CIA,
including three titled, “OPEC: Official Foreign Assets;” “Kuwait and Saudi Arabia:
Facing Limits on U.S. Equity Purchases;” “Problems with Growing Arab Wealth;” and
“Kuwaiti Investments in the United States.”
The Saudi embassy in Washington cautioned the Reagan administration against
disclosing its investments. Rosenthal nevertheless wrote to Reagan that he intended to
publish the documents because some of them raised concerns about OPEC investment.
After repeated assurance that there was no basis for concern in the recycling of
petrodollars and OPEC investments in the United States, Rosenthal insisted that the
documents expressed a different view on the type of investment OPEC governments have
been making in the recent past. Without the documents, the public was getting a distorted
and one-sided Executive Branch view of the nature, extent, and impact of the
investments.

Reagan responded that the disclosure would likely “cause grave injury to our foreign
relations or would compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering,” and “the
public interest in avoiding such injury outweighs any public interest served by
disclosure.”

Despite fierce resistance, Rosenthal was able to get hundreds of heavily censored
documents released. Combined with other published accounts the documents provided an idea of
Arab investments and the nature of Arab threats against the United States.
At the time, Kuwait had the most real estate investments in the U.S. Other documents
revealed that Kuwait had adopted an aggressive investment strategy in the United States, having
acquired control of the $2.5 billion oil and drilling company, Santa Fe Industries. Other
investments included the Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc, the Andover Oil company in
Oklahoma, AZL Resources, Inc. in Arizona, the Petra Capital Corporation in New York, and
Solid State Technology, Inc. in Massachusetts. The list included hotels, offices, and shopping
centers such as Hilton Hotels in Georgia and Baltimore, the Landmark Hotel in Nevada, the
Hotel Statler in New York, the Galleria Mall in Texas, the Columbia Plaza Office Building in
Washington D.C. and other real estate holdings in over thirty states.
Middle East oil exporters already held $39.9 billion in U.S. Government securities at the
end of 1983, with Saudi Arabia the largest shareholder. Initially investing most of its funds in
U.S. government securities, Saudi Arabia became a major investor with strategic interests in
American corporations. For example, by 1978, Saudi Arabia was the largest holder of Federal
National Mortgage Association (FANNIE MAE).
Confidential documents also showed that in the 1980’s Kuwait owned 4% of stock in one
hundred ninety-seven leading American corporations. The Kuwait portfolio was managed by
Citibank and included large shares of Mc Donald’s, Ralston Purina, Atlantic Richfield, Johnson
& Johnson, General Motors, General Mills, Dow Chemical, Eastman Kodak, J.C. Penny, and
Proctor & Gamble. 24
In 1982, the White House received several reports through Europeans and other
intermediaries that unless the U.S. restrained Israel, King Fahd was ready to use the money
weapon and start pulling Saudi deposits out of American banks, and liquidate holdings in
Treasury bills.
By mid-1977, Saudi and Kuwaiti investors were having difficulties placing funds in the
stock market without subjection to an SEC 5% disclosure rule that requires public exposure of
over 5% purchase of a corporation, while exempting investors with less than 5%. According to
one of the CIA-provided documents, by the end of 1983, the level of Saudi and Kuwaiti
investments was so high that Major Saudi investments in the U.S. included the investment
banking firms of Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. and Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette; the
security brokerage firm ACLI International; Main Bank of Houston, National Bank of Georgia,
Bank of the Commonwealth of Missouri, and Citibank. Other Saudi investments in the U.S. at
that time included Coastal and Offshore Plants Systems (aluminum smelting) in North Carolina,
Salt Lake International Center in Utah, Sunshine Mining Co. in Texas, RLC Corporation
(trucking) in Delaware, Hyatt International Corporation (hotels) in Illinois, Colorado Land and
Cattle Company (beef cattle) in Arizona, and real estate in over two dozen states.
In 1983 Rosenthal wrote a bill that was an attempt to ensure that the Congress and
American public be adequately informed of the extent of OPEC investment in the United States.
The bill did not attract much support in the house of Representatives. The day before it was to be
introduced, Rosenthal died after a long battle with cancer. Since then, no other Congressman or
Senator has been willing to monitor Arab investment. In early 1984, worldwide Arab assets were
estimated to be in excess of $360 billion.

24
Ibid; Chapter 16, p. 315-333
 Another organization devoted to ties between the U.S. and the Arab world is the
American Arab Affairs Council. Founded in 1981, the Council diplomatic advisory committee
consisted of former American ambassadors from Arab countries and was subsidized by large
corporations such as Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, and Northrop. The Councils theme was “the
interlocking of American economic and political interests in the Arab world.”
The Council has received sponsorship from major corporations and universities for
political conferences. One conference had large defense manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas, and
General Dynamics as sponsors.25
Rachael Ehrenfeld, expert on Shari’ah and terror financing wrote an article in April 2008
titled, “America for Sale,” providing financial information. Her investigation revealed that
Bourse Dubai, the world’s first and largest Islamic equity exchange, bought 20 % of the National
Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) in December 2007.
NASDAQ, an American stock exchange, has the most trading volume per hour of any stock
exchange in the world with approximately 3,200 trading companies. Bourse Dubai has also
acquired 28 % of NASDAQ’s London Stock Exchange (LSE), resulting in Gulf nation’s control
of nearly 52 % of LSE after Qatar acquired another 24 %.
Ehrenfeld noted that the Abu Dhabi Investment Council (ADIC) purchased the Chrysler
Building in New York in 2008. A New York Post article in July of that year revealed the $800
million deal included 90 % of the 77-story tower. The New York Post sources also revealed at the
time that the secretive ADIC would soon acquire the Trylons, a pyramid shaped hallmark of
American architecture designed by Philip Johnson on NY City’s E. 42nd Street.
Ehrenfeld wrote that Arab states sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) “gobble up prime
financial institutions, industries and real estate in the U.S. and the West” leading to increasing
political influence. She added that on March 20, 2008, the U.S. Treasury, Abu Dhabi, and
Singapore, signed an “Agreement on Principles for Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment.” The
next day, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Board of Directors, and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) authorized a Sovereign Wealth Fund work
agenda.
According to Ehrenfeld’s article, IMF Monetary and Capital Markets director Jaime
Caruana said he expects the planned practices to conform to accountability principles,

25
Ibid; Chapter 15, p.293
transparency, and to “cover issues of public governance.” Increasingly influenced by those with
power and money, and well concealed from the public, practices are easily transgressed and very
clearly, not transparent. Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds are in reality jihadist tools for
imposing a one-world Islamic government.
In 2008, Middle East sovereign wealth funds already held $2 to $3 trillion globally, with
expectations of reaching $6 to $10 trillion by around 2012.
An overlooked contradiction is that U.S. laws and World Trade Organization (WTO)
regulations require all member nations to allow free trade with each other, while the Middle East
sovereign funds require a religious based ban on trade with Israel. Rachael Ehrenfeld pointed out
that ignoring the Constitution will inevitably lead to undemocratic, “faith based” and totalitarian
dictates should Middle Eastern financial masters succeed with their tools and agenda, setting
Islamic conditions on the U.S. as well.26
Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations are buying into American and European capital
markets with their petrodollars, acquiring large portions of the U.S. and European capital
markets, creating unbalanced influential positions that enable the Islamic political agenda. A
1975 quote from an invitation to economic seminars hosted by visiting Arab officials boasted
expectations for 1981 that “three-quarters of the world’s monetary reserves would be under
Middle Eastern control.” 27
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations had achieved two-
thirds control of the world’s oil reserves and 35.6% of the world’s oil production by March 2008.
OPEC’s ability to control the price of oil is continually threatened with discovery and/or
development of large oil reserves in other parts of the world such as the Gulf of Mexico, Russia,
and the North Sea, and the Arctic. Concerns that OPEC members would have less accessible oil
in the future, speculation mounted that their influence on crude oil prices could someday slip.28
As this book proceeds, it will become clear that the Saudis and Arab nations have used oil
and financial weight to extort American businesses, the American political system and the
American mind. At the time of this writing, 2009, Saudi investments and influence in the U.S.,
26
Ehrenfeld, Dr. Rachel, & Lappen, Alyssa A.; “America for Sale, “ Posted 04/01/2008,
http://www.actforamerica92253.org/2008/05/23/america-for-sale-a-must-read/
27
Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 4, p. 60, Franklin
Watts Publisher, 1985
28
OPEC; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
China, and Europe must be truly enormous. While still trying to keep investments secret, the
questions arise: Why do the Saudis and Arab investors keep their investments and deposits
secret? Were the bombings of the World Trade Centers on both occasions an effort to conceal the
true nature of Arab investments? How much of the 2008/2009 Bailout and Stimulus money will
go to companies and banks with predominant Saudi and Arab holdings? Are the Saudi’s and Arab
states waging financial jihad with the petrodollars we purchase their oil with?