This caught my attention for two reasons: 1) the recent decision by Saudi Arabia to refuse a Security Council seat at the UN; 2) F. William Engdahl's claim that the Saudi rulers were extremely at odds with US policies in Egypt where Saudi Arabia was instrumental in removing the Muslim Brotherhood administration which the US supported. Engdahl wrote back in August about the rift:
...the Egyptian military’s forced removal of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi and his entire government was undertaken with the firm secret backing of Saudi Arabia and several Gulf oil states, directly in defiance of Washington’s agenda.This posted report fits very well with Engdahl's argument and provides some explanation for the current Saudi's decision. As the NY Times reports:
Saudi Arabia stunned the United Nations and even some of its own diplomats on Friday by rejecting a highly coveted seat on the Security Council, a decision that underscored the depth of Saudi anger over what the monarchy sees as weak and conciliatory Western stances toward Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival.If it is true as reported here that "the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States in protest..." to recent actions toward Syria and Iran, then this could really shake up the Empire directorate. Saudi Arabia's collusion with US foreign policy is of fundamental importance given not only their fossil fuel resources, but their commitment to only sell oil in US dollars. The latter fact is a major bulwark for the US dollar as the global currency and enables the Empire to "print" dollars at will.
I can see Empire directors huddling together now working out plans for regime change in Saudi Arabia.