The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
By Letting Saudi Arabia Off the Hook Over 9/11, US Encouraged Jihadism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Two decades after 9/11, the role of Saudi Arabia in the attack remains in dispute despite unrelenting efforts by the US and Saudi governments to neutralise it as a live political issue.

The Saudi Arabia embassy in Washington this week issued a statement detailing its anti-terrorist activities and ongoing hostility to Al-Qaeda. This was briskly rejected by the lawyers for the families of the 9/11 victims who said that, “what Saudi Arabia desperately does not want to discuss is the substantial and credible evidence of the complicity [in the attack] of their employees, agents and sponsored agents”.

Saudi Arabia claims that the 9/11 Commission Report, the official American inquiry published in 2003, cleared it of responsibility for the attacks. In fact, it found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials as individuals had funded Al-Qaeda. But this is not an exoneration since the Saudi government traditionally retains deniability by permitting Saudi sheikhs and wealthy individuals to finance radical Sunni Muslim movements abroad. A former Taliban finance minister, Agha Jan Motasim, revealed in an interview with the New York Times in 2016 that he went to Saudi Arabia several times a year to raise funds from private donors for his movement .

The evidence has always been strong that at various points the hijackers, who flew the planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon, had interacted with Saudi state employees, though how much the latter knew about the plot has never been clarified. What is impressive is the determination with which the US security services have tried to conceal or play down intelligence linking Saudi officials to 9/11, something which may be motivated by their own culpability in giving Saudis a free pass when suspicions about the hijackers were aroused prior to 9/11.

In Sarasota, Florida, the FBI at first denied having any documents relating to the hijackers who were living there, but eventually handed over 80,000 pages that might be relevant under the Freedom of Information Act. Last week President Joe Biden decided to release other documents from the FBI’s overall investigation.

A striking feature of 9/11 is the attention which President George W Bush gave to diverting blame away from Saudi Arabia. He allowed some 144 individuals, mostly from the Saudi elite, to fly back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned by the FBI. A photograph shows Bush in cheerful conversation on the White House balcony a few days after 9/11 with the influential Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, told me in an interview with The Independent in 2014 that, “there were several incidents [in which US officials] were inexplicably solicitous to Saudis”. This solicitude did not ebb over the years and it was only in 2016 that the wholly redacted 28 pages in the 9/11 Report about the financial links of some hijackers to individuals working for the Saudi government was finally made public.

I have never been a believer in direct Saudi government complicity in 9/11, because they had no motive and they usually act at one remove from events. When the Saudi state acts on its own – as with the murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamil Khashoggi by a death squad at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 – the operation is commonly marked by shambolic incompetence.

Conspiracy theories about 9/11 divert attention away from two areas of Saudi culpability that are beyond dispute. The first is simply that 9/11 was a Saudi-led operation through and through, since Osama bin Laden, from one of the most prominent Saudi families, was the leader of Al-Qaeda and 15 out of the19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. The 9/11 attacks might have happened without Afghanistan, but not without Saudi participation.

Another kind of Saudi government culpability for 9/11 is more wide-ranging but more important because the factors behind it have not disappeared. A weakness of the outpouring of analyses of the consequences of 9/11 is that they treat the attacks as the point of departure for a series of events that ended badly, such as the “war on terror” and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is very much a western viewpoint because what happened in New York and Washington in 2001 was not the beginning, but the midpoint in a struggle, involving both open and covert warfare, that began more than 20 years earlier and made Saudi Arabia such a central player in world politics.

This preeminent status is attributed to Saudi oil wealth and partial control over the price of oil. But more than 20 years before 9/11 two events occurred which deepened the US-Saudi alliance and made it far more important for both parties. These genuine turning points in history, both of which took place in 1979, were the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These together generated 40 years of conflict and war which have not yet come to an end, and in which 9/11 was but one episode and the Taliban victory in Afghanistan last month another.

Saudi Arabia and the US wanted to stop communism in Afghanistan and the rise of Iran as a revolutionary Shia power. The former motive vanished with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 (though not the permanent crisis in Afghanistan), but the Saudi aim to build a wall of fundamentalist Sunni movements in the 50 Muslim majority states in the world did not.


Saudi policy is to bet on all players in any conflict, so it can truthfully claim to be backing the Afghan government and fighting terrorism, though it is also indirectly funding a resurgent Taliban. The US was not blind to this, but only occasionally admitted so in public. Six years after 9/11, in 2007, Stuart Levy, the under secretary of the US Treasury in charge of putting a stop to the financing of terrorism, told ABC news that regarding Al-Qaeda, “if I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia”. He added that not a single person identified by the US and the UN as a funder of terrorism had been prosecuted by the Saudis.

Most candid admissions by senior US officials were classified and are only known because of leaks. In a cable published by WikiLeaks, for instance, the then US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, wrote that, “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LET [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”

Many US politicians and officials came to feel over the years that the price paid by the US for its alliance with the Saudi rulers was too great because their interests had come to diverge too radically. Senator Graham told me that, “I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions, and particularly its involvement in 9/11” had damaged the US and opened the door to violent jihadis. A direct line connects exonerating Saudi Arabia over 9/11 and the Taliban victory in Afghanistan 20 years later.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. we fill up the gas tank and pay up money. money is paid to saudis. they fund terrorists and the spreading of their evil ideology in order to please their dead, false prophet. tensions and chaos rise everywhere. defence budgets skyrocket. stupid goyim pay more and more taxes while simultaneously being totally distracted by all the chaos. wall street and military industrial complex make a killing … both ways: financially and absolutely. business is so far so good, for saudis and their enablers.
    for them, it’s a win-win-win.

    poor afghani civilians pay the ultimate price. we pay only the gas price, but does that make us complicit? Mr. Michael Moore of Flint, Michigan, thanks, God bless you.

  2. dimples says:

    This article is utterly brain dead as is fairly normal for this leftoon author. The Saudis ran the fake hijackers as their minor part in a larger US led plot. Deflecting blame onto them is just the latest red herring being waved in his face. First it was Osama bin Laden and now its the incompetent Prince Bandar and his private collection of cutouts.

  3. All the Sauds did was provide the patsies for the MOSSAD et al operation. To believe otherwise, or feign such belief, is idiocy.

    • Agree: FreedomAndTruth
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  4. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:

    Does the wilful negligence by Bush cabinet of a massive threat of imminnet attack qualify for a charge of treason ,manslaughter and conflcit of interests ? Will it lead to recidivism and repeat of anti national behaviors ?

    Didnt FBI staff acutally say : All I wnated was to prevent a plane crashing into World Trade Center ?

    that was propehtic from the expert and not some BS from the neocons about Aluminium tube,mushroom cloud or Anthrax or fertilzer bombs or targeting Air Focre One .

  5. anon[121] • Disclaimer says:

    OBL and the Saudi regime were enemies. We got attacked for among other reasons supporting the Saudi regime which allowed US military bases there. Just because OBL and many hijackers were Saudi does not mean the regime was involved. Alqaeda saw themselves as freedom fighters opposed to all western or Russian backed regimes in the middle east. If among the thousand of Saudi princes a few were rogue who supported alqaeda, that does not imp0icate the government of SA. The US was linked to SA for the cold war where we got military bases and below market oil.SA helped us win that cold war and 9-11 and alqaeda was fallout of that cold war alliance. The US did not care that the SA regime was corrupt and torturing and killing its dissidents. Like Muslim brotherhood who also were tortured an killed in Egypt in the 20th century. They were a civil rights groups Al Qaeda cared about the people. It’s self serving for Amerikans to blame the SA regime we were in cahoots with because we want to paint the Muslims Arabs as irrational and US as innocent of wrong doing when we supported these brutal ME regimes. So the self serving US narrative is that we were attacked for not being fundamentalist fanatics. The Saudi regime has a population of fundi fanatics but the regime itself are not exactly living lives of pious fundamentalists. If they were they would not have allowed military bases in their sacred land. OBL was not a fanatic fundamentalist who attacked us for daring to not be Muslims. That narrative paints them as irrational and therefore justifies killing all fundamentalist Saudis. Again they were enemies; OBL and the Saudi family. That’s why Bush had to fly them out after 9-11. The Americans would have lynched them and blamed them for what their enemy ; Alqaeda did here. The Wahabi doctrine does not preach to go about killing any and all people who are not Muslim fundamentalist. neither did Alqaeda. ISIS and Taliban may. Those are cargo cults of ignoramuses ,isis has many western or eastern European , Russian converts, many on the fringes of mental health. That is not Wahabi Islam. much of what Pakistan fundies and afghan fundies do is also not Wahabi Islam. Women historically have needed protection in desert isolated lands, but women are educated under Wahabi Islam and a have professional careers.

    • Agree: JLK
  6. Patrick seems to be quite shameless in pushing agendas. Looks like he loves collecting pennies from the road while the establishment rides his back.
    Sure the Saudis were involved, they were lured in by the deep state and made pasties ever since. Some are still pickeling in Guantanamo.
    Patrick is not a stupid man, he is Alexander’s brother and should be ashamed for sending the sheeple down a wrong path.

  7. Ram says:

    “there were several incidents [in which US officials] were inexplicably solicitous to Saudis”

    The same goes for Israelis, even the ones arrested with explosives.

  8. @mulga mumblebrain

    All the Sauds did was provide the patsies for the MOSSAD et al operation. To believe otherwise, or feign such belief, is idiocy.

    To feign such belief is TREASON.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr