I think you're spot on on all points, here, as usual. All my reading suggests that many folks around the world tend to vastly over=estimate US power and work that into conspiracy theories as to why we're really responsible for their less-than-great circumstances, which, of course, we could just change if we "really" wanted to, and weren't otherwise benefiting from Keeping Them Down. It has a kernel of truth, but like all such theories, vastly overestimates the competence and power of US agencies and companies.
On the other hand, neither the Egyptian dictatorship nor the Saudi plutocracy would exist without US support in a huge way (Egypt being the #2 recipient of US aid, after Israel).
True, up to a point, but then what the alternatives, The Wahhabi's were intrenched in Saudi Arabia, long before the Philby brokered concession that
gave rise to ARAMCO, which is ultimately the
Saudi's lifeline to us. And that happened because the Brits let Ibn Saud win the power struggle over the Hashemites; and gave Transjordan and Syria/
Iraq as consolation prizes to Abdullah and Faisal
respectfully. (This is ironically demonstrated in the
near memory hole deletion, inherent in Lawrence
of Arabia's credits, where credit is given to a faction
of Saudi society, not important enough to mention
in the film, but which ended up with the cash cow)
The predominance of ex?Aramco affiliated personnel in the national security infra-structure
in the mid 40s, (Donovan, Dulles, Forrestal, et
al) is symbolized by that other more pertinent
final meeting by FDR in Jiddah, shortly before his
death) So a meaningful alternative in Saudi Arabia
is out
Narciso,
That is the dilemma. But if people are going to make that argument, I think they also have to be prepared to say something like "a meaningful alternative in Saudi Arabia is out, so we'll have to live with the fact that we are contributing to terrorism." Lots of people will say the first part, but they balk at the second.