By Ron Paul | RPI | October 22, 2018

The Saudi version of the disappearance and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi seems to change every day or so. The latest is the Saudi government claim that the opposition journalist was killed in a “botched interrogation” at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Or was it a fist-fight? What is laughable is that the Saudi king has placed Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, a prime suspect, in charge of the investigation of Khashoggi’s murder!

Though the official story keeps changing, what is unlikely to change is Washington’s continued relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is a partnership that is in no way beneficial to Americans or the US national interest.

President Trump has promised “severe punishment” if the Saudi government is found to have been involved in Khashoggi’s murder, but he also took off the table any reduction in arms sales to prop up the murderous Saudi war on Yemen. It’s all about jobs, said President Trump. So the Saudi killing of thousands in Yemen can go on. Some murders are more important than others, obviously.

The killing of Khashoggi puts the Trump Administration is in a difficult situation. President Trump views Iran as designated enemy number one. Next month the US Administration intends to impose a new round of sanctions designed to make it impossible for Iran to sell its oil on the international market. To keep US fuel prices from spiking over this move Trump is relying on other countries, especially Saudi Arabia, to pump more and make up the difference. But the Saudis have threatened $400 a barrel oil if President Trump follows through with his promise of “severe punishment” over the killing of Khashoggi.

The Saudis have also threatened to look for friendship in Moscow or even Tehran if Washington insists on “punishing” the regime in Riyadh. For a super-power, the US doesn’t seem to have many options.




What whole mess reveals is just how wise our Founding Fathers were to warn us against entangling alliances. For too many decades the US has been in an unhealthy relationship with the Saudi kingdom, providing the Saudis with a US security guarantee in exchange for “cheap” oil and the laundering of oil profits through the US military-industrial complex by the purchase of billions of dollars in weapons.

This entangling relationship with Saudi Arabia should end. It is unfortunate that the tens of thousands of civilians dead from Yemen to Syria due to Saudi aggression don’t matter as much as the murder of one establishment journalist like Khashoggi, but as one Clinton flack once said, we should not let this current crisis go to waste.

This is not about demanding that the Saudis change their ways, reform their society on the lines of a liberal democracy, or allow more women to drive. The problem with our relationship with Saudi Arabia is not about Saudi Arabia. It is about us. The United States should not be in the business of selling security guarantees overseas to the highest bidder. We are constantly told that the US military guarantees our own safety and so it should be.

No, this is about returning to a foreign policy that seeks friendship and trade with all nations who seek the same, but that heeds the warning of George Washington in his Farewell Address that “a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.” If we care about the United States we must heed this warning. No more passionate attachments overseas. Friendship and trade over all.


Contributed by Ron Paul of RonPaulInstitute


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | Sept. 7, 2018

You have to feel a little sorry for the folks who voted for Trump expecting him to live up to his promise to bring the troops home and stop killing people.

On Thursday Trump cleared up any doubt about his neocon conversion. Once again he made his supporters—or those interested in nonintervention at least—out to be fools, that is to say any principled supporters left after killing thousands in Syria.

The CIA’s favorite newspaper reported:

President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there and launches a major diplomatic push to achieve American objectives, according to senior State Department officials.

These “American objectives” reflect those of Israel, which has worked diligently to undermine Syria for decades. The first objective is to replace Bashar al-Assad with a malleable client that takes orders from the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Second, Trump—channeling Netanyahu—demands the removal of all Iranian troops in Syria. Both the Russians and Iranians were invited into the country to help al-Assad flight the CIA and Saudi Arabia’s bloody Wahhabi-infused terrorists.

Third, Trump wants more illegal US military outposts in occupied Syria.

It was rumored the troops already in Syria would be brought home by the end of the year, but like all things Trump, this promise was flipped one hundred and eighty degrees.

“The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” said James Jeffrey, a retired senior Foreign Service officer who last month was named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement.” About 2,200 U.S. troops are serving in Syria, virtually all of them devoted to the war against the Islamic State in the eastern third of the country.

Jeffrey said U.S. forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State.

“That means we are not in a hurry,” he said. Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”

More like a representative for Syria’s destruction and balkanization, based on the Iraq and Libya models.

James Jeffrey is a Bush era neocon who served as George Bush’s deputy national security advisor. He is a former “principal deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State, where his responsibilities included leading the Iran policy team and coordinating public diplomacy,” states his bio at the Washington Institute website.

U.S. policy is not that “Assad must go,” Jeffrey said. “Assad has no future, but it’s not our job to get rid of him.” He said, however, that he found it hard to think of Assad as a leader who could “meet the requirements of not just us but the international community” as someone who “doesn’t threaten his neighbors” or abuse his own citizens, “doesn’t allow chemical weapons or provide a platform for Iran.”

Meanwhile, the US is working to make it so.

The Donald was a little more direct in his response to the elected leader of Syria remaining in office. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” he said, according to Bob Woodward and his latest book.

Back in May, Israeli Energy Minister and Cabinet member Yuval Steinitz said al-Assad should be murdered. “If Syrian President Bashar Assad continues allowing the Iranians to operate out of Syria, it would be the end of him, the end of his regime,” Steinitz said. “If Assad allows Iran to turn Syria into a forward operating base against us, to attack us from Syrian soil, he should know that will spell his end.”

Of course, if Hillary Clinton had won the election there wouldn’t be much difference. During the campaign, she worked hard to out-do the neocons.

From The Telegraph in 2016:

[James Jeffrey, former CIA and Pentagon liaison] describes a foreign policy more hawkish than that of the current administration. He said there were a “lot of clues” to how Mrs Clinton will behave as commander-in-chief from her time as secretary of state. During that time she championed the intervention in Libya and advocated the arming of Syrian rebels against the regime.

Indeed, there are a lot of clues. Clinton is responsible for killing 30,000 Libyans and the country’s leader, who was brutally raped and murdered. Libya went from one of the richest and most developed countries in Africa to a failed state where competing cutthroat jihadists engage in bloody street warfare. Iraq suffered a similar fate—and continues to do so, as planed—in order to eliminate the risk to Israel and “moderate” (translation: dictatorial) Arab regimes in the neighborhood.

Trump the geopolitical ignoramus is too busy defending his inflated ego and narcissistic personality to be bothered with the finer details and consequences of his decision on Syria, which is in fact a decision made by his national security advisor, John Bolton, and a gaggle of neocons waiting in the wings.

Trump’s love for Israel and his animosity toward Syria and Iran is a product of his Likud-loving son-in-law, who often confers with Netanyahu. Jared Kushner supports the genocide-minded Israeli settlers. He supports the Likud-neocon collaboration to turn the Arab and Muslim Middle East into string of client states with balkanized ethnic and religious minorities engaged in endless sectarian violence, not unlike Iraq and Libya today. If the British gave anything to the Zionists during their “Mandate” in Palestine, it was the conquer and divide strategy. The Israelis turned it into a science.

Trump’s foreign policy hasn’t gone off the rails. It is owned by Israel and the neocons. It’s true, most hate Trump and are actively working to replace him with somebody (Pence) who isn’t suffering from narcissistic derangement, or at least does a better job of hiding it than Trump.

Obama’s strategy in Syria was to hide the truth and pave it over with lies. He is responsible for arming crazed Wahhabi murderers and the sadistic killing of Gaddafi in Libya.

500,000 dead in Syria, 30,000 in Libya, that’s Obama’s legacy.

Despite this, liberals and Democrats love him, same as they respect and fawningly admire the legacy of the war criminal John McCain, who bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam.

Trump’s 180 pivot on Syria is not a surprise. The man has no ideas of his own and was guided hand-in-hand by Jared Kushner into a den of assassins and thieves.

Did we really expect this self-infatuated narcissist to Make America Great Again, bring the troops home, and finally return America to the noninterventionist principles held by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?


Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE:

Trump Slams US and Saudi Foreign Policy in Fiery UN Speech

ANTIMEDIA | Sept. 20, 2017

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) In a bold move, President Trump condemned the violent, oppressive behavior and policies of the U.S. and its allies while speaking at the U.N. this week.

He described the decline of “a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.”

His description accurately fits the United States, which has devolved from a country with high-minded (if not fully realized) ideals, courageous struggles for human and civil rights, and a strong sense of independence into a nationalistic, militant nation with a fledgling economy and an increasingly impoverished population whose government has spent its wealth arming radical extremists and waging endless war. The U.S. government has sowed chaos around the world over the years, from Iran to Iraq to Libya to Chile and Guatemala, spilling the blood of countless innocents as it plays geopolitical chess to favor its own hegemonic interests.

Sad!

Trump also called out the despicable behavior of U.S. allies, blasting entities that use their oil profits to support “terrorists that kill innocent Muslims.” He asserted that such wealth is used to “fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East,” an apt description of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities…,” he bravely said.

Further, apparently condemning the behavior of both the U.S. and its allies, Trump warned that evildoers “must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving [their] own people, and respect the sovereign rights of [their] neighbors.

It is easy to make the case that the Saudis themselves are engaging in terrorism by directly targeting civilians in Yemen for a political purpose.

During his speech at the U.N., Trump described all of the behavior displayed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia — but he wasn’t talking about either. In all of the excerpts listed above, he was unironically talking about Iran, condemning the admittedly repressive regime for the exact same crimes the U.S. government and its allies commit.

The U.S. is responsible both for war crimes and for arming radical Islamists — who Trump loves to condemn — from the mujahideen in the 1980s to “moderate” (read: al-Qaeda-affiliated) rebels in Syria. The U.S. and its allies have grotesquely violated the “sovereign rights” of countries around the world for decades, and the Saudis are actively violating the rights of their neighbor, Yemen, using American-made weapons to maintain power for their murderous regime while they destabilize the region.The Saudis have been documented supporting ISIS and using their oil profits to export radical ideologies while beheadingflogging, and attempting to crucify political dissidents at home (candidate Trump condemned the Saudis’ alleged support for terrorism before selling them billions of dollars in arms as president; he also criticized their human rights record while before he rose to power).

Laughably, in his speech he bragged about the U.S.’ success in battling ISIS in Syria, completely ignoring Iranian-backed militias’ contributions to defeating the terror group while actually respecting Syria’s sovereignty (Iran is an ally of the Syrian government whereas the U.S. does not have official authorization to be there).

Further, Trump’s own administration has admitted Iran is complying with the nuclear deal Trump vehemently condemns. “No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles,” he said at the U.N.

He bemoaned the possibility of other countries like Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons while his own war criminal government holds one of the largest caches of nukes in the world and is the only country to have ever intentionally used them on civilian populations.

Even worse, Trump’s claims about Iran’s undemocratic government may be true, but this modern reality did not come about absent American influence. The Iranian regime is repressive. It does support terror groups like Hezbollah (though Hezbollah is far less globally influential than ISIS, which, again, the Saudis have been exposed for fostering and funding). Iran’s government is no friend to freedom, but how did Iran get to this point?

Might it have something to do with, yet again, the U.S. government’s own flagrant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations? Its own proliferation of bloodshed and chaos? Is toppling Iran’s democratically elected government for the sake of oil profits in 1953 — installing the ousted leader with an autocratic shah — supposed to qualify as ‘respecting sovereign rights’? Is the world supposed to pretend that over two decades of such an oppressive, American-installed monarch were entirely unrelated to the reactionary Iranian revolution that broke out against that ruler in 1979 and the political conditions that have developed since?

As the president grandstands to the world, boasting of American compassion and spewing American exceptionalism while condemning his enemies for the exact same behavior of the empire he now rules over, it is clear the emperor has no clothes.

  Originally posted at ANTI-MEDIA

 


 


Widget not in any sidebars

Shifting The Blame: How US Made Iran Responsible For 9/11

 

 Eric Zuesse | May 29, 2017 

 

The official U.S. government line is that Iran is the main country responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America. On 9 March 2016, a U.S. civil court ruled that Iran must pay to some victims of the 9/11 attacks $10.5 billion in fines, and the Obama Administration had no comment, so the U.S. press ignored the verdict almost totally. But this verdict was the only official U.S. court ruling thus far about state-sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks, 16 years after the event. It was therefore huge news on 9 March 2016 — it created a precedent, for the U.S. government to allege that Iran had caused the 9/11 attacks and is consequently ‘the number one terrorist state’ (as Israelis have long claimed). But it received very little coverage at the time.



The event’s significance was the precedent that this verdict set, but most of the ‘news’media simply didn’t report this important precedent: it was the first official U.S. governmental conclusion alleging that Iran had, in effect, ‘invaded’ America, on 11 September 2001; and, yet, even now, no one is saying that Iran invaded the U.S. on 9/11, because the U.S. government isn’t yet trying to prepare the public to support an invasion of Iran by American forces. Still, this precedent could become the start for such preparation, if neither of America’s Iran-hating ‘allies’, Israel and/or Saudi Arabia, can be induced to invade.

President Trump, on May 20th, advanced toward the possibility of invading Iran, a long way, when he announced a record-shattering $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the White House said “This package of defense equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats”. The symbolism here was that Saudi Arabia is America’s ally, and that Iran is America’s enemy. The stage is set, in case a U.S. President will want to take that stage.

President Trump, on 5 February 2017, was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): “They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state”. (When he was running for the U.S. Presidency, in 2016, he had spoken only about Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». But now that he was the U.S. President, and his biggest initial American jobs achievement — already in the works during his Presidency’s start — would be an all-time record high $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to the Sauds, Trump as President has been mentioning the Sauds only as ‘allies’, no longer as supporters of terrorism.)

All of the information that’s known about Iran’s actual role in 9/11 is contained in the judge’s 22 December 2011 “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” in the civil court case, which the judge stated solely upon the basis of the research that the law firm for the suing American victims had set forth. Basically, what their case came down to is that some of the 9/11 hijackers had travelled through Iran prior to 9/11. Among those “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” were no allegations of evidence to prove that Iran had participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, nor of any Iranians paying any of the hijackers. However, one anti-government Iranian, named Mesbahi, referred to a flight simulator that maybe had been purchased from Iran, and he was alleged to have said that he “believes that the simulator was probably used to train the 9/11 hijacker pilots”. That’s all. For these things, the judge fined the Iranian government $10.5B, and told the suing victims to get the money any way they could (which might be not at all, since Iran mocked and rejected the verdict — but the precedent for ‘Iran caused 9/11’ was set).

What, then, was the reality of Iran and the 9/11 attacks? Even the civil suit’s claimants didn’t allege anything substantial for the period prior to 9/11, but what about the period since 9/11?

On 23 May 2013, FBI Agent Daniel A. Mehochko was honored by a U.S. military School of Advanced Military Studies, for “writing the best monograph in the AOASF [that school’s] program” and this 104-page study was titled “Iran’s Post 9/11 Grand Bargain: Missed Opportunity for Strategic Rapprochement Between Iran and the United States”. Its “Abstract” and “Conclusion” say:

The events of 9/11 … provided an unprecedented opportunity for a strategic rapprochement between the United States and Iran. After 9/11, Iran not only denounced the attacks and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, but also offered to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of differences with no preconditions.

The failure to recognize the impact of the 1953 coup on Iran’s collective identity, and subsequent policy decisions in support of the shah, only reinforced the view that the United States was the primary source of Persian humiliation. … The Bush neoconservatives, dominating the NSC policy formulation process, viewed Iran through the same lens they viewed al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. Americans have a short attention span: the administration responded to Iran through the context of 1979, yet few considered that most Iranians still viewed America through the events of 1953. Regime change was the wrong policy for Iran. The militarized foreign policy approach that the administration thought worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq was not relevant to Iran. As the Bush administration was about to discover, one cannot apply a singular policy to the complexity of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine did just that.

Trump is continuing George W. Bush’s policy.

Mehochko wrote, on page 52:

Iran’s response to 9/11 surprised many observers: spontaneous candlelight vigils in Tehran mourned the American dead, the mayors of Tehran and Isfahan sent condolence messages to the people of New York City, and Iranians observed a moment of silence before a national soccer match. The Iranian government issued a strong statement condemning the terrorist attacks, and President Khatami publicly expressed his «deep regret and sympathy with the victims». During his November visit to the UN General Assembly, Khatami went so far as to request permission to visit ground zero in order to offer prayers and light a candle for the victims.88

On page 55:

At the January 2002 Afghanistan Donors Conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $540 million in assistance for the new Afghan government, compared to the $290 million committed by the United States. While in Tokyo, an Iranian representative approached Dobbins and expressed his desire to not only continue cooperation in Afghanistan, but work on other issues with the appropriate American officials. At this same conference, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill received a similar message from the Iranian government. Both Dobbins and O’Neill reported Iran’s offers to Rice and Powell, but no reply was given to Iran. Later, during a March 2002 meeting in Geneva, the Iranian delegation met again with Dobbins, and offered military assistance to house and train up to 20,000 Afghan troops under the American led effort. Dobbins relayed this offer to the administration, but Powell deferred the issue to Rice, who deferred the issue to Rumsfeld. Days later, the issue was on the agenda for discussion at a NSC Principals Committee meeting. During the meeting, Dobbins relayed Iran’s offer, but Rumsfeld ignored the issue, and no one else seemed interested.

Page 59:

In October 2001, Flynt Leverett, Middle East expert for the Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff, was responsible for developing a strategy to address the offers of support from Syria, Libya, Iran, and other troublesome countries. Leverett’s proposal to Powell was basically a quid pro quo engagement: if these countries agree to expel terrorist groups and cease efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the United States, in return, will normalize relations. In December, when this policy proposal came up for discussion at a NSC Deputies Committee meeting (chaired by Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley), Hadley, as well as the representatives from the vice president’s office and the OSD, rejected the idea.

Then, Mehochko stated: “The Pentagon was already exploring options for regime change in Tehran”. Furthermore: “Israel and Pakistan were also alarmed about the increased cooperation between Iran and the United States”.

On page 65, Mehochko quoted from President Bush’s State of the Union Address on 29 January 2002:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11th, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade…States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

Clearly, the U.S. is set upon conquest. First, Afghanistan was invaded; then, Iraq; then, Libya; then, Syria — all of them destroyed (and radicalized — which the U.S. started in Afghanistan back in 1979). Perhaps Iran will be next. What is the point of anyone’s trusting a government like that?

Mehochko’s report ignored the fact that the Islamic world is split between Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, versus Shiites, led by Iran, and that the Sauds’ desire to exterminate all Shia goes back at least to the 1744 compact between Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Wahhab, which formed Saudi Arabia, in a compact of hate. Mehochko’s report ignores the crucial alliance between the U.S. and the Saud family. Mehochko ignores that the U.S. co-founded Al Qaeda along with the Sauds in 1979 in order to conquer Russia, which the American aristocracy hate, and conquer Iran, which the Saudi aristocracy hate. But compared to what most American officials and military and intelligence operatives and scholars write about Iran and the nations that are friendly toward it, Mehochko’s paper was remarkably honest, so it’s cited here.

The U.S. government has and hides massive reams of rock-solid evidence that leaders of the Saud family, which is the royal family who own all of Saudi Arabia, not only were the top funders of Al Qaeda and of the 9/11 attacks, but continued afterward being the world’s top funders of not only Al Qaeda but also of many of the other jihadist groups that accept and follow Al Qaeda’s leadership.

If Trump were sincere, then, he would instead publicly expose the fraud that U.S. foreign policy has been based upon, and he would expose the historical record, which proves that the U.S. should be protecting Iran and its allies from the Saudi-led fundamentalist-Sunni war against Iran and against all of the world except Sunni-allied Israel and except Sunni-ruled countries. Russia and China and India would then become also U.S. allies, and the possibility of a globe-annihilating nuclear world war, WW III, would immediately plunge. Hundreds of trillions of dollars that will otherwise be spent on preparations for WW III would then go instead toward constructive expenditures. But something prevents American Presidents from doing any such thing as that. Apparently, America’s long war to conquer Iran, Russia, and China, must go on, no matter what. The 9/11 attacks kicked it into high gear.

First, the U.S. punished Afghanistan for 9/11. Then, the U.S. punished Iraq for 9/11. Then, the U.S. court said that Iran somehow was the nation guilty for 9/11. Then, the U.S. President said that Iran is ‘the number one terrorist state’.

The stage is set. But after an intermission, what will the remaining acts be? Has the script been written for what is to come? Does anyone know how the play that started on 9/11 will end?

All that can be concluded from the evidence thus far is that the Sauds did 9/11 with inside-job cooperation from George W. Bush, and that afterward, a country uninvolved in it — Iraq — was invaded and destroyed, and another country uninvolved in it — Iran — has recently become fined for having caused it.

 

Eric Zuesse is an American writer and investigative historian who writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article first appeared.

 


Widget not in any sidebars

Military-Industrial Complex Gets Rich off Trump’s Record Saudi Arms Deal

Anti-Media | May 22, 2017

 

(ANTIMEDIA) In news that should surprise no one, the stock prices of top defense contractors soared on Monday after Donald Trump signed the largest arms deal in United States history with Saudi Arabia over the weekend.

That deal, hailed by the White House as a “significant expansion of…(the) security relationship” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, is worth $350 billion over the next ten years. However, $110 billion of it will take effect immediately.

Much like with East Asia, where the United States government cites the North Korean nuclear weapons program as justification for its military buildup in the region, Washington, D.C. claims the “Iranian threat” and continuing hostilities in the Middle East are the reasons behind the unprecedented deal.

“This package of defense equipment and services support[s] the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats,” the White House said in a statement, “while also bolstering the kingdom’s ability to contribute to counter terrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on the U.S. military to conduct those operations.”

News of the deal certainly “bolstered” the market value of stock prices for companies within the military-industrial complex. From CNBC:

“Shortly after market open, Lockheed Martin was up about 2 percent, Raytheon was up more than 1.4 percent, Northrop Grumman climbed 1 percent and General Dynamics was up about half a percent. All four stocks reached new highs.”

But the defense sector wasn’t the only winner in the U.S. leader’s trip to Saudi Arabia. While the president and his family were quite literally being given the red carpet treatment over the weekend, it was reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will donate $100 million to a World Bank fund that was “the brainchild” of Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka.

It’s also worth noting that after the Trump administration waged airstrikes on Syria following a chemical attack in the country in April, stocks in military companies also spiked.