Here is the link to an interview with a Saudi opposition leader who describes Al Qaeda in a manner I think we should know about.

The Jamestown Foundation

Here is a summarizing quote from the interview which predicts the US cannot sustain terrorist attacks on our territory and that we will revert to an isolationist Monroe Doctrine type of foreign policy very much in contrast to the PNM prescription

The Intervier - TM: I have a few questions about the future. How will the patterns of Islamic terrorism against the West evolve in the coming years?

SF: This question can be answered both from an historical perspective and a more practical-oriented one. From a historical perspective there is likely to be more polarization.

TM: Do you conceptualize this polarization along the lines of Huntington’s clash of civilizations?

SF: Yes! I have always said Huntington is right. This clash of civilizations is inevitable. The Western and Islamic civilizations are both powerful and self-confident. They both believe others should embrace them. There can never be some sort of balance, there has to be a clash. Huntington’s conclusion was that the West will dominate, but of course I disagree with that.

TM: How will this clash climax?

SF: If another attack in America materializes, the American social structure is simply not powerful enough to withstand it. There is also the argument that no matter how strong your society is, you can not absorb a series of devastating attacks.

TM: How do you think the Americans will react to a series of 9/11 style attacks? Will this kind of extreme provocation elicit a nuclear response from the U.S.?

SF: This could be one of the reactions. The more likely reaction is the so-called Monroe principle which served America well prior to the First World War.

TM: You are talking about the policy of isolationism.

SF: Yes! The point about a nuclear response is that the U.S. has nowhere to detonate it. It has Afghanistan under its control; it has occupied Iraq and has influence in Saudi Arabia. So where will it strike? Mecca? There is nowhere! Therefore the other argument is more credible. There are people in the U.S. who argue that there are fundamental things wrong with the war against terrorism. They say let’s sit down and talk loudly….

TM: There is a problem with this as al-Qaeda is not exactly offering roundtable talks!

SF: No! I did not mean al-Qaeda. I meant Americans talking amongst themselves. There are many people in America who want to tackle the matter in a much more intelligent manner but they have been silenced by this pervasive McCarthyism. There are people that are very tired with this cowboy attitude. Once the next attack occurs they are likely to say that Bush has had two years of this cosmic battle against terrorism and we ended up with an even bigger attack. Now is the time to try a different approach. Now of course the right wingers, the Zionists and the arms lobby will refuse to give ground and then a clash inside America is likely to ensue.

TM: What you are saying is that another attack equalling or exceeding 9/11 will trigger an internal clash inside America.

SF: Yes! America does not have a well established society like Europe.

TM: The fear in the West, particularly here in Europe is that another 9/11 style attack will have grave consequences for individual freedoms.

SF: But this will be an achievement for Bin Laden. Once the West begins compromising on its core values al-Qaeda will have scored a major victory.

TM: Going back to the isolationist policy, do you really think America will be able to relinquish its role in the world?

SF: The only other option is a catastrophic nuclear strike and we have already seen that this will not be practical.

TM: Do you envisage any scenarios in which America may make concessions in its foreign policy?

SF: Only in defeat!