[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Niels Groeneveld [@nigroeneveld](/creator/twitter/nigroeneveld) on x 12.8K followers Created: 2025-07-26 08:44:20 UTC No Ties to Mohammed bin Nayef: What Epstein’s Silence Reveals About Palace Alignments Among the many shadowy linkages that crisscross Jeffrey Epstein’s complex web of elite associations, one absence stands out as especially telling: there is no known connection—personal, financial, or diplomatic—between Epstein and Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN), the former Saudi Crown Prince widely regarded as the CIA’s most trusted partner in the Kingdom. In a network so saturated with proximity to intelligence-linked actors, financiers, and members of global royalty, the lack of any Epstein–MbN tie speaks volumes—not only about Epstein’s positioning but about the internal power realignments within Saudi Arabia during its most turbulent modern era. Mohammed bin Nayef was, by all public measures, a darling of the U.S. national security establishment. Trained by the FBI and Scotland Yard, and praised for his role in dismantling al-Qaeda networks in the Kingdom, he was awarded the George Tenet Medal by the CIA in early 2017. His reputation in Washington was impeccable: steady, reliable, Western-oriented. He had long-standing relationships with U.S. intelligence officials, maintained fluent English, and represented the continuation of decades of cooperation between the House of Saud and American strategic interests. And yet, in June 2017—just months after receiving the CIA’s highest honor—MbN was quietly removed from the line of succession, placed under effective house arrest, and supplanted by his younger, more assertive cousin: Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). The bloodless yet decisive transfer of power marked a fundamental break not only within the royal family but also between Riyadh and certain entrenched elements of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. MBS represented a new style of rule—centralized, technocratic, unrelenting—and far less deferential to the structures of traditional diplomacy. That Epstein’s orbit showed no overlap with MbN is therefore highly significant. There is no record of communication, no suggestion of meetings, no mutual associates publicly identified. Unlike Epstein’s alleged connection to MBS—supported by a photograph in his Manhattan mansion and a suspiciously timed 2016 visit to Riyadh—MbN appears nowhere in Epstein’s contacts, guest logs, or known financial links. For someone who so deliberately embedded himself in networks of power, this void is conspicuous. There are several ways to interpret this. The first is strategic alignment. Epstein may have sensed—accurately—that the future of Saudi Arabia lay with MBS and not MbN. His trip to Saudi Arabia in November 2016 took place during the final months of the latter’s tenure as Crown Prince, a time when MBS was already consolidating power behind the scenes. The geopolitical winds were shifting, and Epstein, ever opportunistic, may have sought to attach himself to the rising force rather than the receding one. Alternatively, Epstein’s lack of connection to MbN may reflect deeper institutional divides. MbN was known to work closely with U.S. intelligence agencies in a formal capacity, whereas Epstein existed in the murkier periphery—an alleged asset, facilitator, or cutout whose value lay in deniability and unregulated access. There may have been no operational need, or no interest, in connecting the two worlds. MbN’s power was bureaucratic and structured; Epstein’s was informal, ambiguous, and often toxic to those with official standing. It is also possible that MbN, known for his discipline and wariness, actively avoided figures like Epstein. As Crown Prince, MbN remained a target of both jihadist groups and internal rivals. His public image was that of a security czar—not a globe-trotting financier or socializer. Aligning with someone like Epstein, whose reputation was checkered even before his 2019 arrest, would have risked precisely the kind of compromise he worked his entire career to prevent. More provocatively, Epstein’s silence on MbN may suggest that his intelligence value—if he had any—was already aligned with a factional shift inside the Kingdom. By focusing his access-building efforts around MBS, Epstein may have positioned himself, knowingly or otherwise, as a supporting actor in the largest palace realignment in modern Saudi history. The absence of MbN from his orbit was not an oversight. It was a signal. In geopolitical analysis, silence is often as meaningful as presence. Epstein’s network was not infinite. He cultivated power selectively, tailored his outreach to rising stars, and embedded himself wherever leverage was ripe. That MbN is nowhere to be found in Epstein’s shadow empire does not exonerate the former Crown Prince. But it does suggest that Epstein was not a tool of the old order. His interests, movements, and associations point toward a different alignment—one that tracked the ascent of Mohammed bin Salman, not the fading legacy of the CIA’s most trusted Saudi.  XX engagements  **Related Topics** [jeffrey epstein](/topic/jeffrey-epstein) [jeffrey epsteins](/topic/jeffrey-epsteins) [Post Link](https://x.com/nigroeneveld/status/1949027997144498527)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Niels Groeneveld @nigroeneveld on x 12.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-26 08:44:20 UTC
No Ties to Mohammed bin Nayef: What Epstein’s Silence Reveals About Palace Alignments
Among the many shadowy linkages that crisscross Jeffrey Epstein’s complex web of elite associations, one absence stands out as especially telling: there is no known connection—personal, financial, or diplomatic—between Epstein and Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN), the former Saudi Crown Prince widely regarded as the CIA’s most trusted partner in the Kingdom. In a network so saturated with proximity to intelligence-linked actors, financiers, and members of global royalty, the lack of any Epstein–MbN tie speaks volumes—not only about Epstein’s positioning but about the internal power realignments within Saudi Arabia during its most turbulent modern era.
Mohammed bin Nayef was, by all public measures, a darling of the U.S. national security establishment. Trained by the FBI and Scotland Yard, and praised for his role in dismantling al-Qaeda networks in the Kingdom, he was awarded the George Tenet Medal by the CIA in early 2017. His reputation in Washington was impeccable: steady, reliable, Western-oriented. He had long-standing relationships with U.S. intelligence officials, maintained fluent English, and represented the continuation of decades of cooperation between the House of Saud and American strategic interests.
And yet, in June 2017—just months after receiving the CIA’s highest honor—MbN was quietly removed from the line of succession, placed under effective house arrest, and supplanted by his younger, more assertive cousin: Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). The bloodless yet decisive transfer of power marked a fundamental break not only within the royal family but also between Riyadh and certain entrenched elements of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. MBS represented a new style of rule—centralized, technocratic, unrelenting—and far less deferential to the structures of traditional diplomacy.
That Epstein’s orbit showed no overlap with MbN is therefore highly significant. There is no record of communication, no suggestion of meetings, no mutual associates publicly identified. Unlike Epstein’s alleged connection to MBS—supported by a photograph in his Manhattan mansion and a suspiciously timed 2016 visit to Riyadh—MbN appears nowhere in Epstein’s contacts, guest logs, or known financial links. For someone who so deliberately embedded himself in networks of power, this void is conspicuous.
There are several ways to interpret this. The first is strategic alignment. Epstein may have sensed—accurately—that the future of Saudi Arabia lay with MBS and not MbN. His trip to Saudi Arabia in November 2016 took place during the final months of the latter’s tenure as Crown Prince, a time when MBS was already consolidating power behind the scenes. The geopolitical winds were shifting, and Epstein, ever opportunistic, may have sought to attach himself to the rising force rather than the receding one.
Alternatively, Epstein’s lack of connection to MbN may reflect deeper institutional divides. MbN was known to work closely with U.S. intelligence agencies in a formal capacity, whereas Epstein existed in the murkier periphery—an alleged asset, facilitator, or cutout whose value lay in deniability and unregulated access. There may have been no operational need, or no interest, in connecting the two worlds. MbN’s power was bureaucratic and structured; Epstein’s was informal, ambiguous, and often toxic to those with official standing.
It is also possible that MbN, known for his discipline and wariness, actively avoided figures like Epstein. As Crown Prince, MbN remained a target of both jihadist groups and internal rivals. His public image was that of a security czar—not a globe-trotting financier or socializer. Aligning with someone like Epstein, whose reputation was checkered even before his 2019 arrest, would have risked precisely the kind of compromise he worked his entire career to prevent.
More provocatively, Epstein’s silence on MbN may suggest that his intelligence value—if he had any—was already aligned with a factional shift inside the Kingdom. By focusing his access-building efforts around MBS, Epstein may have positioned himself, knowingly or otherwise, as a supporting actor in the largest palace realignment in modern Saudi history. The absence of MbN from his orbit was not an oversight. It was a signal.
In geopolitical analysis, silence is often as meaningful as presence. Epstein’s network was not infinite. He cultivated power selectively, tailored his outreach to rising stars, and embedded himself wherever leverage was ripe. That MbN is nowhere to be found in Epstein’s shadow empire does not exonerate the former Crown Prince. But it does suggest that Epstein was not a tool of the old order. His interests, movements, and associations point toward a different alignment—one that tracked the ascent of Mohammed bin Salman, not the fading legacy of the CIA’s most trusted Saudi.
XX engagements
Related Topics jeffrey epstein jeffrey epsteins
/post/tweet::1949027997144498527