On 9/11, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The special relationship between Saudi Arabia and America was jolted and potentially in danger from the al Qaeda attack. By now, most Americans who have been paying attention know that al Qaeda represents the apotheosis of Sunni Muslim fanaticism and has been supported with manpower and money by Saudi Arabia since its inception. The Saudis have always played a very clever game to protect their interests. They are weak militarily and rely on Western (ie, American) power to protect the Royal family from threats, yet have also bought off their internal opponents by funding the most violent of the Jihadi groups, the Wahhabi sect of Islam, and directed their hate and violence outward, toward Westerners, especially Jews and Americans. At the same time the Saudis have a long and storied habit of paying off their friends in Washington, especially in the State Department, but not sparing the Legislative branch, by hiring retired politicians, diplomats et al at high salaries, paying exorbitant speaking fees, making huge investments in their Presidential libraries or investment firms, and in general making post-Washington life very pleasant for American officialdom. 9/11 threatened these cozy arrangements.
Furthermore, the rise of Islamic radicalism and Iran's increasing stature in the neighborhood following the American invasion of Iraq, led to a threat to Sunni rule from the Shia infidels newly empowered in Iraq joining their co-religionists in Iran on the ascendancy.
One optimistic view was that the threat from Iran, and from the turmoil in Iraq, would "concentrate the minds" of the Saudis who would recognize their true personal and national interests lie with the West, and the Americans. It is becoming clear that this optimistic hope, that a nascent accommodation between the Arab Sunnis and the West, via an acceptance of Israel's right to exist, may have been misplaced.
The most obvious sign of how wrong-headed this view occurred when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, host of this years Arab League (more appropriately named "Arab Sunni League") meeting in Riyadh, commented on the current situation in the Middle East.
My comments are interspersed.
U.S. Iraq Role Is Called Illegal by Saudi King
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.
...
The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.
They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.
Hamas remains dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to the murder of Jews. Fatah is moderate only in comparison, since it still lauds the successful murder of Israeli citizens by terrorists and only occasionally disapproves of the tactic for harming the Palestinian cause.
In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.
Once upon a time we heard repeatedly that Shia and Sunni and Secular could never work together; is it time yet for those who claimed that Islamic fascism, in all its varied manifestations, are completely separate and antithetical concerns to admit they were wrong?
Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.
...
Since last summer the administration has asserted that a realignment is occurring in the Middle East, one that groups Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon along with Israel against Iran, Syria and the militant groups that they back: Hezbollah and Hamas.
Washington has urged Saudi Arabia to take a leading role in such a realignment but is finding itself disappointed by the results.
Some here said the king’s speech was a response to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s call on Monday for Arab governments to “begin reaching out to Israel.”
Many read Ms. Rice’s comments as suggesting that Washington was backing away from its support for an Arab initiative aimed at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel wants the Arabs to make changes in the terms, most notably the call for a right of return for Palestinian refugees to what is today Israel. The Arab League is endorsing the initiative, first introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, without changes.
The plan calls on Israel to withdraw from all land it won in the 1967 war in exchange for full diplomatic relations with the Arab world. It also calls for a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Saudi "Peace Plan" entails Israel withdrawing to indefensible borders, allowing the influx of several hundred thousand to a million or so hate nurtured Palestinians, giving up East Jerusalem and then, maybe, the Arabs will "recognize" Israel, I suppose if Hamas and Hezbollah don't object too much. A more honest description would be the Arabs will stop trying to destroy Israel if Israel will agree to commit suicide first.
[For an excellent description of the Saudi Peace Plan and to read a Peace Proposal that presents the alternative to the Saudi view and only appears fanciful because the Palestinian "narrative" has been so unquestionably accepted by the MSM and the international community, take a look at the Elder's Peace Plan, Saudi FM: Take our plan or face war.]
Regarding the Palestinians, the king said Wednesday, “It has become necessary to end the unjust blockade imposed on the Palestinian people as soon as possible so that the peace process can move in an atmosphere far from oppression and force.”
With regard to Iraq, the Saudis seem to be paying some attention to internal American politics. The Senate on Tuesday signaled support for legislation calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq in exchange for further funding for the war.
Last November, officials here realized that a Democratic upset could spell major changes for the Middle East: a possible pullout from Iraq, fueling further instability and, more important, allowing Iran to extend its influence in the region. [Emphasis mine-SW]
“I don’t think that the Saudi government has decided to distance itself from Bush just yet,” said Adel alToraifi, a columnist here with close ties to the Saudi government. “But I also think that the Saudis have seen that the ball is moving into the court of the Democrats, and they want to extend their hand to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”
...
King Abdullah said the loss of confidence in Arab leaders had allowed American and other forces to hold significant sway in the region. “If confidence is restored it will be accompanied by credibility,” he said, “and if credibility is restored then the winds of hope will blow, and then we will never allow outside forces to define our future nor allow banners to be raised in Arab lands other than those of Arabism, brothers.”
The Sunni Arab world was quite shaken by the fall of Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that he had periodically threatened most of his neighbors and had invaded a fellow Sunni state in the 1990s. An emboldened, Persian Shia state, with its own brand of Islam incompatible with Sunni concepts of the rightful order of doctrine in a religion that brooks no opposition to its fundamentals, represented a growing threat to Sunni hegemony in the world of Islam.
The Sunni retrenchment has now ended and they have made a number of moves, not limited to the points mentioned in the Times article, to re-assert their interests in the region. Of crucial significance, the Saudi response suggests that the Sunni elite do not see their security being enhanced by moderate policies, especially toward Israel and the Untied States.
Until the Arab World begins to make more of an effort to address their own failures (and they have started the process, though at a glacial pace and with recent retreats, as in the re-jailing of Egyptian Bloggers recently) and continues to insist that their problems are the result of the Israeli presence acting as a nidus of inflammation (a splinter in the Arab body politic perhaps), no progress is possible. A confident Arab World would be able to magnanimously offer to meet the Israelis and begin negotiations as equals. The nonsensical non-starter, that we will not recognize you until you do everything we want (at which point, they would certainly "up the ante") is a cynical ploy to re-focus the Arab world's rage at their own sense of failure and humiliation, on Israel, a tiny Democracy in a sea of authoritarian Islamic states. In this they are aided and abetted by the Left in Europe and, increasingly, at home in the Democratic Party.
I would speculate that Saudi Arabia recognizes two possible developing trends in the area.
1) Iran "wins" in its war with the West:
The British lose face and the Iranians gain by their humiliation of the British, effectively destroying Britain as a member of the Western coalition. The Iranians are able to leverage such enhanced stature into further delay by the UN and gain the time they need to perfect the Uranium enrichment cycle. In such a case, the Iranians and their proxies will be, by far, the most powerful players in the region and the weaker, though richer, Sunni states will have to accommodate their neighbor. By re-directing Shia enmity toward the traditional demonized foe, the hated Jews and the more recently demonized foe, the hated Americans, they can hope to deflect some of the rage away from themselves. After all, the common enemy of Israel and the West has served in the past to paper over the deep divisions between Shia and Sunni in the area.
2) Iran falls.
Iran, already unsteady and showing signs of desperation, is attacked from without or falls from within. In such a case, the Iranian proxies, which are thought to be transnational on a scale rivaling Microsoft, will move into action. The Saudis are fairly confident of their ability to defeat home grown Sunni terror but cannot be too confident of managing Shia terror, which would be predominantly in the Eastern provinces from whence Saudi oil wealth derives.
The Saudi Royal family is not stupid. They know that an American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for themselves and the region. They also know that if America is an unreliable ally and is compelled to leave by a Democratic Congress which needs a disaster in Iraq to enhance their 2008 electoral desires, they will be left to deal with the situation without their traditional body guard willing to take the bullets for them. Suddenly finding common ground with the Iranians and the Shia makes eminent sense to them. Unfortunately, the only real common ground that exists is hatred of Israel and America. As a bonus, hatred of the other is part of the structure of Wahhabi Islam and easily digested.
Certainly, there are a lot of moving parts to this speculation, but the Saudis, by following the time tested Arab script of focusing on Israel and supporting the Palestinians, while making peace with Shia Iran and its proxies, is behaving in ways true to its nature. Peace and acceptance of Israel is not part of Saudi Arabia's nature.
Recent Comments