Saudis Give U.S. a Grim What If

[boutons_]

December 13, 2006
Saudis Give U.S. a Grim What If

By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/saudiarabia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

( I posted an article that said the Saudis are already financing Iraqi Sunnis)


King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/_abdullah_ii/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

A senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that part of the administration’s review of Iraq policy involved the question of how to harness a coalition of moderate Iraqi Sunnis with centrist Shiites to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.

“It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure,” one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, “If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war.”

The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against “Iran, Syria and the terrorists,” another senior administration official said Tuesday.

Until now Saudi officials have promised their counterparts in the United States that they would refrain from aiding Iraq’s Sunni insurgency. But that pledge holds only as long as the United States remains in Iraq.

The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org), who are opposed to the kingdom’s monarchy. But if Iraq’s sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who told his staff on Monday that he was resigning his post, recently fired Nawaf Obaid, a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post two weeks ago contending that “one of the first consequences” of an American pullout of Iraq would “be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”

Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said “would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even without today’s high oil prices.” The Saudi government disavowed Mr. Obaid’s column, and Prince Turki canceled his contract.

But Arab diplomats said Tuesday that Mr. Obaid’s column reflected the view of the Saudi government, which has made clear its opposition to an American pullout from Iraq.

In a speech in Philadelphia last week, Prince Turki reiterated the Saudi position against an American withdrawal from Iraq. “Just picking up and leaving is going to create a huge vacuum,” he told the World Affairs Council. “The U.S. must underline its support for the Maliki government because there is no other game in town.”

Prince Turki said Saudi Arabia did not want Iraq to fracture along ethnic or religious lines. On Monday a group of prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilize against Shiites in Iraq. The statement called the “murder, torture and displacement of Sunnis” an “outrage.”

The resignation of Prince Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and a son of the late King Faisal, was supposed to be formally announced Monday, officials said, but that had not happened by late Tuesday.

“They’re keeping us very puzzled,” a Saudi official said. Prince Turki’s resignation was first reported Monday in The Washington Post.

If Prince Turki does depart, he will leave after 15 months on the job, in contrast to the 22 years that his predecessor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spent as ambassador in Washington.

In Riyadh, there was a sense of disarray over Prince Turki’s resignation that was difficult to hide. A former adviser to the royal family said that Prince Turki had submitted his resignation several months ago but that it was refused. Rumors had circulated ever since that Prince Turki intended to resign, as talk of a possible government shake-up grew.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister and Prince Turki’s brother, has been in poor health for some time. He is described as eager to resign, with his wife’s health failing, too, just as the United States has been prodding Saudi Arabia to take a more active role in Iraq and with Iran.

The former adviser said Prince Turki’s resignation came amid a growing rivalry between the ambassador and Prince Bandar, who is now Saudi Arabia’s national security adviser. Prince Bandar, well known in Washington for his access to the White House, has vied to become the next foreign minister.

“This is a very high-level problem; this is about Turki, the king and Bandar,” said the former adviser to the royal family. “Let’s say the men don’t have a lot of professional admiration for each other.”

Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

===================

The whole M/E will go up in hell-flames of Sunni vs Shia.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We're f*cked either way.

[Tek_XX]

They're just trying to help shrub by threatening america and iraq with civil war if we pull out.

[boutons_]

"trying to help shrub"

That could be in second place, but the Sunni Saudis are scared shitless of Shia Iran and Iraq allied against the Sunni countries. Saudis are self-interested long before the are dubya-helping.

Even if it hurt dubya, the Saudis would still finance the Iraqi Sunnis, as they are already doing (which hurts dubya).

[sandman]

"trying to help shrub"

Sunni Saudis are scared shitless of Shia Iran and Iraq allied against the Sunni countries.

I find it interesting and somewhat scary that Arabs are willing to ally with non-Arabs over religious sectarianism. The dominant loyalty seems to be religion, not nationality or ethnicity. I think the days are gone when you divide the Middle East by political or national boundaries.

[1369]

On the way home last night, on KTSA they had Dr. Fanning's son (who is Duel's "Mid-East expert"), talking about a possible scenario that the US/Saudi/Israel ally under the "Sunni banner" (my words) and take on Iran/Palestine and the other Shia groups.

I find it hard to believe that any arabs ally with Israel, but that was one of his theories.

[boutons_]

Here's a take on a unified Caliphate not being in the cards:


"New Caliphate" Nonsense

New Delhi, India - "Muslims want to revive the Caliphate," I hear pundits say. The idea is just preposterous. The Caliphate is a pre-nation state concept, relevant only to the Age of Empire. The Caliphate was defeated by the British in 1918. It was buried by the Turks in 1924.

Upon first glance, it seems the Caliphate had a fabulous run from 632 to 1918. However, look again: Only for a very short while during these 1300 years was there a single Caliph to which all Muslim political formations gave allegiance. Usually, there were multiple Muslim communities. The Ummayads in Spain never recognized the Abbasids in Baghdad; and the Mughals in India certainly did not pay obeisance to the Sublime Porte of their Turkish kinsmen in Istanbul. Then Mustafa Kemal Ghazi packed off the last Ottoman Caliph with 2000 pounds and a one-way ticket to Europe. He sealed the institution that had long outlived its utility.

The British drew most of the arbitrary lines around which nations were created out of the fallen Ottoman Empire. Those lines survived colonial mischief, local tyranny, despotism, socialism, popular upsurge against unrepresentative governments, war, and upheaval. Through nearly decades of turmoil, the power of the nation has been the one steady reality.

The Arabs are united by a common language, culture and faith, and yet prefer to live in some 22 nations. They do not want to report to an Arab Caliph.

Don't believe me? Just try selling a Pakistani Caliph to a Bangladeshi.

For the record, the last serious attempt to create a Caliph was made by Lloyd-George and Churchill, both during the First World War and just after it. They were keen forming a 'Southern Caliphate' to counter the Ottoman. They wanted an Arab who could rule from Mecca. Their preferred candidates were from the Hashemite family, now ruling Jordan. An emir from the dusty neighborhood thought it was not such a good idea. Thus, the Saudis rule over Mecca and Medina now.

Do Bush and Blair really need a Caliph as an ogre-enemy? Do they need the kind of figure who mother's warned their troublesome children about in eighteenth century Europe? Why can't they just admit to themselves that their shock-and-awe might is being defeated in Iraq by anonymous young men with cottage industry weapons? I suppose that's a tough truth to face.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mj_akbar/2006/12/new_caliphate_is_nonsense.html