And their message? If we leave they will fund or otherwise support the Sunni minority to combat the Shi’a militias, such as the Mahdi Army controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr:
Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn’t meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn’t attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world’s Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.
Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran’s ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
The author of this missive is Nawaf Obaid, a man who has many connections to the Saudi government and also to the United States.
(cont.)
Nawaf Obaid is an adjunct fellow with the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS, as well as managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, a consultancy based in Riyadh. He is also the private security and energy adviser to HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States.
With that background, I don’t think he was merely opining on his own regarding the future course the Saudis will take in Iraq should the US “re-deploy” its troops, despite his carefully worded disclaimer to the contrary. I’m speculating here, but my guess is that his friend the Saudi Ambassador to the US asked him to write this, either to provide political cover for a Bush decision to leave US troops in Iraq, or as a warning shot across Iran’s bow. Probably both.
As previously noted, this isn’t the first time in recent memory that someone connected to the Saudi government has issued a statement that reasonably could be taken as an implied threat directed at Iran. For example, not so long ago I wrote about this statement, attributed to the Saudi ambassador to Kuwait, in which he said that the Saudi government was engaged in nuclear energy research:
Saudi Arabia is experimenting with nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but is not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons, the Saudi ambassador in Kuwait said in remarks published Wednesday.
Ambassador Abdul-Aziz al-Fayez said the experiments were taking place at the King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh.
“But the kingdom is not seeking to possess nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with Kuwait’s Al-Qabas daily.
Al-Fayez said the experiments were in “the field of nuclear energy,” without elaborating.
Clearly the Saudis are very nervous about Iran’s increasing power and influence in the region, and the prospect for a Shi’ite government in Iraq beholden to Iran which would sanction (or turn a blind eye toward) Bosnian style “ethnic cleansing” directed at the Sunni minority there. The Saudis have nowhere near the military might of Iran, but they do have deep financial pockets, and it isn’t far fetched to conceive of them funding a proxy war in Iraq to keep that nation destabilized. In all likelihood they are already providing funding to some Sunni insurgents but that level of support could increase astronomically in the event of a US pullout. In addition, and in the event a “cold war” breaks out between the Iranians and the Saudis over Iraq, a covert Saudi program geared toward acquiring nuclear arms also becomes a very real possibility.
This highlights the need for a regional conference on the Iraq question, one in which the Saudis and Iran are among the participants. Both regimes, in Saudi Arabia and Iran, have legitimate concerns regarding the future of that poor nation. which thanks to us now lies broken into a million little shards of chaos, hatred and sectarian violence. It only makes sense for both countries (with or without US involvement) to engage the issue of Iraq’s future in order to forestall a wider regional conflict between Shi’ites and Sunnis and to address their various security concerns.
Of course, you can rest assured that such an intensive diplomatic effort to limit the damage we have done in Iraq will be the last thing to which President Bush will agree. To paraphrase Atrios, it will be two more years of Bush’s folly before any chance for real change can occur .
