Nawaf Obaid, “an adviser to the Saudi government, [who] is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington”, has issued a straight-up threat to the United States. If we pull out of Iraq then Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent the slaughter of the Sunni minority there.
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.
If you picture a Pac-Man moving to the left, that is what we are seeing in Iraq. The Sunni Triangle is the hole that forms the mouth of the giant Shi’a Pac-Man. When the Americans pull out, that mouth will close and the Sunnis will be scattered to the winds. The Saudis are not going to let that happen without a fight.
To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region.
To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.
This could be the first sign of al-Qaeda’s victory in the war on terrorism. Al-Qaeda had two aims. They wanted U.S. troops out of the Arabian Peninsula (particularly Saudi Arabia) and they wanted to drive a wedge between the Americans and the House of Saud. There is now a major wedge between the two countries.
The Saudis do not want us to leave Iraq, but the American people do want us to leave, and Congress is under great pressure to make it happen. As I stated a month ago, our primary mission in Iraq has now become a humanitarian one. We are there to protect the Sunnis (including their ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq’ allies) from Shi’a death squads.
If you haven’t read National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley’s leaked memo, you should get on it. He is still deeply in denial about the paralyzing effects of the all-out civil war that is going on in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps this suggestion makes the point best:
Maliki should:
¶Compel his ministers to take small steps — such as providing health services and opening bank branches in Sunni neighborhoods — to demonstrate that his government serves all ethnic communities;
I don’t think a lack of bank branches is one of the big problems facing the Sunni community. They are dodging mortar attacks. Hadley then suggests that Maliki:
¶Bring his political strategy with Moktada al-Sadr to closure and bring to justice any JAM actors that do not eschew violence;
How does that square with this news?
A bloc of Iraqi lawmakers and cabinet ministers allied with militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr launched a boycott of their government duties Wednesday to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s decision to attend a summit in Jordan with President Bush.
“We announce the suspension of our participation in government and parliament,” said Nasar al-Rubaie, the leader of Sadr’s parliamentary bloc. “We gave a promise last Friday that we will suspend our participation if the Prime Minister met with Bush and today [Wednesday] we are doing it as a Sadrist bloc.”
Right now, the Sadrist bloc is only suspending their involvement with the government. If they actually pull out for real, the government would fall. And here is a reality check:
Joost Hiltermann, who follows Iraq for the nonprofit International Crisis Group from Jordan, voiced skepticism that Maliki would crack down on private militias. “He is completely beholden to the Sadrists,” he said. “The notion that he could confront the power of the militias that gave him power is absurd.”
The entire situation is absurd. But, back to Obaid:
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.
How is that ‘you’re either with us or against us’ rhetoric looking now? In any showdown between Saudi Arabia and Iran, we would be forced to take the side of the Saudis (i.e., al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and former Ba’athists) against Iran (i.e., Maliki and his Sadrist supporters). Isn’t that cute?
At some point it is going to dawn on people that Bush and Cheney have screwed things up so badly that impeachment would be a kind punishment.
