| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Saudis threaten to use the oil weapon if the US leaves Iraq |
| 2006-11-29 |
| Against Iran. In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration. One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis. Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region. 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. Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign. What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces. There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically. In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. 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. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #7 I don't see the Saudi's as capable of significant increases in oil output. If they have threatened the US, it would be with a cutback of oil production, which they are quite capable of doing,and which would hurt the US and world economy to the degree of the cutback. The US population eats and heats with imported oil, and makes turns this oil into its cash income one way or another. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-11-29 22:54 |
| #6 The President took one occasion last Fall to mention the Ayatollah's threat to future generations. The fact that he only said that once - in context of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive war - causes me to believe that a move against Iran will be made. Then there is the increase of US troops in the Iraq theater. An invasion of Iran is unworkable without destruction of their entire government structure. That won't be done in Winter. When Iran falls, so will: Hezbollah, al-Sadrites, Syrian Shiites. Then Sunnis will turn on each other. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-29 19:24 |
| #5 Still, it's an interesting variable in the Democratic equation for defeat. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-11-29 17:03 |
| #4 ... Iran understands Uncle Sam would not stand for an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia. With another Carter in the Presidency this would not be a dead cert. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-29 16:15 |
| #3 r: This whole article hinges on the questionable comment that Iraq is on the brink of civil war and distintegration. You may want to actually read the article. It hinges on the indubitable premise that the Democrats want to leave Iraq and were previously able to extract defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. They can do it again in Iraq. The Saudis would much prefer Uncle Sam to stay in Iraq, since this will both protect the Iraqi Sunnis and prevent Iraq from becoming a threat to Saudi Arabia, much as the Allied occupation of Germany kept Germany down as a military power for over 50 years. If Uncle Sam will not attend to some of Saudi Arabia's interests in Iraq, the Saudis will make the best they can of the situation on the ground. What's the bottom line for Uncle Sam? Can't really say. But the irony is that a departure could actually mean *lower oil prices*, as the Saudis try to lower the boom on the Iranian economy. The Saudis know the Iraqi Shiites are in no position to overrun Saudi Arabia, and that Iran understands Uncle Sam would not stand for an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia. So the oil weapon isn't an idle threat. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-29 15:58 |
| #2 I still like that crazy idea of allowing Sadam to conquer Saudi Arabia as long as he was nice to the Kurds and kept a lid on the fundamentalists. This whole article hinges on the questionable comment that Iraq is on the brink of civil war and distintegration. Considering a bunch of the stories that created that impression were invented by an AP stringer I'm not sure the arguements hold water anymore. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-29 15:10 |
| #1 Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration. And Saddam and his boys would have brought an end to sanctions, taken Oil-for-Food public, and be rivaling the Saudis in pumping cash to jihadis . |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-11-29 15:01 |