JOURNAL: Saudi Arabia considers intervention in Iraq

Tarpits are classic deathtraps for dinosaurs. Iraq's tarpit isn't an exception. Nawaf Obaid, a security advisor to the Saudi monarchy, writing for the Washington Post:

...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.

Comments

[ParkerStevens]

This guy has an arabic name but I'm not sure he really speaks for Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has diplomatic staff that could say these things to the US media if that is what it wanted to say.

Being that the US-Saudi relationship is managed through these private US-based "advisory" organizations with Arab front-people, I take this as more of what the US foreign policy community wants the US media to think than what Saudi Arabia wants the US media to think.

[subadei]

I wonder how long before Egypt or even Jordan hop into the fray? Iraq seems to be more and more a microcosm of future regional direction.

[Scout006]

ParkerSteven, I agree to a point, but I think there has always been an influential element in Saudi not under sway of the Saudi government that could do this. Very much like the limits of the government of Pakistan to control its military and intelligence services.

I think we may be seeing a regional war starting to break out, that will at first be fought with surrogates, then the States themselves will enter the conflict, or perhaps implode due to strife within their borders.

[dan tdaxp]

While the possibility of Saudi Arabia participating in the negotiations that will establish a Shia Iraq are possible, actual "intervention" is unlikely. Not only does Saudi Arabia not have an army, or even a non-anti-Royalist population of potential guerrillas, Saudi oil is located in mostly Shia land.

Iran would find it far easier to start a Hezbollah in KSA than Saudi Arabia would be able to actually fight in Iraq.

[ParkerStevens]

Saudi denies may interfere in Iraq to back Sunnis
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02103839.htm

[quoting]
"The writer does not represent any official body in Saudi Arabia. What he published only represents his personal opinion and does not in any manner at all represent the policy or positions of the kingdom," it added on Friday.

...

A Western diplomat in Riyadh said the official denial confirmed diplomats' belief that the substance of Obaid's article does not reflect Saudi policy. He said at most the article may have been intended as a "warning".

...

Diplomats say it is possible that Saudi Arabia has begun low-level funding of some Sunni tribes in Iraq, but a prominent Saudi tribal figure cast doubt on any large scale funding.

"The Sunni tribes have been asking for money for a number of years from Saudi Arabia and they never got anything because Saudi Arabia was so worried about al Qaeda," said Turki al-Rasheed of the Shamar tribal group that extends into Iraq.

"Those who want Saudi Arabia to intervene are none other than the Americans who are trying to find a quick exit from Iraq. Saudi Arabia will not fight or seriously engage itself in Iraq."
[/quoting]

These "advisors", presumably US-based, have the authority to say what their American paycheck signers want them to say, and their job is to pressure Saudi Arabia to take policies in line with US interests. But they cannot and do not speak for the Saudi government.

If this is a "warning" who is it from? It is "at most" a warning, but more likely just a person outside the Saudi foreign policy process saying what the Americans want other Americans to hear.

[John Robb]

Parker, thanks for the extra data. However, I can't see how the US would benefit from Saudi funding of Iraqi Sunni groups.

[ParkerStevens]

Another data point, Obaid was fired from his consulting position.

I don't think the US is trying to get the Saudis to fund the groups.

I also don't think the Saudis are behind this threat that Obaid made.

My take is that the Saudis do want the US to stay in Iraq but would not officially or unofficially provoke Iraq's Shiites or Iran with a threat to support the Sunnis outright.

Obaid's US handlers are less sensitive to the gravity of such a threat, which to them is primarily directed to a US audience.

My point is that Obaid was not speaking for the Saudis when he said this. It was a gut feeling at first, but events have proven it right beyond any doubt.

[adam]

Additional news from Saudi.

It seems that the Iraqi government are now accusing the Saudis of funding the Sunni resistance. (pause for catcalls).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency_saudi

Admittedly the article focusses on the relatively minor problem of US planes being knocked down, as compared to the collapse of Iraqs civil government. But the arrival of state of the art missile systems in theatre cannot make the US military happier.

Of course what makes the Saudi picture more confusing is its impact in US government circles. The Saudis own large chunks of the Bush clan, including Baker. Bush Junior has admitted reading the ISG report though the press conference yerterday would imply that he intends to ignore it - or alternatively did not understand it.

In real terms Bush is now completely reliant on the Shi'ites, especially the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Bush has realised that the Kurds simply have neither the numbers or the resources to be useful allies. SCIRI is worried that it is losing support to Sadr, therefore it wants the US to kill Sadr. The fact that the US killing Sadr will be a repeat of Saddams actions against Sadrs father is something that Dubya is prepared to live with; though whether the reputation of the US can is another matter.

But this is not for reasons of geo-politics; this is a chance the historical break with his father that Bush Junior has always wanted.

Baker and Bush senior have long ties to the Saudis. There are some that suggest this link altered US policy following 9/11 and certainly Saudi never faced serious questioning from the US government. Baker (and, by implication, Bush Senior) are arguing for more Sunni input into Iraq - the ISG suggested that the US and Iraqi government work with the Arab League made up of Iraqs Sunni neighbours.

In short Bush Junior now faces a choice between Shi'ites and Sunnis; his own friends against his dads.

[John Robb]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C12%5C12%5Cstory_12-12-2006_pg4_8

"A group of prominent Saudi clerics have called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilise against Shiites in Iraq, although a statement they issued fell short of calling for a jihad, or holy war."

[Walter Purvis]

From today's Washington Post: "Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington"

Not sure what if anything this portends, but it has me feeling a little bit spooked (no pun intended).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101333.html

[John Robb]

"Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html?ex=1323666000&en=bc82ffad82cc8d53&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[adam]

And, just as an aside, the Saudis (and other Arab nations) now want nuclear power too - just like Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/middleeast/11nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The loss of US influence on the Middle East is starting to show through.

[Improbulus Maximus]

I often wonder if this emerging chaos isn't all part of some Machiavellian scheme to decentralize power in the region through factionalization. If it is, Iraq is the perfect place to start, and civil war there will suck all its neighbors into the trap, causing ethnic and ideological loyalty and hatred to trump all else.
Muslims hate like no others, and it's easier to hate someone who lives close by than someone who lives halfway around the globe; this is proven by the fact that HAMAS and FATAH are openly fighting in the streets, and all the various factions in Iraq are killing one another for Lord only knows what diverse reasons. If all the muslims begin fighting one another for whatever causes petty or grand, then maybe they'll quit pestering us so much.