Steve: this sounds like another advertisement for disaster. You say, "This is the first robust declaration that the Saudis are willing to fill the vacuum left by the United State in the region and knock back some of the unchecked expansion of Iranian influence in the region."

This is the first I've heard that the Saudis have any such capability. What and who can they deploy that would match the growing strength of Iraq's Shias, even if our troops were to remain in Iraq? How would Saudi Arabia protect itself and Iraq's Sunnis?

How does this Saudi statement make any sense at all?

cringing, I will post something later tonight that outlines Saudi Arabia's relative power status in the region -- including military. Read what I post and then let me know your thoughts. Will try to get it up tonight DC time.

But don't run from this. Iraq's civil war will become a regional conflagration if the REGION itself doesn't stop it....and to do that, nations need to put themselves on the line so that the leaders and commanders can stare into the abyss and see the horror of what could be unleashed -- triggered as it were by the horrible missteps of our country.

But this is not a casual deal -- and I think that even though things could get worse, they might not if the other big stakeholders in the region move in....they must.

Steve Clemons

It is encouraging that someone is thinking about now to handle the situation after Iraq inevitably collapses and we have to pull out. We need to get in front of the problem and deal with the aftermath instead of vainly trying to prevent it.

What struck me was how radical a departure this is from the traditional Saudi indirection when it comes to regional affairs.

Conscious of their country's weakness compared to some of its neighbors and despite its wealth, Saudi leaders have generally been circumspect about making public commitments as to what they would do in response to contingencies (in recent years they have been more direct in saying what they think other governments should do). It's no surprise that they are nervous about the Iranians; that has been a theme of Saudi diplomacy ever since the Shah fell. But the threat to use force -- even if what it might mean in practice is a Saudi effort to co-opt Sunni Arab radicals in Iraq and within Saudi Arabia itself and direct their fanaticism against Iran -- is new.

Another interesting thing about Obaid's column is the bald assertion of Saudi leadership of the world's Sunni Muslims. Said assertion has obvious value in a future face-off with the Shiite Iranian regime -- it is the reason Sunni Muslims (as distinct from the governments of mostly Sunni Muslim countries, which will be worried about the oil problem) should see the situation as their problem rather than as a local quarrel. But it has other implications as well. Many governments have reason to challenge such a claim of leadership, and Sunni Muslims (especially those outside the Arab world) may well wonder why they should accept leadership from Saudis now when the issue at hand is a crisis generated by the very people -- Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents -- on whose behalf Obaid is now threatening to intervene.

Be that as it may, it is impossible to imagine a Saudi government that retained confidence in American leadership allowing an easily identifiable and only nominally unofficial spokesman to publish a column like this. Past American administrations did not have to show the obsequious deference to Riyadh characteristic of the first Bush administration to convince the Saudis that the United States was taking their interests into account. There is obviously a lot of doubt about that now.

Steve

Bear in mind that in spite of a history of lavish military spending and some top-of-the-line US military hardware, when Saddam rolled into Kuwait the Saudis cried uncle and invited the US in to do the actual fighting. US forces didn't leave until 2003, after the invasion of Iraq had taken place. The Saudi princes and their acolytes in the military will do nothing that actually puts them in danger of bleeding.

Isn't the start of a regional war? And why should the Shia in Iraq and Iran accept any kind of saudi intervention quietly. The saudis may be serious but the cynic in me says its sounds more like a cover for a further U.S presence in Iraq.

Steve - you are wrong here - this certainly is a serious threat - and an offer.

All out regional war in the ME, especially between both sides of the Persian Gulf will endager world oil supply and the world economy will tank.
That is the threat.

The offer is Saudi payed Sunni brigades in Anbar and cheap gas at the pump.

The price the US has to pay to avoid the threat and to get the carrot is keeping its troups in Iraq.

What will the Democrats do? What will the Neocons do?

More at my site:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/11/thr_gorilla_ste.html
The Gorilla Steps In And Offers A Deal

We should extend this discussion past the point "realists" dare to tread (at least in public):

1)US protection of Saudi Arabia serves to protect the Saudis only against regional rivals, because there are no global rivals that can project power into the region.
2) If the Saudis lose confidence in US protection, they lose their incentive to sell the US oil at a discounted price and to continue providing energy to the Western liberalized trading system, where prices are extremely volatile.
3) Saudi Arabia would achieve far greater revenue security by signing long term energy contracts with China and other Asian consumers, where most of their energy already goes.
4) Such a mercantilist move would jeopardize future Western energy supplies.

Neocons tried to solve this problem by occupying the oil fields and opening the spigots in Iraq. Their dreams were summarily defeated by instability, which they did not foresee and which killed investment. Distribution routes from the Caspian basin have been blocked by Iran and instability in Afghanistan. Bombing Iran would doom any dreams the West might have of obtaining Persian energy or energy distribution routes.

If the "realists" want to play a constructive role, they need to start by talking about the real problem, what the stakes are, and then looking for solutions. Buying into the administration's BS about freedom, democracy, and imminence of an "Iranian bomb" does nothing to advance a solution to the imminent problem.

Steve,

I couldn't disagree with you more about this being a potential "cap" on the instability created by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Saudi support of Saddam was directly responsible for extending the Iran-Iraq War for years after Saddam's invasion and defeat in the first few years of that conflict--to the tune of tens of thousands of dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. This is nothing less than the Saudis grasping at their last straw--direct intervention in the hope of stemming the tide now flowing in favor of a Shi'a controlled Iraq.

But the simple question is this: in what fantasy land do you think the Iraqi Shi'a will ever give up their status as Iraq's largest and most powerful group, especially after the history of how they were treated by Iraqi Sunnis? The answer is quite simply, probably never. In that context, the more we strive to create an open political system there, the more we empower the Shi'a. Whether the Saudis intervene or not, it should be clear that the Shi'a game is a long-term one, and we are losing sight of that. 10 years down the road, they will be in charge of that country, or whatever is left of it. If they are smart, they will also strike a deal with the Kurds for a federated state and strengthen their hand even more. The Sunnis stand little chance of controlling events there regardless of whether we stay or go, or the Saudis enter or don't.

And isn't it the ultimate irony that you are championing the expansion of Wahhabism--the very root of the Sunni Islamist campaign against the West as embodied by al-Qaeda--as a solution to the crisis caused by our "war against terrorism" after 9/11? You mean to tell me that all of a sudden Iran and Shi'ism are a greater "threat" to us than the movement that actually has attacked us? I think you should reflect on that a bit more before buying hook, line, and sinker into the Saudi and Washington drummed up bogeyman of "Iranian influence." If Iran disappeared tomorrow, the Iraqi Shi'a would still be there, and still be doing the same things.

Some figures on S.A.'s military:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/mil-military

The most telling statement in the article referenced is this advice from Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." It is a variation of the Pottery Barn rule - you broke it, you fix it. The world expects nothing less. Iraqis expect nothing less. The Middle East expects nothing less. Honorable and strategically advantageous extrication of the United States from this disaster commands nothing less.

The persisting myopia among many of the experts in the foreign policy establishment of Washington in perceiving and creating options to resolve the disaster George W. Bush foreseeably created in Iraq is staggering. I do not rank Steve among the myopic, but it's been richly apparent for years now that the foreign policy community of decision-makers and opinion leaders in Washington is overpopulated with well credentialed hand wringing defeatists who possess meager diplomatic vision (mostly on the left) or with incompetents (mostly on the right).

Saudi Arabia's unilateral intervention into Iraq to protect the Sunni minority would be an unmitigated disaster and virtually guarantee Iranian involvement - a recipe for a true conflagration such as we have never seen in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia's unilateral military involvement in Iraq must be blocked at any price.

United States troop withdrawal of significant magnitude in the final 2 years of the Bush presidency is not a realistic outcome, either from a military perspective or from the viewpoint of Republican domestic political strategy.

Iran has previously threatened Saudi Arabia with war. Iran and many of the jihadists in the region, for which many of the dictators of the region (friendly and unfriendly) hold sympathy, have a long standing track record of looking into the proverbial Abyss and jumping right over into Hades. How quickly we forget the Iran-Iraq war which was a brutal and costly (lives and treasure) war of attrition. Bilateral or unilateral, picayune remedies for this disaster remain - as they always have been - grossly inadequate. $500 million from S.A. to rebuild Iraq is grossly inadequate. It is time for bold strategic objectives and concerted MULTI-lateral international action of the highest order, very unlikely under the current presidency under the best of circumstances and even less likely in the waning years of a presidency in which the key players are more concerned with protecting their prerogatives than protecting the national interest of the United States or solving one of the world's most pressing and contentious international conflicts.

I look forward to discussing in person some of these issues with the readers of this blog who have contacted me for further analysis at the conference being held in Washington this weekend. We must begin seriously conceiving SOLUTIONS and resist the perilous temptation to throw our hands up in the air in fatalistic resignation even if prospects for implementation of pragmatic solutions under the current president remain doubtful.

PUBLIUS

Publius,

I agree with you on the likely consequences of Saudi involvement of the sort Obaid outlines. But I think you're also fundamentally confused about Iran's foreign policy goals:

"Iran has previously threatened Saudi Arabia with war. Iran and many of the jihadists in the region, for which many of the dictators of the region (friendly and unfriendly) hold sympathy, have a long standing track record of looking into the proverbial Abyss and jumping right over into Hades."

Iran's foreign policy has been remarkably pragmatic since the end of the Iran-Iraq War--which, if you've forgotten, was initiated by Saddam Hussein. A couple of relevant points: Iran has never “threatened war” in any real way against the Saudis—especially since the mid-1980s and the ebbing of overheated revolutionary rhetoric. Second, while Iran's ties to Hezbollah and Palestinian groups clearly do exist, Iran has also helped us get out of the hostage crisis in Lebanon when it deemed it worthwhile to do so; supported the Northern Alliance--arguably keeping it alive almost single handedly in the 1990s; and aided Christian Armenia vs. Shi'a Azerbaijan/Turkey. Third, Tehran made a concerted effort in the 1990s to improve the overall regional security situation in the Persian Gulf, reestablishing good ties with the Saudis and signing security agreements with them and Oman. All during the period of US-led "dual containment." Do I also need to repeat the fact that Iran was instrumental in aligning the Northern Alliance with US goals after 9/11? Or that it hasn't "gone over the abyss" in Iraq? If you think they have, you are just flat wrong; were they to do so, then I can tell you with all certainty that we ain't seen nothing yet as far as instability/chaos/conflict in Iraq. That is, they can be and have been constructive as far as we are concerned—even if it is not in vogue to acknowledge it.

Lastly, mixing Iran in with the “jihadis” is a colossal error. Iran’s Islamist radicalism is quite different—both quantitatively and qualitatively. Iran’s Islamists control a non-Arab state which presents them with a whole range of different concerns than jihadi movements in the Arab world or Pakistan; they are Shi’a, which makes them theologically different in crucial ways and puts them at odds with Sunni jihadism/Wahhabism. Do not make the mistake of equating Sunni jihadism with Iran’s revolutionary rhetoric or post-1979 government.

The Saudis will eventually annex all the Sunni territory that was in Iraq; the Kurds with Kirkuk, and the Shiites with the Basra oil region will become sovereign. Bahgdad? they'll figure something out after all factions, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd are assured that they will get the territories they want. It will be a relatively peaceful solution with the Saudis leading the way.

Prince Turki al-Faisal and what army?

The illustrious Habibi is absolutley right! A conference of regional states needs to be held to discuss the redrawing of the political map with regards to Iraq. Iraq needs to be divided up so that all neighbouring states are satisfied. This is the way out from the edge of abyss and conflict, and it is in everyone's interest to participate faithfully and get these trying times behind them. All will have to give something, disguard old prejudices for a peaceful solution in return. Hail Habibi!

BMR:

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond in detail to all of your points. I agree with almost everything you say. For the most part, where you disagree with me, it is due to imprecision on my part or misunderstanding of my purposes on yours.

A few quick points:

1) The information I have received indicates the Iranian government has conveyed to Saudi Arabia in unmistakable terms that if the United States attacks Iran and Saudi Arabia does anything other than stay out of the conflict as a neutral by-stander, Iran will attack Saudi Arabia. That constitutes a threat against Saudi Arabia in my book, even if done in a defensive light.

2) I have full faith in Iran's adherence to pragmatic and loyal pursuit of its interests. I have zero faith in the current Iranian government's good faith adherence to American national interests in the region.

3) The Iran of Khamenei/Ahmadinejad is not the Iran of Khamenei/Khatami or Khomeini. Ahmadinejad has displayed that he does not fear the Abyss or he is the world's most strident bluffer. Either way, the course is perilous.

4) Iraq is crawling with Iranian spies, agents and operatives. Good luck to today's CIA in detecting them and their stratagems. Inviting Iran to participate as a "partner" in the reconstruction of Iraq is as idiotic as inviting Al Qaeda elements and Sadr militia members into the Iraqi police force and military, as has been done by the Bush administration's incompetent nation building effort.

5) Yes, Iran can be "constructive as far as we are concerned", i.e. in promoting undefined democracy in Iraq. I'm happy to acknowledge that much even if unfashionable. Unfettered democratic rule in Iraq = Shi'a dominance/enhancement of Iranian ascendance in the region. What the Bush administration has failed to do is to comprehend that unfettered democratic rule in any nation building experiment, particularly in theocratic Middle East environments, is NOT in our interest. Liberal democracy in the Middle East is in our national interest as well as in the interest of reliable international commerce in the region (oil) and the interest of human rights for all sectarian groups there. Today's Iran would be opposed - I'm certain - to the promotion of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY in Iraq if that were an objective pursued through coherent measures.

6) Religion. Shi'a or Sunni in the current environment mixed with military and geopolitical calculations = volatile. Far too many analysts speak of Shi'a or Sunni "sectarian differences" as a check box cliche discussion point and with far too little understanding of the interests of the relevant groups and the capacity for combustion when the priorities of that force mixes with the calculus of reason.

I am calling for a regional conference to address the partition of Iraq into a sovereign Shiite south, a sovereign Kurdish northeast that includes Kirkuk, and a divvying up of the remainder between the Saudis, Jordanians, Syrians and the beloved Turks, or maybe not the Turks. Bahgdad goes to the Sunnis except Sadr City. And everybody is happy or at least not at each others throats which is the other alternative. Iraq was an artificial political conglomeration anyway; best it be done over correctly.

For the Bidens of the world and the others calling for the ripping up of present day Iraq:

1) What boundaries do you propose and what approach do you propose to get all three primary groups to agree to the boundaries you propose?

2) What do you do with the majority Shi'a interest in profiting from the oil rich Kurdish areas?

3) What do you do with the regional Sunni majority interest in seeing the Sunni minority profit from oil rich territory?

4) Have you asked the Iraqis what they think since we claim to support the expression of democratic will on fundamental questions facing peoples aka self-determination?

and

5) Have you bothered to investigate what the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey would think of your radical plan? Hint: you should.

Steve, you say:

"What Obaid has articulated here is not offered as a threat if the US leaves Iraq, which the US must do in my view. This is the first robust declaration that the Saudis are willing to fill the vacuum left by the United State in the region and knock back some of the unchecked expansion of Iranian influence in the region."

Well, it certainly sounds like a threat to me!

Nobody could imagine that a Saudi intervention of the kind Obaid contemplates could have a happy outcome. The injection of Saudi troops into Iraq in order to "protect" the Sunni community, a community which is at the same time engaged in open warfare against much of the Shiite and Kurdish communities, in highly contested areas, is surely more than a plan for "engagement". It's a war plan. It would certainly be no less a war than the US is engaged in right now. And there would be this difference: The Iranians are very unlikely to intervene directly in Iraq so long as the US is there. But they will have fewer compunctions about stepping in to square off against the Saudis if they feel that their interests are threatened, as they clearly would be. And what do you think will be the reaction of Shiites in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province if Saudi forces invade Iraq to help their Sunni co-religionists kill more Shiites?

Obviously, the Saudis would prefer that the US be the one to do the costly and dangerous "checking" of Iran. So what Obaid is saying to us is "If you don't stay in Iraq, then we will have to go in ourselves - and the result won't be pretty. It will likely be an expanded regional war that spans both sides of the Persian/Arabian Gulf." He knows very well that even thinking about such a scenario is enough to make US strategic planners pee their pants - and that's the whole point of this pointed message with its haughty injunction against "leaving uninvited." Now whether Obaid is telling the truth about the allegedly irresistable pro-intervention domestic pressure inside the kingdom that would be brought to bear following a US withdrawal, or is just bluffing, I can't say.

Until Iraqis themselves have reached a political settlement, there is no way that the presence of foreign troops - particularly on behalf of any one particular community - can be a force for stability in Iraq. Perhaps at some point Iraqis will settle on a system of autonomus regions, after which there will be clear spheres of interest with defined borders for foreign forces to police and stabilize. If the Saudis can get the Sunni Arabs to accept such a situation, and the Iranians can similarly prevail upon Shiite groups to accept the same thing, then it is *conceivable* that a peacekeeping presence with the Saudis in Sunniland and Iranians in Shiiteland could help bring stability - conceivable, but still, I think, unlikely.

But right now there is a civil war in Iraq, with violently contending parties struggling for control of the central state. In such a situation, intervening forces with their own sectarian favorites and clients only become part of the war, and serve to expand it beyond its present confines to their own countries.

I'm not so convinced about the need to check Iranian power. Iranian interference in Iraq has been quite restrained so far, considering the circumstances, and I don't think ordinary Iranians are at all eager for a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. And it is not the Iranians who are sending their apparatchiks abroad to to write articles in major American newspapers threatening to invade foreign countries.

One element of a realistic, progressive solution to the disaster is to provide a $5 BILLION budget to these incredibly effective if stressed efforts:

http://www.usip.org/iraq/index.html

Today's Republicans would never think of doing so. Democrats need to begin thinking of what that $5 BILLION can and would do in the next 2 years leading up to a possible change of commander-in-chief. Ask Joseph Nye (and other pragmatists) for some realistic ideas.

After Mr. Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia, you just had to know something was about to shift. I, frankly, take this as something long overdue, but at the same time, it also illustrates just how bad the situation in the whole region has gotten. As you state, Steve, many will see this as escalation, though it seems to me that because of Mr. Bush's horrendous handling of the Iraq war it's actually desperation.

When you couple this with the leaked memo, which now has Maliki canceling, not only the meeting today but dinner with Mr. Bush tonight, it's hard to see how Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt can stay out of the mess in Iraq. Someone competent must push back against Iran. That certainly isn't Mr. Bush or anyone in his Administration at present.

Publius,
\
The Bidens of the world have no say.

The neighbouring nations of Iraq have say as to the future of the region, and its boundaries. I leave it to them and reject any outside interference in a regional settlement of bounds. Common sense dictates partition that satisfies the aspirartions of the Shiite south, the Kurdish north, with the Sunnis being satisfied with Baghdad and being brought under the wing of neighbouring Sunni nations who do have oil and can get US $$$ (Jordan) to help alleviate hardship. Consideration of a "You broke it, you fix it Tax," that would go to the Sunni partitioned region, should be imposed on oil from the region destined for US consumption .

No Shia claims on northern oil; theres plenty in the south; greed must be overcome.

The Sunnis will not be profiting from oil rich territories of the south. They know this. Perhaps a compromise can be worked out between Sunni and Kurd concerning northern oil; its in the best interest of all.

I've asked the Iraqi people if they want continued internal strife and bloodshed, or would they accept partition along sectarian bounds. The Shiite and Kurds said they are amenable to such a solution while the Sunni, not so much unless they are not left completely out in the cold.

The writing is on the wall for all to see. Regional leadership by the Saudis is needed to bring together all players to address partition in the name of avoiding regional chaos.

Publius,

It appears we certainly do share much more in our view of this than separates us. In the interest of continuing an interesting discussion, I have some responses to your points:

1) "The Iranian government has conveyed to Saudi Arabia in unmistakable terms that if the United States attacks Iran and Saudi Arabia does anything other than stay out of the conflict as a neutral by-stander, Iran will attack Saudi Arabia. That constitutes a threat against Saudi Arabia in my book, even if done in a defensive light."

I don't know the veracity of your source, but for the sake of argument I'll accept it as valid; agreed that it is threat, but this still doesn't convey to me a desire to go over the brink into some sort of Armageddon. It seems more like a routine statement given regional and Iranian-Saudi bilateral history.

2) "I have full faith in Iran's adherence to pragmatic and loyal pursuit of its interests. I have zero faith in the current Iranian government's good faith adherence to American national interests in the region."

That to me is not the real question; it's frankly obvious that this would be the case. The real question is can we recognize the areas of overlap between the two? From my point of view there are in fact large zones of overlap between US and Iranian regional interests and it is incumbent on Tehran and Washington to act on them if they seek to avoid conflict.

3) "The Iran of Khamenei/Ahmadinejad is not the Iran of Khamenei/Khatami or Khomeini. Ahmadinejad has displayed that he does not fear the Abyss or he is the world's most strident bluffer. Either way, the course is perilous."

Clearly, Iran's domestic context has changed, although making this claim means you acknowledge that there are indeed moderates in Iran. The prevailing consensus among hardliners in Washington is that there were never any and still aren't any. But also agreed that the course regarding Iran is perilous. No one ever said it wouldn't be--but we certainly have made it worse through our own actions regarding Tehran since 9/11.

4) "Iraq is crawling with Iranian spies, agents and operatives. Good luck to today's CIA in detecting them and their stratagems. Inviting Iran to participate as a "partner" in the reconstruction of Iraq is as idiotic as inviting Al Qaeda elements and Sadr militia members into the Iraqi police force and military, as has been done by the Bush administration's incompetent nation building effort."

I also don't envy the CIA in keeping up with Iran's activities there given the many advantages the Iranians have. But we don't need to naively view constructive Iranian involvement as the silver bullet in order to consider ways in which to work with them and many others to reverse the downward spiral in Iraq (just as viewing them as the bogeyman responsible for everything bad in Iraq is just as misplaced).

5) "What the Bush administration has failed to do is to comprehend that unfettered democratic rule in any nation building experiment, particularly in theocratic Middle East environments, is NOT in our interest. Liberal democracy in the Middle East is in our national interest as well as in the interest of reliable international commerce in the region (oil) and the interest of human rights for all sectarian groups there. Today's Iran would be opposed - I'm certain - to the promotion of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY in Iraq if that were an objective pursued through coherent measures."

Here I do disagree a bit, although there's a lot in your comment.....democracy of any sort would be in our interest if it (a) allows for a pluralistic political system, (b)peaceful transfers of power, and (c) is grounded in indigenous insitutions, making it legitimate and durable. What you're saying, I gather, is that democracy that gives rise to views we don't like is undesirable. Newsflash: Liberal democracy in Iraq is simply unrealistic, and always has been. A more open and stable system, however, isn't necessarily although it looks less and less likely. So whether Iran opposes liberal democracy or not, it really wasn't ever a viable long-term option for Iraq.

6) "Religion. Shi'a or Sunni in the current environment mixed with military and geopolitical calculations = volatile. Far too many analysts speak of Shi'a or Sunni "sectarian differences" as a check box cliche discussion point and with far too little understanding of the interests of the relevant groups and the capacity for combustion when the priorities of that force mixes with the calculus of reason."

I agree that this has rapidly become cliched. But my mentioning of the sectarian schism goes far beyond this sort of superficial analysis. Islam in Iran today, specifically, is different than in the Arab world, for a lot of reasons. Underlying the divisions/tensions between the Shi'a/Sunni conflict is the Arab/Persian divide, a far older and more meaningful cleavage for most Iranians who are not in fact that religious. In addition, Iran is the only regional country that has lived under the rule of the Islamists of the modern type (unlike those in Saudi) and its political culture today is well-informed by that disappointing experience. Although there is some similarity in the rhetoric used by Arab Sunni radicals and that employed by the regime in Tehran (particularly regarding Israel and the US), it masks greatly different perspectives on Islam and regional affairs.

Publius, as for your #5,

It is far less radical to partition Iraq than to descend into regional warfare.

The neighbouring countries full well know this and would welcome a peaceful solution rather than 10 years of bloody strife.

The path of least resistance is thoughtful partition that is in the interest of all.

Aren't things moving quite rapidly, besides being out of Bush's control?
I get the sense that major changes could occur within days, and not for the better.

My first question would be what is the Saudi military going to do different from the US forces that are in Iraq now?

Move in and kill off all the Shi'a forces?

Is that their plan to control the situation?

This is the neo's wet dream. More chaos. And everyone is stepping right into it with threats or bluffs and calculations of how to hold on to their power potty seats when things do blow up.

I suggest that the US immediately and OFFICIALLY give most favored nation status and equal ally protection to EVERY country in the ME...and see what happens then. That ought to confuse the hell out of everyone long enough for everybody including the US to rethink their positions.

There is a wonderful letter that has been written to us today by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Readers of the Washington Note should be particularly encouraged by this communication of hope, as follows

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.

The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.

Noble Americans,

Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.

Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities.

As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.

No day goes by without a new crime.

Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn't?

For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland.

You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it.

Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.

Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.

Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq.

I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.

Noble Americans,

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

My questions are the following:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.

What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US:

The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.

Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history.

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.

To sum up:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.

The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.

We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an:

"But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-68)

I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran 29 November 2006

For all interested in these matters and able to attend this address by an important Iraqi Shi'a decision-maker (who acceded to the religious role after his brother was assasinated in 2003) in Washington on Monday, here are the details:

Reconciling Iraq: The Perspective of HE Sayyed Abdul Aziz Alhakim, president of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

Public Event
Date and Time
Monday, December 4, 2006
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Location
U.S. Institute of Peace
1st Floor Conference Room
1200 17th St, NW
Washington, DC 20036

http://www.usip.org/events/2006/1204_alhakim.html

From Wikipedia:
Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (Arabic: عبد العزيز الحكيم ) (born 1953) is an Iraqi theologian and politician and the leader of SCIRI, the largest political party in the Iraqi National Assembly.

He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. Brother of the Shia leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, he replaced him as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when Mohammed Baqir was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf.

He was born in 1953, the son of Grand Ayatollah Muhsin Al-Hakim, the spiritual leader of the world's Shi'a from 1955-1970. He played a leading role in the Safar Intifada in 1977 and was imprisoned in 1972, 1977 and 1979. He went into exile in Iran in 1980, where he was a founder member in 1982 of SCIRI and headed their military wing, the Badr Brigade. He was the top candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005 but has not sought a government post because the Alliance had decided not to include theologians in the government.

Oh, my!

I forgot to correct the forth paragraph where is written "Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration ...." should be "Were we NOW faced with the activities of the US administration ....."

Looks like nefarious forces tried to sabotage this holiday greeting of Peace from the get go.

This is probably the type if free speech on the internet that Newty had in mind of curbing.

Oh, Happy Day ! Joy To the World ! And Season's Greetings to All.

Oh, Oh, my, my!

A big "Never Mind" on my correction and my allegation. I'm all flushed with excitement that I misread and jumped the gun.

But I still stand by my Holiday wishes to one and all, of course.

I know this is too late to say after you all have read that letter from one we all know to be a madman. But read it as if our own Martin Luther King had written it, or re-frame your thoughts on it as if King wrote it (without, of course, all the Muslim stuff; only the ideas) and we might be able to get a positive message from it instead of the ravings of a madmen who wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth, and never wears a tie looking like an unshaven bum in Salvation Army store clothes!

Steve -

My first reaction when I heard this was to scoff at the Saudis. "Will all 6,000 shiehks now strap on kevlar and chopper into Baghdad?", I wrote at DU.

But, a few hours have given me a chance to think through the consequences of what the pending U.S. withdrawal from Iraq really means. I now think it's more likely that the Saudi Royals will be lined up at the USCIS Asylum Office in Arlington, VA before the second Bush term is over.

I'm also going to buy some long, flannel underwear before Winter sets in here in Washington.

All nervous kidding aside, this looks to be a very mixed-bag for all parties involved:

THE UP SIDE: Six months ago, I would have said War was next. Now, it looks more like the Grand Compromise with Iran that's been urged by realists from a lot of sides for a long time.

There's still plenty of room for spoilers in the kitchen, though. There will be a price to pay for this, of course, and how that breaks down isn't too hard to see. Dubya is being dragged into this with his nails in the sod, the present Israeli government probably will not survive, gas prices may go up and the Dollar down (we did LOSE the war in Iraq, after all), the Chinese are getting ready to dump our bonds (but, maybe have been convinced to again delay that inevitability), and the Russians are delighted.

Keeping my fingers crossed and nose held.

THE DOWN-SIDE: Houston - we have a problem.
If we give Iraq to the Saudis to tussle with Iran, who will likely end up eating the smaller dog? And, then the Turks will have to fight for
Kurdistan, and the Euros will fight us (in the shadows), the Israelis will fight Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Russian and Chinese and the multinational oil companies will clean up after the ashes settle in Saudi Arabia.

Got the picture?

We can't let that happen. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States supply a quarter of the world's oil. What do you think's going to happen to the price of energy if we wipe our hands and go home, leaving them to their own devices?

What do you think is going to happen to the price of oil if we send in the Marines? Same thing.

Either there's a comprehesive regional settlement -- the Grand Compromise that realists have been praying for -- or we're all going to be cold and broke by the end of this Winter.

- Mark

Some small points of issue:

I keep reading this crap about partitioning Iraq, and can only think of two things.
1) Althought the horrendous savagry of the civil war is changing this, real boundaries between the tribal groups -- as was true in Bosnia, as was true in the Former Soviet Union states -- do not exist. Often, members of different tribes live in the same cities, streets, buildings, and bedrooms.
2) What about those Iraqis who do not belong to the three big tribal groups that everyone talks about? What happens to Turkomen, Chaldeans, Christians, and, yes, even Jews in these countries where citizenship, legitimacy, and life are measured by one's membership in a certain tribe?

Next: Has anyone realized that the best thing that could possibly happen to the Suunis in Iraq would be to get cut off from any oil revenues at all? One of the many curses of the countries in the Middle East is the curse of the free ride. Saudi Arabia, of course, is exibit A. Vast, unearned revenues are NOT a good thing. Many Sunnis, before their country was destroyed, were the central corps of the professional middle class in that country, and if they lost access to oil revenues that average Iraqis never saw in any case, they would get real jobs, build back their schools and universities, and probably end up far better off that the Shiia sitting on their pools of oil.

Finally, my two cents on the initial theme of this string: Never happen. Any time a Saudi tells you that he will do something, the only thing certain is that he won't do it. There may be a hidden agenda here, but we will get absolutely nowhere counting on the promises of any Saudi, official or not. They promised to rewrite their textbooks (which form the curriculae of the madrassas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and everywhere else in the world, including in the U.S.) calling on the faithful to kill all non-believers way back in 2001, and it has yet to happen.

The more I think about this Saudi threat/bluff/declaration the worse it becomes.
As I have watched the ME nightmare unfold I occasionally go back to one of the first papers I read three years ago, written in 1992, when trying to educate myself on the US ME attitude and involvement.
I keep going back to it because it explains how all the varied interest of ME countries minipulate the US in our self interested interference in the ME to their own advantage.
What it boils down for me is the realization that a policy of "allies" and "non allies" as a means of insuring US interest is a never ending cycle of de-stablization, not stablization in the ME.
All the game players and jugglers of power bases like to argue that the ME is too complicated, has too many varied interest to ever be a stable region. While it is true that it has complicated quilt, that is the very reason why the US needs to adopt a simpler and more uniform policy for the entire ME.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html

The "Green Peril":
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
by Leon T. Hadar

Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

After reading Ahmadinejad's letter I am firmly convinced that he reads the comments on this blog and has fashioned his letter out of their content. There is little difference between Ahmadinejad's sentiments and those that regularly appear here, and that is no coincidence.

And let me say one more thing.

This idea of 'Balance" Steve refers to is ridiculous..."balancing" Iran seems to mean ensuring the same status quo of Saudi and Israel as powerhouses, not creating a true balance of power in the ME.

Continuing to "protect" Saudi and "protect" Israel as "the powers" is not balance and is not going to work. Not unless you are willing to kill off a lot of people to keep the same old, same old.

I smell a bluff -- one designed specifically on behalf of the Bush regime for consumption of American readers.

Saudi's "army" consists of no more than 200,000 troops, and is known for its absenteeism and lack of discipline. And it does not have a draft.

Iran, on the other hand, has a "regular" army of 350,000 (including 220,000 conscripts), (plus and additional 125,000 strong "revolutionary guard), and requires 18 months of military service for all males. While these "conscripts" do not recieve the same level of training as the professional military, the very existence of a huge pool of former conscripts means that Iran could far more quickly mobilize should the Saudi's attempt to carry out their threat.

Moreover, the Saudi's also know that the "oil weapon" is a very blunt sword indeed.... Saudi Arabia could attempt to ramp up production --- but Iran can very easily prevent most Saudi oil from reaching the marketplace by blocking the Straits of Hormuz (simultaneously preventing Kuwait, Qatar and other US allies from exporting oil as well, driving the price of Iranian oil throught the roof, and putting the US economy into the dumpster.)

So militarily, the Saudi's aren't really a threat to Iran.

Moreover, there are two other factors involved here -- First there is the very strong presence of Sunni fundamentalists who would love to take advantage of the situation, and overthrow the Saudi royal family. Secondly, the Saudi's also have a considerable (15% of the population) Shiite minority that is concentrated in its eastern (and oil producing) provinces --- and the Saudis have a long history of oppression and discrimination against that minority....

In other words, anyone who thinks that the spoiled rotten Saudi royalty would risk everything in order to act on their threat against Iran is nuts. (I fully expect the right-winger to believe it....)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran 29 November 2006

Posted by Katie at November 29, 2006 02:46 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who knows what is in Ahmadinejad's heart..but his letter is excellent PR because it contains observable truths...the reason the US PR hasn't worked on the ME is people believe their own lying eyes.

Posted by p.lukasiak at November 29, 2006 04:12 PM
>>>>>>>>>

You are probably right. I haven't been to Saudi but friends who lived there some years ago said Saudi society in general was as spoiled, if not more so than us Americans..wonder how the Saudi public has reacted to their statements...?

wonder how the Saudi public has reacted to their statements...

my guess is that they see it the same way as most sensible people do -- as "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Like I said in the beginning of my post, this is completely the work of the Bush and Cheney. I personally think that what it signifies is that the ISG will now, contrary to CW of two weeks ago , be calling for a "timetable for phased withdrawn" and from Iraq when it releases its report.

The deterioration in Iraq has been so swift and severe that other "ideas" have been taken off the table as events have progress faster than the "consensus" process -- the "baseline" of those discussions was an Iraq of 3-6 months ago, and Baker et.al. read the papers, and know that is no longer the reality in Iraq.

So this op-ed is Bushco's response -- get Saudi Arabia to issue an IDLE threat of a region wide war if the US leaves "uninvited" as a means of continuing the war for the next two years. Bush simply refuses to admit that he has failed, and has presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history---and rather than face that fact, he will send more thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis to the slaugterhouse.

A little known fact in the general public is that the ISG is a project of USIP, hosting the key event on Monday. The Bush administration's 3 years of disdain for Iraq reconstruction work by USIP as well as the Republican party's contemptuous allocation of funds for USIP's Iraq reconstruction budget bode ill for this administration taking any of its recommendations seriously, bold or vapid. And, no, I am not employed by USIP, but it is richly apparent that their work in Iraq needs massive increases in $upport in the order of billions of dollars.

> Prince Turki al-Faisal and what army?

This is a reasonable question, also raised by p. lukaisak, and I don't see where anybody addressed it, so... Al-Faisal isn't talking about conventional military intervention, the "threat" of crashing oil prices is just posturing, and the Saudis have no intention ever of going to war directly with Iran. What al-Faisal is talking about is sponsoring the insurgency, and especially encouraging jihadis to help out.

Iraq is a classic security dilemma. A Shia-controlled government leaves the (Sunni) insurgency with no choice but to fight to the death, since they would be (are being) decimated anyway. The US departure means the Saudis either have to show that they can protect Iraqi Sunnis, or watch helplessly as Iran gradually replaces SA as the de facto leader of OPEC and 800 lb gorilla of the region. If the only way they can do that is to back the insurgency and try to undermine Iranian influence, then that's what they'll do.

The Saudis don't have any military worth talking about. But what they do have is a lot of influence over a largish population of suicidal proto-guerillas. Mujaheddin may be as close as they can get to force projection (and there's no way in hell that they would take this battle into Iran) but it's nothing to sneeze at either. In fact it's probably enough to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable Shia state for the foreseeable future.

Plus it's familiar territory for them, because Saudi domestic stability depends on quietly encouraging Saudi funnymentalists to take their hostilities out on other countries instead of overthrowing the Royal House. The Royals fund the radicals and tolerate them and infiltrate them -- keeping their friends close and enemies closer, as it were. They've been doing it for a long time, and they're very good at it. If they want fatwas that legitimize attacks on the government of Iraq they know who to talk to. All they have to do is persuade the (secular) insurgency to cooperate with the (theocratic) jihadis.

So yes they can project some force, if they're desperate enough. Yes, it's risky and it wouldn't be decisive, considering how bad the fighting already is. But depending on how much worse things get after the US leaves, they may not feel that they have a better choice. Bad all the way around any way you look at it. Dark clouds, scary monsters, etc.

At some point, the terrorist attacks on the oil supply will spread to other countries if the conflict spreads.
That will be a happy day for the oilmen around Bush.

So yes they can project some force, if they're desperate enough.

good analysis...

that being said, your analysis suggests that the primary motivations for the Saudi royals to support a fundamentalist based (in essence, al Qaeda or a variant thereof) insurgency in Iraq would be to

1) remain the 800 pound OPEC gorilla

2) focus Saudi fundamentalists on targets other than themselves....

I personally don't see reason one as a legitimate motivation --- sure, Saudi's may be "first among equals" right now, but that won't change in the near term if Iran overruns Iraq -- the Iraqi oil infrastructure will take a tremendous amount of time to redevelop, and I don't see the Saudi's taking this kind of serious risk based on this kind of long term factor.

Nor do I see reason two as making a lot of sense, except in the very short term, because it represents a major paradox -- support of an anti-Iranian insurgency will make the Saudi royals even more dependent upon US military support for its defense -- and its the US presence and influence (including the "corrupting" influence of "western values) over the Saudi royals that Islamic fundamentalists most resent.

Ultimately, I agree with someone who wrote above that the most likely outcome of this threat is long lines of disgustingly rich Saudi's seeking "political" asylum in the US and elsewhere.... It will be interesting to see how the US react if/when fundamentalists take over Saudi Arabia, and demand repatriation of the wealth of the exiles -- and a threat to cut off oil if their wealth is not returned to the Saudi people

BMR:

Thank you for your insightful response (Posted by BMR at November 29, 2006 02:18 PM) to my remarks. I wholly agree with everything you said with the exception of this portion below with which I strenuously disagree:

"What you're saying, I gather, is that democracy that gives rise to views we don't like is undesirable. Newsflash: Liberal democracy in Iraq is simply unrealistic, and always has been. A more open and stable system, however, isn't necessarily although it looks less and less likely. So whether Iran opposes liberal democracy or not, it really wasn't ever a viable long-term option for Iraq."

No, I do not quarrel with undesirable international relations outcomes resulting from indigenous democratic policy-making in systems of LIBERAL democracy where a relatively enlightened polity obtains. (Admittedly, this subject warrants a day-long colloquium of back and forth among experts such as the one Fareed Zakaria flirted with in a closed discussion in Washington in 2003 around the time of "Mission Accomplished".)

More specifically, I strenuously disagree with your assertions that "Liberal democracy in Iraq is simply unrealistic, and always has been" and that "whether Iran opposes liberal democracy or not, it really wasn't ever a viable long-term option for Iraq." A review of the history of transitions of illiberal undemocratic societies into comparatively liberal democratic societies (Eastern European states, Germany, Japan and even newly emerging South America and NOT Russia) and a serious investigation into the meager investments at civil society development efforts in Iraq and their results is in order. You will be surprised, and you will see immediately why I advise serious and targeted investments, as does Nye, in "smart power". Democrats now control the purse strings. If they are smart, they will use our funds more wisely than Republicans did in the so far failed nation building enterprise.

Finally, the most salient features of our liberal democratic system are (1) protection of minority and individual rights in such a manner that majority will can be trumped through the power of one or more branches of government and (2) separation (as opposed to permissible influence) of religion from government policy-making.

BTW, Radish gets the prize for most cogent and realistic analysis of the day here.

Publius,
nicely said...
Bush and his razor thin "mandate" majorities have been a perfect demonstration of the illiberal tyranny of the majority which the founders here strove to prevent.
Elections are only a means to totalitarian power for Bush---or ignominity, as seems to be his fate in the end.

Lookie here, fellas and gals, there is not nor will there ever again be an Iraq. Understand fully this, then you will all come around to having to devolve into a controlled partition process that take into consideration the realities of who controls what territories historically and let it fall into place within the strictures of a regional conference whose members wish first and foremost to avoid rip roaring chaos. Deals will be made and the results will resolve the situation unless some party is intransigent in the face of realities and wishes for their own destruction while plunging the region into turmoil. So let's get some serious partition talks going and smoke out al_Qaeda who would be the only entity to want a hell on earth in the ME.

It's hard to see how the Saudis can do much better than us, but it's also hard to see how they could do much worse.

Who knows, maybe the ability to speak the language, a long history of actually having been in the region, and a shrewd appreciation of when compromise is needed might work better than sending in armed uniformed men.

It seems obvious that the Bushies were never serious about Iraq, either from a constitutional inability to be serious, or a simple lack of intellectual ability. I believe that at least the Saudis would approach the task with a high degree of motivation.

Steve, you believe that if the Saudis become engaged in Iraq, it's a good thing to balance Iran. That threat is close to blackmail because the Saudi's engagement in Iraq is a recipe for a regional war that will cripple the oil supply to Europe, China, Japan and India.

I doubt the Saudis will carry out their threat which is aimed at the Democrats.

"Chinese Fire Drill"? Speaking of this and all the preceding posts, amazing how China stays out of the fray. Just how does China fit into the latest scheme and is there anything that the U.S. can learn from oriental wisdom?

O.K., my little brain is tired of all this policy wonkering.

I think I have now made myself sick enough to lay off the news for 12 hours at least after reading Tom, my brain is flat, Freidman's column on how Iraq is not our fault because Arabs and Muslims are a inferior species not capable of being civilized...they just aren't geneticaly suitable for capitalism...er....democracy according to Tom.

Puke, demonize them to invade them, demonize them to take the rap for our failures.

I continue to be frustrated by much of the discussion of the various proposals aimed at accepting the division of Iraq into separate autonomous regions or states. Most of those rejecting these proposals strike me as stubbornly, obstinately resistant to coming to grips with the actual situation in Iraq, and they remain committed against all evidence and rational expectation to an ideal of an Iraqi re-unification that is *never going to happen*.

There are two main groups who do not want a dissolved, divided or federated Iraq: the Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs. Both are struggling for supremacy and outright control of the Iraqi state. The problem is that their competing agendas for an Iraqi future are absolutely incompatible. And the Sunni Arabs are themselves divided into factions with radically different visions of the country's future. Many of the insurgent groups seek an Islamic state on a far more radical plan than anything that exists in Iran, for example.

And yet it is these groups, those who are struggling for a *unified* Iraq, that are now the instigators of the majority of the violence! There are plenty of Kurds and Shiites who seem more than willing to work among themselves in their own provinces and regions for nothing more than home rule. But it is those megalomaniacal fanatics who *can not tolerate* this result - and that includes the United States - who are most responsible for continuing to inject violence into the situation.

The question of division shouldn't be seen as a matter of an "international conference" or some external chamber of wise men drawing lines on a map. The point is to recognize the natural endpoint of a process which is clearly and irrevocably underway, and to decide whether we are going to continue a futile struggle against that process, or work to limit the pain that will be caused by its unavoidable continuation. The point is that, given the conditions that actually now prevail in Iraq, it is the path toward *reunification* that promises to be longer and more corpse-ridden than the continuation of the path toward the devolution of the country formerly known as Iraq.

As part of this process, the Sunni Arabs fighting in the insurgency must be made to understand that while they may never lose, they will also *never win*, and that they must begin to resign themselves to accepting the formula for autonomous regions that has already written into the constitution and that the Kurds and most of the Shiites have already begun putting into effect.

But the insurgents will never stop fighting until they see very clearly that their hopes of restoring their former primacy are empty ones, and that their day as top dog over all of Iraq are over. So far they don't get it, and thus they will continue to fight so long as that hope remains alive. And it will remain alive so long as US policy - a policy built on a fatal attraction to a moribund Iraqi government - encourages those hopes. Right now, everyone can see that the government is doomed, that US commitment to Iraq and its government are finite, and that even if the commitment were deeper we couldn't prop up the Baghdad government indefinitely anyway. And the insurgents continue to hope that when that government falls, they will be the ones to topple it, and will be able to parlay that victory into a reassertion of Sunni power in Iraq. They see the Saigon moment coming, and believe that when that last helicopter leaves the Green Zone, it will be with Sunni Arab forces in hot pursuit on the roof of the building pushing them out.

To firmly and decisively dash these hopes, and to devise for ourselves an exit strategy, we should be working with Iran right *now*. We should *want* the autonomous Shiite communities in Najaf and Karbala and Basra to establish and secure themselves. We should *want* them to have a powerful credible ally in the region against whom the insurgency cannot imagine it will ultimately prevail. If Iranian influence grows in Iraq to the extent that the Sunnis understand that the Shiites are not going to crumble, that Shiite autonomy is established and secure, and that the days of Sunni Arab domination of Iraq are over, that is a *good thing*.

But they will continue to fight so long as they perceive the potential for ultimate weakness in the Shiite community, and continue to perceive that the US will simultaneously refuse to give the Shiites the tools they need to establish their autonomy, and will at the same time refuse to let the Iranians give them those tools.

And they will continue to fiight so long as the US persists in the pursuit of its ridiculous endeavor to impose the rule of the central government in Baghdad upon Anbar province and the Sunni Arab cities and towns in central Iraq. We should not support any process that encourages the Sunnis to believe that they can once again control iraq. But we should also not support the violent extention of Shiite rule over those parts of Iraq dominated by Sunni Arabs. And yet that is what we are doing. It should be quite clear that the people in places like Fallujah will *never accept* such rule.

I am astonished that people would suggest that we should now in effect *switch sides in the war* to help the Sunnis and the insurgency make war against the Shiites and eliminate the Shiite militias. Yes these militias are guilty of brutality and murder. But the Shiite militias have not caused one tenth of the amount of destruction inflicted upon Iraq by the Sunni insurgency, which has been blowing people up by the scores in Iraq with reckless abandon since the beginning of the war.

The dominant political dynamic in Iraq was set in place by the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war that followed in, and then the sanctions and no-fly zone period that followed both. All of these steps encouraged and aided the Shiite and Kurdish movements for autonomy. Most Americans saw these groups as oppressed, and their dangerous moves toward freeing themselves from the control of Saddam and Baghdad as liberatory movements. Well, you know what? These efforts at decentralization and destabilization of the Iraqi state worked. We succeeded in enabling these communities to escape the domination of their Tikriti overlords. And now some have decided at this very, very, very late date that we should try to undo the whole thing, and bring about some miraculous national movement and marriage of opposites in Iraq - or even worse that we should help the former overlords retake the country and re-subjugate their former subjects because we are now worried about the growth of Iranian influence. It's too late. We can't unscrew the pooch. And even if we could, such a reversal and betrayal would be a criminally immoral act.

We never should have embarked on a policy of destroying the Iraqi state and crushing its regime. We should have worked to stabilizze the country, work on some formula for the international rehabilitation of Saddam and his government, and engaged ourselves with that government to push in the direction of modest reform. But we didn't, and now it's too late. Iraq is over, and we're the ones who ended it.

I'm sorry that the Sunni Arabs will be shut out to some extent from profiting as much as they might like from Iraq's riches, and will no longer have their own fountains of petroleum to exploit. well that's tough. They lose. They once ruled ruthlessly as a minority in Iraq, thanks largely to the largesse and indulgence of Western governments. And now the wheels of fortune have reversed.

Iraq is divided, whether we want it to be or not. The process is about 2/3 of the way complete. The Maliki government is meaningless. It is as much a part of the permanent solution in Iraq as the Commonwealth of Independent States was in post-Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe. It is little better than a transitional phase on the road to regional autonomy and we should accept that. Now I know talk of partition, separation etc. raises hideous nightmares in some people's minds. I also understand that it is a tremendous blow to the pride of those who committed themselves to the Iraq Project of 2003 - because it is a tangible and undeniable symbol of failure and defeat. But we really must begin to recognize that the idiot, clueless US drive toward a reunification of Iraq would produce a far worse nightmare than the result of using our influence, and the good offices of influential states in the region, to encourage our respective clients to accept an autonomy scheme.

Far from obsessing about checking Iranian power, the logic of the situation in Iraq and the Middle East demands that we should begin working to make the Iranians become our new best buddies in the Middle East. The scene has shifted. The tumblers have clicked. The equations have been rebalanced. The Middle East is a vastly different place new place than it was just a few years ago. And either we begin to align ourselves with the new reality, or we will continue to pay the price and continue mope around on the losing side of history. Iran is big and strong, and culturally strong, and is going to thrive, and it is going to have strong friends of one kind or anbother. And better us than China or Russia. Let's get on with it. How many Iranian overtures are we going to reject before we grasp the obvious.

As for the talk about the USIG and similar matters, I can't believe people are still talking at this late date about made-in-America "civil society" makeover efforts in Iraq, as though they remained a viable and even relevant option. This is civil war! It's not some think tank project for a bunch of bureaucratic wankers and dreamers.

i guess herb wears a tie and shaves... nice suggestion to think of mlk but perhaps you could think of others differently so that you don't have to transplant them out of their own story..

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Iraq Study Group produces a dud

Where that leaves us......

"clowns to the right of me, jokers to the left, and here I am stuck in the middle with you."

I doubt very much that the SA army will be directly involved; they're weak as piss. What I gather this means is that the Saudi government will begin to openly fund, train and equip Iraqi Sunnis, as well as facilitate international jihadists to fight against the Shia and Iranian influence there. This will help to burnish the Saudi monarchy's reputation among those displeased with its close cooperation with the US, while keeping Saudi jihadists busy (and get a lot of them killed)and, perhaps, stealing bin Laden's thunder. There was a similar rationale for the Saudi role in Afghanistan against the Soviets, i.e., enhance Saudi prestige in the Sunni Arab world, whle keeping local hotheads busy and attention focused away from the corrupt and abusive Saudi regime.

What makes all of this so unreal is, as BMR pointed out early in the thread, that the GWOT appears to have painted us into a corner where our "best" option is for the US to link arms with the Wahhabists. We shit the bed when we invaded Iraq, and we can't unshit it now.

The most recent news of the possible removal of US forces from Al Anbar province may be the first fruits of the Cheney-Saudi meeting. Leave our boys alone and target the Shias -- and thus the Iranians.
IMO Hadley's brief was leaked by Cheney -- he wants the democratic government of Iraq to fail, opening the way to a move against the Shia. GWB had better start looking after his back and getting his food tasted.

> I don't see the Saudi's taking this kind of serious risk based on this kind of long term factor.

Well, I wasn't actually arguing that they were committed to that course of action so much as commenting about what their options are. But I don't think their position otherwise is as strong as you seem to. In the short term, yeah, they're better off keeping their heads down. But in the long run they have to either embrace Iranian regional hegemony or try to postpone/prevent it. I guess loss of influence at OPEC would be a symptom, not the disease.

Otherwise the Iraqi Shia eventually marginalize the Sunnis (which is a terrible embarrassment to royals, who are supposed to be defenders of the faith) and stabilize (minus Kurdistan?) as another Islamic Republic and a close ally of Iran. Which in turn gives Iran a lot of leverage, even with Sunni states like Jordan. How are the Saudis supposed to deal with that, and when do they start?

> support of an anti-Iranian insurgency will make the Saudi royals even more dependent upon US military support for its defense

Ah, see, that there is where I think you're not being anywhere near pessimistic enough. There's a strong chance that at some point soon the royals will no longer be able to rely on US military support, period.

At which point, poof! One of the pillars that props up the monarchy is gone. That doesn't mean that Iran or Iraq can just waltz in and take over the way Saddam took Kuwait, but it does mean that Iran, with the only fully functional army on the Arabian peninsula, would have a hell of a lot of leverage. AFAICT supporting an anti-Iranian insurgency in Iraq would be the Saudis' best bet under that scenario -- they can't beat Iran, but they can, probably, prevent Iraq from settling down into Iran's orbit for many years to come. Only they can't wait until the last minute to get started either.

This is not to dismiss the "long line of rich Saudis" scenario BTW. In practice I suppose the princes will bail out and write checks from London. Also I worry that Does Eat Oats and Dan Kervick are right about partition (I definitely agree with Dan that if we had any sense we'd be sending flowers and chocolate to Iran).

Huh. I have no idea what kind of brain fart caused me to place Iran on the Arabian peninsula. Please substitute "Persian Gulf." Sorry about that.

Hey, what about destabilizing Iran and toppling Syria and going for total victory in the Middle East and reshaping that map for decades if not centuries. Do I hear any votes for that.

It probably is in the longterm US national interest to do just that.

Robert Morrow is probably expressing the fondest wishes of the Bush's inner circle.
Yes, expand the creative destruction.
Heck, why stop with Iran and Syrian? Let's attack Mexico and Madagascar too! Nothing to lose!

Hey, what about destabilizing Iran and toppling Syria and going for total victory in the Middle East and reshaping that map for decades if not centuries. Do I hear any votes for that.

sounds good to me...but can we wait until they've converted by car to run on tap water?

*************

How are the Saudis supposed to deal with that, and when do they start?

well, since we're looking at it from a long term perspective, I think building a credible military deterrent would be effective --- that combined with a mutual defense treaty with (and helping to fund the modernization of the military of) nations like syria, eqypt, and jordan would give Iran considerable pause before they started acting like a regional hegemon.

I am with Robert Morrow on this.

Create total chaos over there and have oil prices hover around $214.67 a barrel for 6 yrs.

Then with the decadent American economy destroyed, Americans will be suffering so much that they will be coming home to Jesus by the 10s of millions, and hardcore traditional American values will take firm roots again for each of our family's survival.

Our decadent society will be rightly destroyed on a Biblical scale and we can start anew to rebuild our world in the image of how they lived on Leave It to Beaver.

Hallajuleah, and Praise the Lord, who verily did send Our President as the avenging Archangel.

I must say this has been a most useful and illuminating debate. Even the comments of Robert Morrow were welcome, as they reminded me just how juvenile and ill-informed this nation's policy of "creative destruction" has been these last few years.

I've long resisted the idea of partitioning the country formally known as Iraq, but after reading through the above, I suspect supporting planning for that inevitable outcome is indeed the best course. Someone mentioned "oriental wisdom" and that is one lesson we can take from the East: much better to work with prevailing forces rather than against them.

So, let's say that Iraq is divvied up, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, the eastern, wealthier region achieving a stable orbit within the Iranian sphere, with the poorer, western parts propped up with Saudi oil revenues. While we're at it, let's also suppose that, as p.lukasiak suggests, the Saudis fund and promote stronger militaries in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, to counterbalance Iranian efforts towards regional hegemony. We might even hope that some manner of tolerably peaceful detente is achieved in the process, but where is Israel in all this? I'm no expert, but it seems hard to imagine Israel's present government sitting on their hands while Iran's influence grows and the Saudis build up modern armies on Israel's doorstep.

Publius,

Your point regarding democracy promotion is noted (Posted by PUBLIUS at November 29, 2006 06:56 PM); I guess what I really meant to say is that a liberal democracy creation project in the hands of this administration was never a likely prospect.

For what it's worth, given Iran and Turkey's modern political experiences, I still think that full-blown liberal democracy is a worthy but lofty goal in this region. It's not that "those people" don't "deserve it" or "want it"--it's primarly that given their institutional weaknesses by and large I think the emphasis needs to be on a movement away from arbitrary/authoritarian politics and toward one where peaceful coexistence, growing pluralism and civil society take root. Ideally this would be grounded in indigenous institutions for the process to really be legitimate, especially in a region where external intervention and the illegitimacy that arises from it has been demonstrated to be largely doomed. This is something that was less of an issue in Japan, Germany, or Eastern Europe--all of whom had relatively extended experience with the institutions and forms of republican governance in one form or another and were not just carved out in the past 70 years. A more appropriate example might be Latin America, but Latin American in the 19th century following independence. Minority rights are indeed important--we just need to find a way to bring about the more fundamental transformations in a way that allows those dimensions to take root in a timely fashion.

That's my $.02.....

I can't agree that it's good for the Saudis to be involved in Iraq in the way described. What you're going to get is a thousand Zarqawis -- bunch of al-Qaida-oid lunatics blowing themselves up and sawing peoples' heads off. I do agree, though, that we've got to get out and let the chips fall where they may. There's nothing -- *nothing* -- that we can do to stop this train. We're better off getting off now than riding it to the final blow-up.

I want to commend Publius for stating expressly what the Administration only hints at. Liberal Democracy produces governments that serve their own people. American policy has never been about helping the Arabs. Hence, the stated "desire" to build a liberal democracy in the ME is a farce. Bush demonstrates this when he claims that regional actors who do not support the US are not "legitimate" democractic actors. Iraq has exposed our hypocrisy.

Now like Michael Richards and Mel Gibson, we might want to engage on a journey of healing....

I'm not sure that Steve is entirely wrong in his assessment of a possible Saudi intervention in Iraq following an American withdrawal.

Although Iran is far the more populous country with a larger military, Saudi forces are better trained and equipped than the poorly Iranians armed forces and would enjoy logistical support from the US. In addition, the Iranians would be under no illusions that direct military action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be tolerated by the US; even after a humiliating retreat from Iraq, we would more than retain the capability of thwarting and vigorously punishing with air and naval forces in the region any move against Saudi territory or Saudi forces in Iraq.

Also, the Saudi intervention would differ in degree and in kind from that currently shouldered by the US. Rather than attempting to impose order and a broadly acceptable political solution upon the entire country, the Saudis mission would most likely be limited to the defense of a sympathetic population in areas of the country in which that community is dominant. No need to impose order on a hostile population nor to maintain any pretense of impartiality. In fact, openly siding with and defending Sunni areas, the Saudi's could effectively marginalize the Sunni insurgency.

I am also unconvinced that the House of Saud would be deterred from intervention by fears of a domestic Sunni backlash. I would expect the threat of Sunni extremism to impel the monarchy towards rather than away from intervention. A Saudi royal house that idly observes the destruction of the Arab Sunni community in Iraq would discredit itself to its own population and actually strengthen the hand of radical Sunnis who denounce the royals as decadent leaches and western puppets.

While I agree that American withdrawa