What is up with the Washington Post...

First off, this MAJOR story was buried on page A23 of the print edition --- and despite the gloss that Steve tries to put on it (that Turki is quitting because dealing with the political games being played in Saudi Arabia are "a waste of his time, energy, and beneath him") its pretty obviously a signal that Turki is on the losing end of some kind of power struggle going on in Saudi Arabia. (I mean, who ever heard of a professional diplomat for whom "political games" was not part of the very atmosphere that sustained him?)

I'm beginning to suspect that "official Washington" is now trying to avoid admitting that something very bad has happened in Saudi Arabia -- and that the country is being taken over by supporters of radical Sunni fundamentalism. How else to explain this paragraph...

"Young Saudi men have joined the Sunni insurgency as foreign fighters, while there have been persistent reports that Saudi citizens have provided financial aid to the Sunni insurgency."

Now, what we are talking about here is Saudi men going to fight in Iraq for al Qaeda, and Saudi citizens providing financial support to al Qaeda's efforts in Iraq. EVERYBODY knows this -- so why doesn't the Post admit it?

And the only reason I can come up with is that nobody is ready to admit what is really happening in Saudi Arabia -- that we've lost an "ally in the war on terror" thanks to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.

Steve- Is this a rebuke to Turki, or is he possibly being recalled for a higher position at home? (In light of foreign minister al-Faisal's ailing condition?)

Paul- I agree there is more going on behind the curtain than we can know, but there's a wide gap between young Saudi men volunteering for and Saudi citizens contributing to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and jihadist causes in general, and the notion that KSA has been taken over by bin Laden followers.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia was founded on an alliance between the Saud family and salafist/Wahhab fundamentalists, so radical Sunni Islam influencing Saudi affairs is nothing new. What would be new would be fringe outcasts like bin Laden gaining traction among the Saudi elite, but I don't see where we've seen any indication of that happening

Saudi internal machinations are what they are. I cannot believe however that it is something that simple. I suspect sides are being drawn to decide policy for the coming Shia Sunni sectarian war in Iraq. The Shia popualtion in the Gulf States is concentrated in the oil regions.The house of Saud crumbles like a sand dune without them and they cannot hold unto their titles as the keeper(s)of the holy lands/places w/o them either.

Isn't the US now in the illogical and inconsistent position of tilting toward Iranian proxies in Iraq, fighting against Sunni insurgents in Iraq and, at the same time, our administration and energy industry deeply invested in the Saudi royal family? Wasn't much of the neo-con rhetoric about autocratic governments in the ME implicitly anti-Saudi (an argument for invading Iraq was to get independence from the Saudis), yet the Realists are close to the Saudis. It appears that this contradiction within the American leadership is coming to a head. Is this story part of that larger story?

"Paul- I agree there is more going on behind the curtain than we can know, but there's a wide gap between young Saudi men volunteering for and Saudi citizens contributing to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and jihadist causes in general, and the notion that KSA has been taken over by bin Laden followers."

I wouldn't say "followers"... more like "sympathizers". And one of the factors that may be in play is that there are now a couple of generations of young men who entered the Saudi Army as adherents to a "fundamentalist" version of Sunni theology, and who are being radicalized by events in Iraq.

While the saudi elites have been "paying off" fundamentalists for 15 years and "exporting" the worst of their problem, this process of accomodation cannot last without it reaching a tipping point somewhere along the line. Obaid's "threat" of support for the Sunni insurgency wasn't in support of the Baathists, and Steve anonymous source who talked about realignment of most of the 22 states in the mid-east wasn't talking about becoming Baathists either.

What I'm suggesting here is that Saudi Arabia is about to become the Sunni fundamentalist equivalent of a Constitutional Monarchy -- while the King and the Court retain their official titles (and most of their perquisites), the real power is devolving to the clerics.

GOING HOME FOR A PROMOTION

My pals tell me that he is going home in preparation for elevation to the position of Foreign Minister.

John Stuart

Prince Turki, however, has been a significant "truth-teller" to the Bush administration and has been one of the key players in resurrecting the Saudi proposal on Palestine-Israel negotiations.

What point is there to someone "truth-telling" when they're not listening? You can lecture a brick wall all you want, for all the good it will do you. Steve Clemons seems to think that, if you just treat Bush and crew like reasonable human beings, they'll come around and see reason. What on earth does he base that belief on?

I agree that there is more going on than is contained in Steve's current post. And I agree with earlier posters that something very bad may have happened, i.e. Saudi Arabia has decided to assert itself in the region in ways that do not coincide with US strategies (whatever they are--who knows?)

Remember that Saudis have gone around El-Faisal twice recently. First, Cheney was summoned to speak directly with the King, who had to have been dissatisfied that Cheney was not getting the message and that El-Faisal was not effective in getting it delivered. Second, El-Faisal's assistant Nawaf Obaid--not El-Faisal--spoke directly to the Washington Post to deliver the same message. Part of the message was that "Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region."

The Sunnis in Iraq will not be left to twist in the wind.

Dean Acheson >"...What on earth does he base that belief on?"

Wishin and hopin

"...The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information..." - Henry Wallace

Yup, I heard the same thing: heading home for a promotion, which will it be?

Here is the link to the FM story. http://agonist.org/node/37251/103578#comment-103578

John Stuart - I have heard the same that Prince Turki might be promoted --- but also hear from insider sources about really crappy palace intrigue....both may be true.

steve

An educated guess that Turki was summoned by his brother to seal the deal on succeeding Saud as Foreign Minister is probably all that this amounts to.

Clemons' speculation about "truth-telling" and the Palestinians is the standard liberal trope on this rather routine story.

Except for the fact that Saud has been Foreign Minister for over thirty years, it is routine.

Some French G-Town professor laughably puts Turki in the line of succession. That was just to butter up Turki if he's FonMin. Senzec is this obsequious little academice victim's name.

I think that the question of whether or not he's going back to take over the foreign ministry is not nearly as significant as the FACT that the guy left with the kind of suddenness that one would expect only in a crisis situation.

I mean, I've just "up and quit" jobs.... but I'm not a senior member of the diplomatic corps. Add to that the "spend more time with his family" excuse.... well, the whole thing smells like a fish warehouse after a three day power outage....

Does the following have anything to do with the ambassador's return to his country?

---------------

Saudi clerics seek help for Iraqi Sunnis

RIYADH: 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.

The statement appearing on Saudi Islamist Web sites on Monday said Sunni Muslims were being murdered and marginalised by Shiites, backed by Iran, and the US-led forces. [...]

http://tinyurl.com/wa59w

If he were heading home for a promotion, don't you think he would step down a little more, er, diplomatically?

Unless, of course, some of that palace intrigue does not allow for the luxury of a few extra days for a little preparation and maybe a send-off party.

There may be inner Saudi issues coming to bear here, I think rather that the position of the US/Dubya has put him/Saudis in an untennable position vis a vis Shiite/Sunni relations.

Gee, all I can say is never in recent history has the term "can of worms" been more apt than it is today in the ME. No telling who or what will find it's way out of this maze.

John Stuart -- After more digging, I would be highly surprised if this were all cosmetics before ascending to the Foreign Minister job. That could come later -- but I have confirmed some really complicated back and forth rivalries and petty back-stabbing by political rivals. Prince Turki quit because he's not interested in further gaming with people he things are idiots -- and who are cousins...

steve

My guess is that Turki Al-Faisal simply does not want to be the guy to preside over the breakdown between the Saudis and the White House. At some point in recent history, the Saudis decided they were no longer down with the experiment in Iraq. That certainly came through loud in clear in the ISG report.

Way back when, Cheney almost certainly promised our Sunni allies that Tehran and Damascus would fall soon after Baghdad -- so the idea of a Shiite government in Iraq wasn't so bad for the Saudis. Sure, they would be Shiites - but they would be friendly Shiites, with more friendly Shiites in Iran, and the Shiite autocracy toppled in favor of the majority Sunnis in Syria. If the neocon plan succeed, everyone would benefit.

As things have eroded, however, the Saudis have seen the writing on the wall. The Shiite government in Iraq will not be followed by the fall of Tehran and Damascus. In fact, it will strengthen Iran's position considerably.

Perhaps Cheney is still trying to persuade the Saudis that Iran is next. I certainly wouldn't put it past him. But even if that's the case, the Saudis have said loud and clear: "We don't buy it. We won't stand by and let you install a Shiite government in Iraq, even if you THINK you can topple the regime in Iran before 2008. You guys are lameducks and your own people hate you."

One interesting side note: I see Israel's interests matching Saudi Arabia's quite closely in Iraq. Will they tire of Cheney's quest too?

Owenz: An Israeli-Saudi cooperation will be the final nail in the coffin for the House of Saud, completely their complete loss of legitimacy. The protector of the two holy places lines up against other Muslims with the Zionists? Doubtful. How are they gonna teach that about face in a madrassa?

Chris Nelson on the Saudi recall: http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20061212/nelson_on_saudi_recall

Posted by Matthew at December 12, 2006 06:01 PM
>>>>>>>>>>

I think you are right. It's just going to be impossible for the Saudis to straddle two horses forever. Trying to protect their fiefdom puts them in bed with Israel right now..and incidently Israel has always wanted to bring down Saudi's power and influence with the US..but now I think everyone and I mean everyone.. has lost control of their strageties and is playing musical chairs.

my guess is that it is worse than you can imagine.

the turk's departure is a recall. the house of saud has recalled its legate.

they smell the overarching odor of desperation amongst the bushits. they may even smell that the desperate bushits have caved to an alliance with the shia to exterminate the sunni's, thinking that will end the sectarian war, will make bushit become victorious.

it may have been the interview with the ignorant dem, silvestre reyes, that put them over the edge.

yes james baker's law firm, baker & botts, represents the saudi royal family. and yes, ghwbush has had long-term commercial relationships with the house of saud.

but, george walker bushit and dick 'em cheney don't kowtow to these older gangsters. both are crazed psychopaths. and if not that far gone, are so deep into mossad/shin bet extortion/blackmail that they are no longer free agents.

saudi arabia has new pals now. china. russia. venezuela. and they have noticed that the usa is a very large paper tiger. broke and militarily incompetent.

the war for the world is on. islamic states will be joining in a hydrocarbon embargo, i think.

the united states of amerika is going down. on the bushit/ cheney watch.

who will sign the surrender documents do you think?

Everybody here is much more knowledgeable than me, but it seems like Shi'a can wipe out the Sunnis without any help from us. But stepping back wouldn't allow Bush to take credit for bringing about a "resolution" in Iraq, now, would it?

Just maybe key players in the ME have awoken to find that the real "Axis of Evil" is the U.S./Israeli duo.

Whatever the truth behind the 'foreigner's gently parodic homage to the American tradition of political white lies', I find it hard to believe that a by all accounts capable, no-nonsense ambassador would just sneak out of town and leave the management of Saudi-US relations up in the air at precisely this super-critical juncture. Can anybody think of a more dramatic situation in the ME - with so many cards on the table? If it is not some kind of major internal affairs emergency but simply a prince getting tired of squabbling with his cousins, then it is a profoundly reckless and irresponsible thing to do.

Saudi-US relations will be managed quite ably regardless of whether Turki al-Faisal is sitting in Washington, Geneva or Riyadh, to be sure.

Zalmay Khalilzad is probably doing some serious management of such relations, among others, at this very moment, no doubt.

I think I heard Steve on BBC tonight...I was in another room and not watching TV but thought I heard the tail end of something and then Steve Clemons name mentioned....did anyone see this?
Maybe I imagined it from checking WN to often today.

The question as yet left unanswered is what exactly took place between Cheney and the Saudis? Did it concern dollars and euros?
What place does Turki-al-Faisal’s abrupt departure occupy in the over all picture?
The Cheney-Bush administration has walled itself into a corner. How can they hope to hold onto the oil reserves without more troups? They cannot institute a draft which would be the only way to provide boots on the ground. The Democratic congress and public opinion would not allow it; it would be the equivalent of slipping nooses over their own heads.
Until now the US had more to offer than anyone else in the ME. Since this is no longer the case and since, for the Saudis, sustaining their own regime and its finances is front and foremost the monetary choices of China are certainly of prime importance.
It seems they are already supporting the Sunnis in the region. In what currency will that support continue? Whar is Turki-al Faisal's position?
I think there are lots of questions and few options.

Thanks Carroll --

I was on BBC World News last night commenting on the Iraq Study Group and on President Bush's meeting with al-Hashimy.

best, Steve

Turki resigns from being security chief. 11 days later, 911 takes place.

Turki resigns from being ambassador to the UK. Days after he abruptly quits, the London bombings take place.

Once again, he resigns as ambassador to the US with no excuse. For his sake, and for Saudi Arabia's, there better not be another attack on the US.

Perhaps Cheney is still trying to persuade the Saudis that Iran is next. I certainly wouldn't put it past him.
SkinProof