Telegraph UK: Saudis And Iran Prepare To Do Battle Over Corpse Of Iraq

[Mark E. Smith]

12/02/2006 Telegraph UK

The gulf's two military powers, Sunni-Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, are lining up behind their warring
religious brethren in Iraq in a potentially explosive showdown, as expectations grow in both countries that
America is preparing to pull out its troops.

The Saudis are understood to be considering providing Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support
and even arms, as Iran already does for Shia militia in iraq.

The strategy - outlined in an article last week by Nawaf Obaid, a senior security adviser to the kingdom's
government - risks spiraling into a proxy war between Saudi and Iranian-backed factions in the next
development in Iraq's vicious sectarian conflict.

Saudi Arabia, America's closest ally in the Arab world, is considering backing anti-US insurgents because
it is so alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq will be left to their fate - military and political - at the hands of the Shia
majority.

President George Bush sent vice-president Dick Cheney to Riyadh last weekend after the Saudis demanded
high-level talks about their concerns. They told him Iran was trying to establish itself as the dominant
regional power through its influence in Iraq, lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/wirq03.xml&site=5&page=0

Little Georgie's vanity war in Iraq. The gift that just keeps on giving.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Iran: "America destroyed all our enemies in the region."

Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.

"America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein… The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat — not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes".

Bush made Iran the most influential nation in the Middle East. Iran's influence extends to the resurgent Hizbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in Palestine. Israel is less secure than ever, thanks to Bush and those misguided Zionists that supported his war in Iraq. The damage to America in the region is long lasting and incalculable.

[Doctor_J]

3. No, only one mistake

"They made many mistakes"

The only mistake we made was letting a drunken loser and his puppeteers run the country for six years.

[goforit]

15. The Saudis get involved with a real war? War has always been untouchable.

The Saudis get their hands dirty?

Spilling American blood for their profits is more prefered.

[Bicoastal]

21. Zionists?

Gotta take issue with that term. These were modern-day crusaders who want to (in Coulter's words) "kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity." At any rate, there are no Jews in Bush's cabinet (that I know of), and Zionism has to do with building a Jewish homeland in Israel, not conquering the entire Middle East. Israel's safety may have come up once or twice in the context of Iraq, but never more often than WMDs or Osama.

Don't kid yourself--these guys only care about the countries in that region with oil.

[Tempest]

26. Jews in Bush's administration and cabinet

Not making a statement here, just pointing out that there are/were Jews in Bush's administration contrary to your belief.

Ari Fleischer
White House Press Secretary

Josh Bolten
Deputy Chief of Staff

Ken Melman
White House Political Director

David Frum
Speechwriter

Brad Blakeman
White House Director of Scheduling

Dov Zakheim
Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)

Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense

I. Lewis Libby
Chief of Staff to the Vice President

Adam Goldman
White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

Chris Gersten
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and
Families at HHS

Elliott Abrams
Director of the National Security Council's Office for Democracy, Human
Rights and International Operations

Mark D. Weinberg
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs

Douglas Feith
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Michael Chertoff
Head of the Justice Department's criminal division

Daniel Kurtzer
Ambassador to Israel

Cliff Sobel
Ambassador to the Netherlands

Stuart Bernstein
Ambassador to Denmark

Nancy Brinker
Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin
Ambassador to Singapore

Ron Weiser
Ambassador to Slovakia

Mel Sembler
Ambassador to Italy

Martin Silverstein
Ambassador to Uruguay

Jay Lefkowitz
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy
Council

[Bicoastal]

28. Man, there's no denying that.

Well, that's the last time I trust anonymous chain e-mails for political info.

What do you think of the other stuff I wrote, though?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. You keep... a list... of Jews...

What are some of your other hobbies?

[Tempest]

31. Ever heard of the "Internets"?

You've never used Google I take it.


Jeez, what passes for intelligence in some people.

[Lisa]

39. actually, my peace group has an even higher ratio of Jews to non-Jews

(by the way, David Frum, he of the "axis of evil", was booted off the speechwriting staff some time ago)

I suspect that if there were an all-Jewish showdown between those who happen to be PNACers, and whose who oppose that view, the PNAC side would be flattened! I'd pay to see Stephen Lewis putting Paul Wolfowitz in a headlock (actually Stephen is way too diplomatic for that, but his son Ari might oblige!).

[Doctor_J]

2. When we support the Saudis in this war, will Tehran have to

go thermo? I have this fear that Smirk may be forcing the unthinkable.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Choosing a "winner" aka the Shias is a recipe for a regional war

There are more Sunis than Shia, who are seen as heretics. The Sunis of the world will support the Sunis of Iraq in order to prevent the Shia from ethnically cleansing them. Nothing good will come out of this war, for anyone. This is like a modern day version of World War I, a war that destroyed an entire generation and that had lasting consequences long after everyone of that generation died.

[ninkasi]

5. Heck of a job, Bushie

[BrotherBuzz]

6. Chapter two

Thanks asshole Bush* for allowing this mess to turn into the "Mother" of all Regional wars.

A POX on you and your family!

[Mark E. Smith]

8. So if Riyadh is going to help the Sunnis ..

.. does this mean they'll be joining those other Saudis who are already helping them? You know, al-Qaeda?

Funny how things go around.

[Trajan]

7. War ! ... War ! ... War ! ... War ! ... War ! ...

Can the war drums be silenced before greater catastrophe occurs ? ....

Have the Neocon's unleashed a tiger in the ME ? ....

[LynnTheDem]

9. Usama bin Laden; al Qaeda. Sunni. Saudi Arabia.

By the way, Iran, you don't gloat alone; bush also destroyed OBL's #1 enemy; Saddam Hussein.

"We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."
-Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni /

[psychopomp]

14. That is a great article

Thanks

[Barrett808]

10. Back to the Cold War model: proxy armies fighting our battles for us

That's progress. :eyes:

[Lisa]

36. could rapidly turn into a not-so-proxy direct showdown ...

Progress, indeed.

[teryang]

11. The American approach has been dead wrong for years

The reason? It's an ignorant ideological approach, which doesn't deal with reality and in the process abandons true statecraft. We have created a state of war in Iraq and international crisis and instability with our fraudulent neo-Rhodesian invasion of Iraq. It was the dumbest thing we could have done. Iran isn't becoming the regional power, it is the regional power. The Saudi's aren't a military power worth speaking about, they are an endangered regime.

You can't isolate Moqtada from the so called Iraqi government, he is one of two pillars of its existence. He holds the balance of power. Whether he is with or against the Bahdr militia determines whether a Shia dominated Iraq will exist.

We have no choice given Iran's pre-eminence in the region but to withdraw and back the Sunni insurgency. Without our presence to complicate the civil war, the warring factions will be forced to negotiate with each other, not us.

The object isn't a Sunni dominated or Shia dominated government- it is to force the parties to reach a political accomodation. With us out of the picture, a temporary cease fire would be possible. The current government is irrelevant. I don't believe a cease fire would last but it would give warring factions an opportunity to stake out their positions. Conditions not met will result in further attrition. Attrition will force the parties to come to the table again. After repeated cycles of negotiation and violence a new government will be formed and the Bremer colonial constitution written by Americans to advance their globalist corporate agenda will be thrown on the ash heap of lost causes where it belongs.

[pscot]

12. Sunnis comprise 18.5%

of Iraqs population. Shia are 55%, Kurds 21% plus a miscellany of smaller ethnic groups. (Wikipedia) The Saudis might like to help the Iraq Sunnis, but they are vastly outnumbered by the Iranians and Syrians. Involvement in a sectarian war in Iraq is a dangerous game for the Saudis. It will piss off the neighbors and the Saudi royal family has a lot to lose. The Sunnis in Iraq fueled this insurgency from the beginning, then they made a huge mistake by refusing to participate in elections. Makes you wonder what they were thinking.

[amandabeech]

32. The Kurds are primarily Sunni.

They are not, however, Arab.

If the Kurds get into any of this, don't expect the Turks to sit on the sidelines.

The Turks, are, in the most part, Sunni and are not Arabs.

[MrPrax]

13. The Green Belt Strategy moves along...

from a book review of Robert Dreyfuss's Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam

"...The United States spent decades cultivating Islamists, manipulating and double-crossing them, cynically using and misusing them as Cold War allies, only to find that it spawned a force that turned against its sponsor and with a vengeance. Like monsters imbued with artificial life, radical imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs stalk the landscape, thundering not only against the United States but against freedom of thought, against secular science, against nationalism and the left, against women's rights. Some are terrorists, but far more are just medieval-minded religious fanatics who want to turn the calendar back to the seventh century.

During the Cold War, from 1945 to 1991, the enemy was not merely the USSR. According to the Manicheann rules of that era, the United States demonized leaders who did not wholeheartedly sign on to the American agenda or who might challenge Western and in particular U.S. hegemony. Ideas and ideologies that could inspire such leaders were suspect: nationalism, humanism, secularism, socialism. But subversive ideas such as these were also the ones most feared by the nascent forces of Muslim fundamentalism. Throughout the region the Islamic right fought pitched battles against the bearers of these notions, not only in the realm of intellectual life but in the streets. During the decades-long struggle against Arab nationalism -- along with Persian, Turkish, and Indian nationalism -- the United States found it politic to make common cause with the Islamic right.

More broadly, the United States spent many years trying to construct a barrier against the Soviet Union along tis southern flank. The fact that all of the nations between Greece and China were Muslim gave rise to the notion that Islam itlsef might reinforce that Maginot Line-style strategy. Gradually the idea of a green belt along the "arc of Islam" took form. The idea was not just defensive. Adventurous policy makers imagined that restive Muslims inside the Soviet Union's own Central Asian republics might be the undoing of the USSR itself, and they took steps to encourage them.

The United States played not with Islam -- that is, the religion, the traditional, organized system of belief of hundreds of millions -- but with Islamism. Unlike the faith, with fourteen centuries of history behind it, Islamism is of more recent vintage. It is a political creed with its origins in the late nineteenth century, a militant, all-encompassing philosophy whose tenets would appear foreign or heretical to most Muslims of earlier ages and that still appear so to many educated Muslims today. Whether it is called pan-Islam, or Islamic fundamentalism, or political Islam, it is an altogether different creature from the spiritual interpretation of Muslim life as contained in the Five Pillars of Islam. It is, in fact, a perversion of that religious faith. That is the mutant ideology that the United States encourages, supported, organized, or funded. It is the same one variously represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, by Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, by Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox Wahhabism, by Hamas and Hezbollah, by the Afghan jihadis, and by Osama bin Laden..."

American Empire Project

Notice how whenever the US gets involved in any of these countries, they end up even closer to Islam fundamentalism that was the case. But in all fairness, Haig usually gets tacked with the 'grand strategy' when in fact it was Ziggy's big plan. (Haig's speech writer for a time was Wesley Clark and he thought it was a boffo idea BTW. He was also NATO commander when the US thought it a great idea to invite al-qaeda into Bosnia, to help train the Bosnia muslim minority...but that's a whole other story)

In fact it was Ziggy and Carter that funnelled support to the Ayatollahs, including support Khomeini in Paris. Shortly after the revolution in Iran, Ziggy met with the new Iranian PM in Morocco to talk about support. This was the short period where Andrew Young, US ambassador to the UN, called Khomeini 'a 20th century Saint'.

It was suspected that these talks were what triggered the Embassy attack. Student elements in the revolution didn't want any more dealings with the US, so they figured taking the Embassy would put the kibosh to any further talks. The administration figured it would be over shortly and Khomeini figured that it might be good for leverage to get a better deal.

The fact of the matter is that it should have been a wake up call to the US, but it wasn't. It would appear that nothing is a 'wake up' call anymore.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Saudi Arabia: 22,500,000 people; Iran: 68,600,000 people

Couple this with the numerical superiority of the Shiites in Iraq, and it doesn't sound like such a great prospect for the Saudis.

Any version of this would be an absolute disaster for humanity and the biosphere.

Allah Akbar, dudes.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. You could have said the same about Saddam's war against Iran

Very similar numbers.

That war was ruinous for both countries, but Iran didn't walk over Iraq in that one.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Well said, but back up a second here...

The relative strengths are about the same, and for all the initial gains Hussein made, it bogged down into something akin to World War 1 and the end result was basically a territorial status quo.

Look at this mess, though: the status quo now is that the Shiites control the south of the country, many of the oil fields and all access to the Persian Gulf. If a crazed war of attrition were to erupt here, who's to say that it wouldn't end with the same general lines? Those lines would be that the southeastern part of Iraq would be under Shiite control; that's a very big overall loss for us, since they're playing nice and letting our convoys go through at the moment.

Meanwhile, of course, the Kurds go wild and Turkey, Iran and Syria either gang up to stomp them in a regional war of ethnic separatism or do it piecemeal. Turkey, Iran and Syria ALL have sizeable areas of ethnic Kurds and are unwavering in their desire to keep these under their control. The Kurds, heady with having essentially governed themselves for the past decade plus may think this is the time to make the big move. History is rife with such gross miscalculations.

If ANY version of this happens, how do we supply our troops? Virtually everything comes through the Persian Gulf and Kuwait. This would stop immediately. Supply through Turkey isn't much of an option due to geography and the Kurdish issue. Supply through Jordan or Saudi Arabia are equally difficult, fraught with danger and expensive.

You seem to have a good understanding of what's going on and what's gone on, but any version of these things happening would be MUCH worse than the Iran-Iraq War. That was a war between two sovereign and stable entities with everyone else ducking for cover. ANY version of this conflict will have other countries sticking their noses in and will have separatist groups like the Kurds maneuvering for opportunity. Quite a different kettle of fish.

What will the Syrians do, join with the Saudis? That could bring forth some of the oddest bedfellows in history: the Israelis supporting the Sunni Saudis and Syrians. Surely Israel can't sit it out completely.

Big honkin' mess. Anyone who wants to make it seem simple is missing the point. Expansion along these lines will be more complex, messier and costlier than anything ever in that region.

Now let's talk about oil. This will cause major anxieties and will probably crash the world's economy. Think that's alarmist? Yep, but a REAL possibility.

These people are seriously angry with each other, and when whipped up with the ultimate irrational ugliness of religion, bad things are on the horizon.

George W. Bush is the biggest disaster ever brought forth by humanity; he destroys everything he touches and has a unique talent for fucking up things that are even out of his reach.

This is most alarming.

[happydreams]

18. I hope Iran knocks the shit out of Saudi Arabia!!

That would be a body blow to terrorist financing. Remember 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/01 were Saudi.

Iran is fated to be top dog in the region. Hell they even have US F-14 Tomcats to help them. :crazy:

[fujiyama]

24. LOL

They have fighters - that are frequently crashing and falling apart due to no spare parts. Of course, the Saudis have US fighters and other equipment which they aren't really trained to operate.

But, you bring up an interesting point as to how many countries have US fighters and weapons due to our shortsighted goals.

This is really one hell of a mess. And as usual, our arrogant, idiotic government which never learns from history, will likely back the Saudis, in turn helping one of the largest state sponsors of terror.

We should get the fuck out of Iraq and let the Saudis and Iranians beat each other over it. Unfortunately, I fear misguided policies will be a part of a future Democratic administration as well. After all, Carter initially funded the Afghan Mujahadeen.

[happydreams]

27. World sure does turn in mysterious ways. Iran

might be the instrument that stops terrorist funding. It's going to be real interesting to see how the Democrats deal with this. I don't think Iran would invade Saudi Arabia without some serious brinkmanship games first. The Dems would probably threaten them with carpet bombing.

If I was in the drivers seat I would signal that the US is going to investigate the crimes of dictator Bush and that we have strong evidence to believe that the Saudis are part of the criminal network. Then we could pull the troops out of Iraq, and park them, for a short while, hee, hee, in Saudi Arabia and kindly ask the flowing robed fascist Saudi sheiks to cooperate.

[TexasLawyer]

20. another related article:

Saudis quietly working to curb Iran's influence
By DONNA ABU-NASR
ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/3/2006

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Worried by Iran's deepening involvement in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia has been working quietly to curtail the Shiite nation's influence and prevent the marginalization of Sunni Muslims in the region's hot spots.

Analysts say the tug-of-war between the two Mideast powers signals a new chapter in an uneasy relationship, one that has swung over the years between wariness and outright confrontation.

On the surface, both countries have maintained the civil front that has marked ties since a thaw in relations in the early 1990s.

"But events on the ground indicate that the two countries are working against each other as their differences are played out outside their borders," said Ibrahim Bayram, a reporter for a Lebanese newspaper, who follows the country's pro-Iranian Hezbollah group.

<snip>

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061203/1053573.asp

[Ilsa]

22. Excellent find! Thanks! Kick and add source link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/wirq03.xml

This link is to the page for emailing the article. The link in the OP was to the printable version.

I also want to look up and email the source for the reply just before my post here.

[NuttyFluffers]

23. for the win: military i say iran, diplo/covert i say saudi arabia

but i really doubt it'd go to war. the usa just needs to get out of there. the other nations just want to watch usa bleed to death all the while professing friendship. but let's see how stupid usa policy and corpo-media can be in trying to whip this shit up!
:silly:

[OKthatsIT]

25. Nahhh....I think its just saber rattling...so Bush&Co stay and steal

Saudis don't have much of an army, right? And Iranian President sure seems 'mouthy', but no actions. The Iranians won't have nuke weapon ability for several years.

The dollar is sinking, I'll wager even Bush/Cheney have changed their assets into euros by now.

[humbled_opinion]

29. You reap what you sow and that too is in the bible. n/t

[amandabeech]

33. In a word, oil.

The Saudis and other Sunnis have more of it.

The problem for the Saudis in going after Iran and/or other Shia, is that Saudi's Shia minority lives on top of its oil.

Time to invest in long-term oil futures.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

34. I wish I was the one selling the WH Alka-Seltzer right now

I could retire.

[Lisa]

37. don't forget the Pentagon franchise ...

I suspect that some of the White House occupants (Bush in particular) are so completely and utterly clueless about the kind of mess that could result, they are sleeping blissfully at night and have no need of antacids. (Either that, or like Armageddon-obsessed fundamentalists, they can hardly wait to be Raptured away.)

But anybody in the Pentagon who "gets it" is going to be developing ulcers (if not fainting outright), thinking about the number of casualties that could result. The State Department staff must be freaking out.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

38. True enough

bush will go down in history as our bubble-boy president. I do, however, suspect that bush has a few more hangovers than usual since November 7th.

[warrens]

35. Send the House of Saud vs the Ayatollahs

Chainsaws at 10 paces. No matter what, the world wins.