The Peak Oil Crisis: The Saudi Op-Ed

[Barrett808]

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Saudi Op-Ed
By Tom Whipple
Thursday, 07 December 2006

On November 29, the Washington Post carried an op-ed by Nawaf Obaid, an advisor to the Saudi government. Despite the obligatory "the opinions expressed are his own", and a press release denying government involvement, the piece clearly carries an important message from Saudi King Abdullah to President Bush, Washington, and the American people.

"Stepping Into Iraq" starts by reminding President Bush that in February 2003 the Saudi Foreign Minister had warned him that if the US removed Saddam Hussein by force he would only be solving one problem by creating five more.

Obaid goes on to point out that had the President followed the Foreign Minister's advice, Iraq would not now be facing "full blown civil war and disintegration."

The thrust of the message, however, is a thinly veiled warning to the US not to walk away from Iraq. Obaid quotes the Saudi Ambassador who said last month: "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." And Obaid adds, "If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

...

The key Saudi foreign policy objective at the minute clearly is to keep sufficient US military forces in Iraq to keep the lid on the situation for as long as it takes to keep the mess from spilling over into Saudi Arabia itself.

The threat to the existence of the Saudi Royal Family from a spreading civil war now is much greater than any threat from an unhappy Washington. Can anyone imagine the new US Congress voting to invade some other large Middle Eastern country in the near future? With what?

Could a major cutback in Saudi oil production bring down America? Maybe not, but it sure could do a lot of harm. The most blatant action would be cut their oil production in half. Taking 4-5 million barrels a day off the world oil market would get everybody's attention very quickly. Oil prices would certainly go well over $100 per barrel. In short order, the US and world economies would suffer greatly.

(more)

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=586&Itemid=33

[Turbineguy]

1. There's an idea

that will go over big in Free Republic. The Saudi's and the Iranians go after eachother. Why just have a civil war when you can have serveral countries go at it?

[Shipwack]

2. hmmm... a couple of interesting points...

Stepping Into Iraq" starts by reminding President Bush that in February 2003 the Saudi Foreign Minister had warned him that if the US removed Saddam Hussein by force he would only be solving one problem by creating five more.

Is this common knowledge? Or was it whispered into Junior's ear while they were walking hand in hand in the garden.

As for the Saudi's cutting back on oil sales, I'm not so sure. I had thought that oil wealth is propping up an unpopular king... Stopping oil sales would just give the (even more) radical factions more power and influence. Unless, of course, China can buy the oil formerly slated for the US...

Saudi Arabia's outright support for the Sunnis is possibly one of the few ways things could escalate. This would cause Iran to outright support the Shia, to "prevent the Saudi-backed militia from butchering Shias". I have no idea how the rest of the countries would align. I would fear for Bahrain, which has ties to both Saudi Arabia and Iran, and is the home base of our 5th Fleet.

[happyslug]

3. I agree a threat was made, but it was only a bluff

In my opinion, the house of Saud HAS been supplying the Sunni insurgents for years. Iran and Syria had no reason to do so given they already had strong ties with the Shiites. The Turks main concern is the Kurds, thus the only other country bordering Iraq (Other than Jordan which is a minor player at best) is Saudi Arabia. Furthermore given the tribal nature of the whole region, the supplies may have been from tribal members living in Arabia to Tribal members living in Iraq via Tribal members living in Jordan. In most of the Arab world (Egypt is probably the only exception) one's tribe is more important than the state one happens to be in (And if asked what "nation" they belong to most will say "Arab").

Yes, one of out problem with dealing with Iraq, is that the most Iraqi's first loyalty is to their Family or Clan within their tribe, then their Tribe, then their nation (Fellow Arabs), then their Religion (Islam and being Arab are very closely intertwined) then they family whatever state they happen to be in. This is different from the Modern Western (Post-1700) view of the Nation-State where one's Nation and State are the same (and the concept of Religion is used to support the concept of the Nation-State). We gave up on tribes during the Middle ages, replacing it first with Religion (Christianity) and then with the concept Nationalism. As part of the collapse of the concept of Christendom that dominated the Middle Ages (Which itself derived from the Concept of one nation that was the hallmark of the late Roman Empire) the Concept that one's first responsibility (after Family) was the State became the dominate concept after the 1700s. This concept of the Nation-State remains today, through you do see more and more a demand for concepts beyond one's state, for example the pan-Europeanism of Europe and the increase number of people who claim to be citizens of the world not any one state. The problem with most such people is they are NOT part of any movements and thus these concepts do not have the unifying identity of Christianity during the Middle ages or of the Nation State since 1700s (Or even Communisms from 1917 till the 1960s). Thus these movements are unlike the idea of pan-Arab ism of the 1950s and the raise of Radical Islam since the 1970s which tends to unify across state lines in the arab/islamic world.

Back to Arabia. Being a country of Tribes, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) have to deal with Tribal leaders all the time. Thus In my opinion the House of Saud was slowly drawn into the conflict in Iraq by one or more of its tribal leaders who also had tribal members in Iraq. This slowly built on itself supported by Religions Radial like Al Queda (who also probably dragged in some tribal leaders when members of those tribes joined the insurgents either as part of Al Queda or by some other religious conviction).

That tribal and religious loyalty would come into play in any conflict was what Bush and Company ignored and what the House of Saud warned him of. The Fear was NOT that the State leaders would be forced to fight the US, but that the Tribal leader would permit their tribal members to fight and that such tribal leaders would support the Fight and once fighting started no one could stop it until the center of gravity for the fight is gone. What would that center of Gravity be? The US Troops. Thus the only way to stop the fighting is first to get the US Troops out, then you will see a slow dis-escalation of the fighting, but one of the problem of a US withdraw is that the tribes will have troops on the ground in Iraq and will fight for advantage after the US Withdraw. So while the first step would be a US Withdraw, the fighting will continued till some sort of equilibrium is achieved in the Middle East. The big fear is the lost of most of Arabia's oil fields to the Shiites who will also take the biggest Iraqi Fields and ally with Iran. Baghdad will stay Sunni, but with the Addition of the Sunni Arab Tribes into Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud will Fall (Which might be replaced by a Islamic Republic of Arabia headed by bin Laden). The Turks will grab the Northern Iraq oil Fields and Arabia left with nothing. Thus we will have a worse mess in the Middle East than the Middle East was prior to 9/11.