We return from a recent trip to the region persuaded that the main question engaging people with respect to the “Arab spring” is no longer, “who’s next”, but rather “how far will Saudi Arabia go in pushing a counter-revolutionary agenda” across the Middle East? Whether Saudi Arabia is really capable of coping with the momentous changes going on in the region—not just with respect of demands for political change in a number of Arab states, but geopolitically, as well—is a truly profound and important question. To unpack this, it is helpful to take a historical perspective on Saudi Arabia and its traditional national security strategy.
Unlike Iran and Turkey, many Arab states are not, within their current boundaries, “natural” states. Most, in fact, are the creations of colonial powers, at least within their present borders—e.g., Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the smaller GCC states all fit this bill.
Saudi Arabia, like Egypt, is an important exception to this generalization. But, in contrast to Egypt, Saudi Arabia is not a historically “natural” state. The Saudi state was definitely created—but by indigenous actors, not outsiders.
Saudi Arabia is the product of hard-fought tribal wars and alliances, legitimated by an indigenously generated ideology—that is, the particular form of Islam that has been championed by the al-Saud since the mid-18th century, commonly known in the West as wahhabi (though many Saudis resist the term), and described by many of our Iranian interlocutors as salafi (though that strikes us as a more general term that can apply to Sunni Muslims who do not follow a Saudi-prescribed religious line). Buttressed by its massive oil wealth, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has emerged as a formidable, “home grown” political entity.
Since the consolidation of the modern Saudi state in the 1920s and 1930s, the Kingdom has turned to the United States as its principal external security partner. There were two main reasons for the Saudis’ original alignment with Washington: America had no legacy of colonial entanglements in the Middle East, and it was not Britain. At least some Saudi princes believe, to this day, that, but for the British, the al-Saud would have ended up controlling the entire Arabian peninsula, including territories now occupied by the smaller Gulf Arab states. And, in the 1930s, King ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud was worried that London would try to weaken his autonomy and bring the new Saudi state firmly under British influence, along with its Bahraini, Kuwaiti, and other Gulf Arab wards.
The United States seemed the best available hedge against that—so, American oil companies received the first major oil concession in Saudi Arabia, in 1933. After World War II, the Kingdom developed a deep and multi-faceted strategic relationship with the United States. In essence, America and Saudi Arabia both wanted to cooperate in balancing against other external powers seeking to expand their influence in the Persian Gulf—but, during the Cold War, the major external power of concern was no longer Britain but the Soviet Union.
This record helps us understand the principal objectives and major elements of Saudi Arabia’s current national security strategy. The Kingdom wants to have at least a quasi-hegemonic status on the Arabian peninsula; at the same time, it does not want another regional state to attain what it would see as hegemony over the Middle East as a whole. And, even in the post-Cold War period, the Saudis have wanted to see their relationship with the United States as the ultimate guarantee of their security and survival.
Today, that strategy is in crisis on all fronts—and the Saudis are not handling it well.
The strategy is in crisis, first of all, because of Riyadh’s plummeting confidence in the reliability and competence of the United States as a security partner. This dynamic is not, per se, new. The Kingdom grew increasingly disenchanted with various aspects of America’s Middle East policy during the 1990s—disenchantment intensified by the various traumas that fallout from the 9/11 attacks inflicted on U.S.-Saudi relations. (The militancy associated with the religious ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia over decades has generated a number of significant security problems for the United States.)
But the Saudi leadership—including, it would seem, King Abdullah himself—is both enormously angry and deeply unsettled by what it sees as Washington’s abandonment of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is a critically important state for the Saudi—and it has not always been a friendly one. Mubarak’s predecessors, Nasr and Sadat, both challenged Saudi Arabia, in diametrically different but powerful ways. And now that Egyptian political order, the orientation of which is so strategically consequential for Saudi Arabia, is again up for grabs. So, while Western assessments have tended to criticize President Obama and his Administration for being too slow in supporting “forces of change” in Egypt, from a Saudi perspective the Obama Administration dropped Mubarak much too quickly, squandering opportunities to support him in pushing back against those demanding his removal.
On the regional front, the Saudis are discombobulated by what they see as a rising tide of Iranian influence across the Middle East. The Islamic Republic’s allies have been winning, politically, in key venues—Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine. Historically, the Saudis have never been big fans of pan-Arabism. But, in recent years, senior Saudi princes have, with increasing frequency, denounced what they have come portentously to call Iranian “interference” in “Arab affairs”. Now, with the Arab spring, the Saudis are alarmed that the influence of the Islamic Republic and political forces friendly to it will rise even more dramatically. The Saudis are even more alarmed about the potential geopolitical consequences of these developments—e.g., the high likelihood that post-Mubarak Egypt will enjoy improved relations with the Islamic Republic.
So, as the Saudi state sees itself increasingly “encircled” by multiple and expanding threats, Saudi leaders are doubling down on the fundamentals of their traditional national security strategy—military force to ensure its dominance on the Arabian peninsula, the use of religious ideology to raise sectarian concern about rising Shi’a influence, and putting enormous financial resources on the table (e.g., $30 billion for Bahrain) to further its goals. This approach is clearly reflected in the Kingdom’s response to recent events in Bahrain, culminating in the dispatch of Saudi military forces to repress popular protests there.
But Bahrain is not the only place in the region where the Saudi counter-revolution is being felt. Saudi initiative was critical to bringing about the Arab League’s quasi-endorsement of international military intervention in Libya. That amounts to Saudi endorsement of coercive regime change in another Arab state. Regime change is unacceptable in Bahrain, but OK in Libya—the main thing is, the Saudis have reaffirmed their ability to suck the United States onto their side in regional disputes (at those in which Israel is not taking a position at odds with the Saudis).
Washington’s deference to Saudi anxieties could prove almost as corrosive to the possibility of America making critically necessary adjustments in its own Middle East policies as Washington’s deference to Israel.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
http://english.irib.ir/news/middle-east/item/73528-bahraini-forces-rape-kill-female-poet
Bahraini forces rape, kill female poet
A female Bahraini activist who has composed anti-government poems has been killed, after being arrested and raped by Manama forces.
According to Press TV, Ayat al-Ghermezi, 20, had recited her poems, in which she slammed the ruling regime and Bahraini Prime Minister Khalifah Ibn Salman al-Khalifah, during protests in Pearl Square in the capital city.
Shortly afterwards, Ghermezi received an influx of insulting and intimidating letters and emails, but when she referred to the police to report the threats, she was insulted and mocked by officers, her family says.
In late March, security forces raided Ghermezi’s home twice, threatening her family to reveal Ayat’s whereabouts, otherwise they would “destroy the house over your heads, by the order of high-ranking officials.”
After the security forces coerced Gehrmezi’s family into disclosing her hideout, the family heard no word from her, Ayat’s mother said.
When the family started searching for Ayat, the police told them they have no information about Ayat and tried to force them to confirm through a letter that their daughter had gone missing.
In mid-April, an anonymous call was made to Gehrmezi’s family, informing them that Ayat was in coma at an army Hospital.
At the hospital, doctors confirmed that Ayat had gone into coma after being raped for several times.
Eventually, the physicians’ efforts failed to save Ayat’s life and she died at the army hospital.
The difference is this:
Saudi Arabia does not need US protection – in principle it can defend itself.
But, since a real war-fighting army in many countries has led to the overthrow of the government, Saudi Arabian leaders prefer to pay US in lie of having their own armed forces.
What’s the difference between ‘tribute’ and ‘money for protection you don’t need’?
Lysander says: April 20, 2011 at 1:30 am
I will not call it a tribute.
I call it protection money (that they do not need).
“The Arab states of Persian Gulf will never ever have a professional army that will be anything but a token force.”
precisely my point. They have no intention of building a serious military. And yet they buy weapons worth billions that they will never be able to use. I call that tribute. The USA would never sell these weapons if they felt SA intended to build a powerful army.
You are correct that none of the gulf kingdoms could be a military threat to Iran.
Lysander says: April 19, 2011 at 10:07 pm
The Arab states of Persian Gulf will never ever have a professional army that will be anything but a token force.
No matter how much they buy from US or any one else, all they will ever be able to do (at the most) is to fire their weapons; planning and coordination will never come out of them.
They will never be a threat to Iran.
As for the reason it is simply this: a professional army will be a threat to the ruling families.
If the late Mr. Saddam Hussein had extended his invasion of Kuwait to that of Saudi Arabia, I think he would still be in power.
fyi says:
April 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Bahrain has substantial value to the US Navy. Not life or death but they would much rather have it than not. It’s a lot easier to have SA deal with the problem than pick up and move to Qatar or wherever.
SA vs Vichy is extreme, but not invalid and I mentioned the differences.
Regarding weapons purchases: it is not that SA does not need weapons, but that they are no where near absorbing the weapons they do have. Until they do, additional purchases are useless.
Agree that there is a lot of bigotry against Shia’, and probably against everybody.
SA with regard to Iraq.
Iraq’s possible exit from Arab League
“After the recent developments in the region, specifically the events in Bahrain and east of Saudi Arabia, and stances taken by some statesmen and clerics in support of the people of Bahrain, the Persian Gulf states put into force their decision to cancel the Arab League summit in Baghdad.
Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states claim that Iraq cannot host the Arab states summit due to the country’s insecurity.
This is while Iraqi leaders have for many times stressed that Iraq is safer than all regional Arab states and is able to hold the Arab League summit.
But the reality is that the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council ([P]GCC) member states have a totally sectarian ad tribal view on Iraq’s new structure.”
more here http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175708.html
Lysander says: April 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Bahrain has marginal value to US Navy.
The Fifth Fleet is mostly at sea and it can be serviced in any number of friendly ports.
Comparing SA to Vichy is hyperbole, in my opinion.
And there are very many people in SA that are full of prejudice against Shia Islam.
In regards to US weapon slaes, SA has potential enemies in Iraq, in Jordan, in Yemen, in Israel.
Iran is not one of them.
Rd. says: April 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm
The American electorate has consistently expressed its support for military might and opposed social programs since the end of WWII.
This is their choice and they have the right to be wrong.
As an American stated: “It is our country and we can ruin it if we want to.”
The only thing is that they will be dragging down very many others.
I think your approach worthwhile, Lysander. Canada has recently paid tribute to the US with its useless purchase of F-35′s.
FYI, Arnold,
I’ve been reading with interest your discussions about Saudi Arabia and it degree of independence (if any) from the United States. Here are some points I’d like to make.
1) If you were to claim that there is a convergence of interest between the Saudi royal family and that of the US government, I would not argue. There was certainly a convergence of interests between the Vichy French government and the German government. The former was certain to share the fate of the latter. Having cast their lot with the Germans, they needed the Germans to win in order for themselves to survive. This should not be confused with mutual interests of the actual French and German nations or US and Arabian nations.
2) It is true that the Saudi Government is not under military occupation and has greater freedom of maneuver than Vichy. This is a significant but not decisive difference. It means that the US could not force upon the Saudis an action that would threaten their rule over the country. But short of that, the US can and does get near perfect cooperation.
3) Let us take the recent invasion of Bahrain as an example. I am not fooled by talk of any Saudi influence causing the US to avert its gaze from the mass murder currently taking place. For the US, preserving the 5th fleet base was critical. But politically it was impossible for the US to invade Bahrain. Luckily, the US could have SA do the dirty work for them. This alone is an enormous asset.
An argument can be made that the Saudi royal family needed to suppress Shiite decent in a neighboring state. First, if true, it only proves point number one: the interests of Saudi royal family (not Arabia) and the USG are the same. A legitimate government of an Arabian republic, wouldn’t have the slightest worry about such things.
Second, I’m not even sure it is true now. SA seems to be tolerating a vastly larger Shiite Arab state to its north. SA fears a free Bahrain, not because it would be Shiite, but because it would be free. Just like they hate the prospect of a free Egypt. There are no Shiites in Egypt.
The Vichy government probably hated the British for much the same reason.
4) Much has been discussed about SA’s purchase of additional US weapons as a “bribe” for the US to permit SA to do exactly what the US needed it to do: invade Bahrain. First, why would an allegedly independent SA need to bribe the US to permit it to take an action that is allegedly vital to SA’s own interests? Couldn’t it invade Bahrain and tell the Americans to @%$# off? This leads me to believe that what is called a “bribe” is, in fact, the payment of tribute. If you have any doubt, ask yourself why the purchase of 100s of billions of dollars of US weapons over 40 years not made SA a serious military power? Why was it not even in a position to defend itself against a potential Iraqi invasion in 1990?
Ask yourselves, what if SA refused to buy any US weapons? Would this hurt SA, or the US?
5) SA has always tried to portray itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause. And yet, what action has SA taken over the past 60 years that the US or Israel would wish SA had not done? The 1973 oil embargo is the only one that could be plausibly argued. Even then, it was the minimum SA could do given the political circumstances at the time. Neither the US nor Israel would demand the Saudis commit suicide, anymore than they would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
All that said. If the Saudi government ever came to the conclusion that the US alliance is putting their rule over the country at serious risk, they could, plausibly, take steps to end it. I have some other points which I’ll formulate later.
Fiorangela and FYI,
I think Anthony Cordesman is full of cr*p! “US must . . . deal with steadily increasing strategic competition with Iran”! Total rubbish. In fact, the US must make a deal with Iran in order to allow the Nato countries to get out of the Afghan quagmire. I think Cordesman is a propagandist for the “defence” contractors and their tens of thousands of lobbyists, lawyers, other influence peddlers, etc etc etc. Keep squandering hundreds of billions of dollars each year! And for what?
fyi,
England and France were not far behind Spain in establishing empires in the New World and elsewhere.
Iranian,
It’s a long stretch from this item about the Islamist Labour Party having a chat with FM Salehi (more important is the possibility of Egyptian Gov’t restoring diplomatic relations with Tehran) to the original claim, which was that Egypt’s uprising was following the Islamic Revolution.
But lovely to see that you haven’t forgotten me….
S.
fyi says:
“that lives us another 142 years of US Empire.”
With people like smarty cordman trying to sell the war machinery on the cheap, your calculation maybe ok, but the reality is likely different.
Yes the war is cheap. From the article you posted;
“Its direct defense expenditures are still close to 4% of its GNP – far lower levels than during the demanding periods of the Cold War. Even if one adds in all related State Department and aid expenditures, and all of the foreign aspects of Homeland security, the total is under 5%”
And from another cordman paper;
csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/peacedividendorunderfunding%5B1%5D.pdf
he is argueing, we don’t need to spend on health, education etc.. (tongue in chick) and we can afford to spend more on war machine.. however, the reality is changing. Coldwar vs today ~;
budget deficit debt vs GNP% vs budget%
1990 1.2 T .2 T $3.2 T 5.3 24
2011 3.8 T 1.6 T $15.4 T 4 25
Actual revenues were 1T in 90 vs 2.1 in 2011??
Now, I dropped my econ 101 in college the very first day. The prof started talking about hostages and holding people, etc.. you get the idea, so I am not economically inclined, but perhaps you can help me out.
Cold war (90) vs 2011 ~
Revenue x 2
deficit spending x 8
debt x 5
and US can afford to play war? for another century? I know there is more to it.. but that should be a good start.
And, this comes to mind from the same article you posted;
“the US needs to reexamine its priorities for being in – or staying in – a region where the best way to win the new “Great Game” may well be not to play it. The Persian Gulf is a different matter entirely. Iran cannot be allowed to dominate the region,”
We can not afford the great game, but lets face the ‘NOT’ regional power in the Persian gulf.
Rd. says: April 19, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Since we are almost certain not to be living at the start of US Empire (started say in 1880) nor at its end, we must make guess.
Based on the life span of British (1783-1948) and Spanish (1529-1899) and Russian (1700-1989) Empires, one could conclude that the life span of the American Empire could be 262 years. Since 120 years of it is already behind us, that lives us another 142 years of US Empire.
fyi says:
“A fine assessment from a US perspective on U.S. And Iranian Strategic Competition:”
It may very well be a competition with Iran, however, at what point, will the time run out! How much more can they cut from internal budget while keeping the head above the water, and maintaining the mil expenditure that the smarty Cordman is wishing for?? Another decade?
Fiorangela says: April 19, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Yes, that is what I am saying; Dr. Cordesman’s writings reval the implicit grand strategy of the United States.
And as I have repeatedly stated; thsi grand strategy has nothing positive in it for the people of the Middle East.
Since the collapse of the Peace of Yalta, Axis Powers, because of their asymmetry of power vis a vis most states (or combinations of states) in the world and their experience of their war of attrition against Warsaw pact states, do not believe that they need to make any stragtic concessions nor put any effort in putting in place the elements of a better world.
This is to be contrasted with their positive vision of the future that they sketched out for the post Cold War world: political freedom, prosperity, religious freedom, and Jazz & Blue Jeans.
Their message, as one can clearly see, consists of selective support for Liberty in some places while crushing it at other places, a decidedly negative posture against Islam, the religion of most of those whom they wish to influence, and a relentless support for one side in the religious war in Palestine.
To this must be added the possibility of Axis Powers starting yet another war of choice among Muslims that would consume more Muslim lives in its flames as well as the fact that the policies of Axis Powers is depopulating the Middle East in general and Palestine in particular of (Catholic & Orthodox) Christains.
I am metaphysically certain that this last item is of a deep and abiding concern for the Catholic Church and there will be reactions and consequences for this.
Other than these persoanl observations, I think this is a splendid grand strategic vision that would put men such as Bismarck, Marshall, Stalin to shame.
fyi @ 12:49: “There is nothing in that for Kurds or the Shia Arabs except the very real possibility of more war, more chaos, and more misery.”
If someone like me can figure out that Cordesman wrote his “political-military” plan based on the unspoken assumption that the US is entitled to dominate the region; and if we are to assume that Cordesman is at least minimally honest and intelligent; then we have to assume it IS the plan of the US maintain domination of the region and that it is well understood — even planned, even desired — that “more war, more chaos, and more misery” results.
The Fabian Society’s agenda included “culling the herd” — the Fabians had something of an alliance with Margaret Sanger, advocate for birth control.
And the world’s finest tyrants are unswayed by the unacceptability of “war, chaos, and misery.”
Bussed-In Basiji,
Students took over the British and American embassies in 1979. The British stayed calm, and the embassy was reopened in due course. Due to extremely foolish Carter administration response to the take-over (generated by ABC News and Roone Arledge). the minor event was elevated into something much more.
Iran benefits from having an embassy open in Washington. And both countries would benefit from direct NYC-Tehran flights.
All:
A fine assessment from a US perspective on U.S. And Iranian Strategic Competition:
http://csis.org/files/publication/110311_IranComp_Jord.pdf
And on the Persian Gulf:
http://csis.org/files/publication/110414_US_Strategy_Gulf.pdf
Kathleen,
I agree with you that American leadership on Israel/Palestine issue works poorly, and this obviously is due to effective control exericised by ISRAEL LOBBY.
The Palestinians obviously have temporarily “lost” territory occupied by illegal Jewish settlers, but the key issue is recognition of 1967 borders by the UN. Palestinian law can sort out some of the problems down the road. Israeli attempt to create “facts on the ground” needs to be defeated by not accepting border changes by means of housing contruction contrary to international law.
Iranian,
Better relations between Iran and Egypt is clearly in the best interests of both countries. Saudis not especially pleased, but this is to be expected.
Interesting:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/10278/Egypt/Politics-/Top-Egyptian-Islamist-in-Tehran-talks.aspx
I remember Scott Lucas claiming that Egyptian Islamists are very critical of Iran. Poor guy.
Apparently Iran and Egypt are to restore relations soon:
http://www.kayhannews.ir/900130/14.htm#other1402
All:
A US perspective for US role in the Persian Gulf in the coming years:
http://csis.org/publication/us-strategy-gulf
For both US and Iran, Iraq’s orientation is the key.
Personally, I do not expect it possible, even in principle, for US and Iraq to be strategically on the same side against Iran – militarily or otherwise.
There is nothing in that for Kurds or the Shia Arabs except the very real possibility of more war, more chaos, and more misery.
From Al-Arabiya:
““The regime’s forces … have even taken their uniforms off,” Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard [said].”
Ever seen a rebel wearing a uniform?
Empty,
Thank you for your response to the discussion others and we were having last week about an Islamic approach to the social sciences.
Re:
“So, in that sense, to have a “God-centered” worldview is to basically say no to all these other “-isms” (elahs) so that a balance of interests (be it human, animal, plants, etc.) are strived for. These, I think, are the very fields in which rigorous and sustained scholarship based on principles of Islam could make tremendous progress.”
The way you phrase it here, it sounds as though the Islamic ideal is to have a society of generalists as opposed to a society of specialists. Maybe i have misunderstood? General education certainly is important but so is specialized education. Can’t a person have taqwa and still devote so much energy towards saving the environment, or any other cause for that matter? The issue for the individual seems to fall on intent rather than on which -ism he or she devotes his productive energy towards. If a person’s work is done with the intent to please God, then hasn’t he established one of the biggest concerns for Islam (even if he focuses on the environment as the vehicle of that intent to please)?
Re:
“My observation is that it seems to be about a “balance of control”. If Iran could achieve that balance, she would be already ahead of all “-isms” even in the very way this process is materialized. The ironic part of the whole thing is that, unlike what is portrayed by the west, there is no one powerful person or group or institution. No one side is powerful enough (soft or hard) to overpower the other sides. In a sense, it reminds me of how the planets are suspended in the universe and moving in their “orbits” with a balance achieved by centripetal force where the center is invisible.”
the -isms working simultaneously in any given society have the effect of achieving that balance, so to go after the -isms seems counter-productive if Iran desires a holistic balance.
re:
“I think there is a lot of incorrect assumptions among people that need to be addressed first. In terms of ecosystem management, a lot of misconceptions have to explored. For example, people usually lump together dry land, eroded land, sand dunes, and deserts all into one connoted term: desert. Deserts have their own ecosystems and, in fact, they cover 1/3 of biodiversity in the planet (more than any other ecosystem on earth which includes tropical/subtropical, etc.). Correct desert management can be tremendous help in stabilizing sand/dust storms and prevention of particulate matter pollution, organic production of medicinal plants, insects, and animals, and so much more without to much need for the most scare resource in semi-arid and arid regions: water. Wisdom is not in reforesting the desert but to protecting the natural forests and protecting the deserts and gradually changing the nature of eroded “sand domes” to functioning lively deserts (in my professional opinion). This topic is huge but it was just an example.”
What you describe here is environmentalism. Environmentalism is the study of ecosystems (by definition localized), environmentalism is educating people, and environmentalism is culling together the proper sciences and other resources to ensure a multitude of efforts are applied in an efficient manner and in the correct locations.
More than that though, and again i am thinking back to issues of control, environmentalism is also about identifying and using knowledge of a specific political system to achieve specific ends.
These -isms organize people in such a way so as to establish a line of defense against other forces that, if left unchecked, would be destructive to a society or humanity as a whole. If environmentalism were to be left unchecked it too would be destructive to society, in that the more extreme elements within environmentalism may be able to effect the end of resource extraction altogether. So obviously there has to be a ‘balance of control.’
This is where I think governments have problems with many of the “-isms.” With the right to peaceably assemble, networked people within the -isms have real and identifiable power. The impulse of governments generally seems to be to centralize, and so when this new power is created, governments get nervous as ‘people power’ comes at the expense of ‘government power.’
Using your planet analogy, what the -isms do is add in planets to the mix of planets already in existence, contributing their added effects to the overall centripetal force present within any given society.
Maybe within an -ism you have people with tunnel vision, and maybe some -isms are ethically or morally wrong (eg, racism), but all of them together have the effect of establishing an order, a ‘balance of control,’ that, if not present, leads to despotism.
It is all about the checks and balances, and myself speaking as an outside observer, when the government of Iran appears to crack down on the social sciences it appears as though Iran is moving towards despotism. It seems like a convenient excuse to say ‘oh, that is an -ism, Islam does not have -isms so we reject it.’ The government is appropriating Islam in order to ‘control the masses.’ Though certainly order is preferred over anarchy, when governments go after civil society they seem to be chasing after their officials’ own selfish interests rather than the interests of society or humanity so I have a hard time buying the ‘Islam does not have -isms’ argument.
It all seems to be effected with the hidden intent of creating or maintaining a politically weak polity. Doesn’t this create a disinterested population , individuals willing to become a traitors for a paltry sum? Soft power should not be understood as limp power, the -isms create soft power in modern human society contributing greatly to a society’s civil defense. Isn’t this to Iran’s benefit in the long term?
All:
Good assessment, in my opinion, of EU’s military capabilities and the centrality of US to the Axis Powers.
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/04/18/are-we-allied-to-a-corpse/
All:
Off-Topic:
Abject failure of Hejab policies in Iran:
In Qum, center of the Shia Vatican and a very very conservative city, Police has issued more than 62,000 warnings to women for their “bad” hejab.
Yet the Iranian leaders still insist on pursuing this divisive and oppresive policy of harrasment.
See below.
تهران امروز: بیش از 100 دستگاه خودرو به علت بدحجابی توقیف و به بیش از 62 هزار بدحجاب در سطح استان قم تذکر داده شد.
سرهنگ خراسانی، رئیس پلیس امنیت عمومی استان قم با اشاره به این مطلب افزود : ترویج بدحجابی و بیبندوباری در جامعه از اهداف دشمن در به راه انداختن جنگ نرم است و دشمنان با این کار سعی در خدشهدار کردن عفت عمومی جامعه را دارند.
خراسانی افزود: پلیس امنیت عمومی استان در راستای برخورد با بدحجابی و بدپوششی و ارتقای امنیت اجتماعی و اخلاقی در سطح جامعه و گسترش فرهنگ حجاب و عفاف میان اقشار مختلف، اقدام به برخورد با رانندگان بدحجاب در سطح استان کرده است.
Leveretts “Washington’s deference to Saudi anxieties could prove almost as corrosive to the possibility of America making critically necessary adjustments in its own Middle East policies as Washington’s deference to Israel.”
Along with our MSM’s deference to Israel and the I lobby
This morning (Tuesday April 19th) on NPR’s Morning Edition they spent a long time describing the protest in Syria. Ok we hear about protest in Syria, protest in Libya, protest in Egypt, protest in Tunisia, even protest in Bahrain. And of course Rachel Maddow and others will cover protest in Iran. But never ever ever do we hear about Palestinian protest on NPR or anywhere else in our MSM. Palestinian protest against Israel’s occupation and illegal settlement building and expansion have been going on for decades. Decades of silence
Syrian Government Forces Fire On Protesters
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/
Rehmant another hollow Hillary comment
During Michelle Kelemen’s recent All Things Considered report “US Hopes to Jump Start Israel-Palestinian Talks” Kelemen reported that Secretary of State “Clinton told the U.S.-Islamic World Forum that the U.S. should be in the lead” of Israeli Palestinian peace talks. Most of us ask what peace talks?
I wonder if Secretary of Clinton still thinks the world has not noticed that when the US has been in the lead the Palestinians have consistently lost more territory through the expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements, illegal wall, and illegal housing in E Jerusalem. What Abbas is doing makes sense.
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/13/135382799/u-s-attempting-to-reignite-israel-palestinian-talks#commentBlock
Iran: ‘Hillary cries WOLF again!’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/iran-hillary-cries-wolf-again/
There are many reasons that the US doesn’t have an embassy in Tehran, the most important being we ransacked the last one (not only because the Israel lobby won’t let the US open one).
Ransacking the British, French and a few other EU country embassies would also be good for Iran in the long-run.
The US has enough spies doing its work in Iran from the embassies of its allies- especially the eager-beaver eastern European ones.
Pirouz_2 says:
April 18, 2011 at 10:30 am
My short answer is that it is/was a vanity project that seemed way cheaper in the spirit of 1896 than it seems today.
Outright colonialism was approaching or near its apex when Zionism was born. A desire not to be the only Europeans not involved, in my opinion, explains a substantial amount of the early Zionist impulse.
China’s largest foreign investment among its neighboring countries happens to be in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some estimates put the figure at US$80 billion, mostly in oil and gas sectors. China itself is world’s fourth largest oil producing country but its national resources cannot cope with the country’s growth in population and energy consumption. In September 2010 – Senators Chuck Schumer and Senator Jon Kyl had complained to Hillary Clinton in a letter that Chinese National Petroleum Co. (CNPC) along with two other Chinese companies, Sinopec and Zhuhai Zhenrong, have violated a new US law aimed at discouraging foreign investment in Iran.
US-NATO vs China-Muslim World
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/us-nato-vs-china-muslim-world/
James Canning,
RE: “Many experts think the presence of the Soviet ambassador in Washington, and his excellent contacts with various members of the Kennedy administration, in October 1962, helped avoid World War III. How does one value this? Some of these things do not lend themselves readily to statistical analysis.”
I see. Once an insurance agent was trying to sell me very expensive items in a car insurance by kindly calculating for me the hypothetical costs of various scenarios in which I could be in serious trouble. He even gave examples of others who were saved when they were almost in one of those scenarios.
BibiJon,
RE: “Scowcroft immediately said ‘the US will never accept that!’”
As the saying goes, آفتاب است نشانه آفتاب [The sun is the evidence of the existence of the sun]. The moment the US engaged in a confrontation with Iran, it had already accepted Iran as a power. It’s like going to the ring to fight an opponent and announcing to the world you don’t recognize him as a boxer. It’s not logical.
RE: “Fast forward to a few months ago when Javad Larijani told Fareed Zakaria that ‘we want to be treated as a regional power.’”
Because I have not seen this talk, I cannot give an opinion. However, any time I’ve heard an official Iranian, they have insisted on relationships/talks/negotiation based on mutual respect rather than saying they want to be treated as a regional power. This just strikes me as odd that Larijani would say this. Perhaps if I hear the entire context, I could make better judgment about what he could have meant.
RE: “Second-hand intelligence gathering is clearly in pursuit of undermining Iran. Direct ambassador level contact would be in pursuit of a modus vivendi.”
1. Currently, no comprehensive peace treaty exists between Iran and the US in which all grievances have been addressed in a fair and mutually respectful manner. No agreement exists that deals with the issues of future non-interference. In addition, no independent international arbitration body currently exists in which Iran could receive a fair trial/verdict should such treaty/agreement ever materialize and the US violates any of the terms.
2. I agree with fyi that Iran and the US/EU are in a state of war. Therefore, opening of embassies in Iran and the US in terms of what strategic benefits would this action have for Iran and at what cost should be considered in that light. For example, could Iran gain any strategic advantage to help her in this war by opening an embassy in the US? If yes, how and at what cost? Could the US gain strategic advantage to help her in this war by opening an embassy in Iran? My answer would be hell yes. Even so, I would ask, how could Iran use what the US could do through her embassy in Iran to her advantage? At what cost/risks and are they worth the potential benefit? At this time, I do not believe the potential benefits would outweigh the definite costs/risks.
3. Here is another consideration. Just as sanctions are meant to increase the cost to Iran for a lot of commodities, so, too, the cost to the US for intelligence/faulty intelligence/misleading information, etc. should be increased. So far, not having a US embassy in Iran has been a strategic benefit to Iran. For similar reasons, I also think having the British embassy re-opened in Iran has been quite useful. If we could also enlist James Canning’s help, it would be superb! ;)
BiBiJon,
Iraan clearly is a regional power, even if this fact displeases crazed Zionist expansionists who undermine the national security of the American people with help from numerous stooges in the US Congress.
Empty,
Many experts think the presence of the Soviet ambassador in Washington, and his excellent contacts with various members of the Kennedy administration, in October 1962, helped avoid World War III. How does one value this? Some of these things do not lend themselves readily to statistical analysis.
I think it is remarkable stupidity on the part of the US, not to have an Iranian embassy open in Washington, and an American embassy open in Tehran. And this remarkable stupidity is forced on the nation by the ISRAEL LOBBY. (Just one way in which the Lobby subverts the national security of the American people.)
BiBiJon,
The normal arrangement for mature countries is to have diplomatic relations even if there are some disputes that linger. Childish US attitude, forced on the country by the ISRAEL LOBBY, to regard diplomatic relations as some sort of reward, is counter-productive.
It appears Brent Scowcroft is just dead wrong about Iran. We should remember that it was his recommendation that largely led to the appointment of the grossly incompetent Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser (to G W Bush).
BiBiJon says: April 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Iran is in the state of economic/commercial/intelligence/propaganda war with the Axis Powers (US+EU).
Iran and Iraq both had an embassy open during Iran-Iraq War in their respective capitals.
It made no difference to the course of the war or the course of the cease-fire after 1988.
I expect the same dynamics here.
Wars are also mental exercises; once your opponent does not fold and his mind is set to fight on, the war becomes much harder.
Just look at Libya.
And thank God for Libya too; it has been blessing in many ways to Iran.
A very good write on the current Shia Sunni divide titled
Prospects for the Sectarian Terrain
Nir Rosen, Jadaliyya, Apr 15/17 2011
:http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/remember-when-sunnis-fought-shiites-in-iraq-the-shiites-won/
James & Empty,
Some time ago, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski were on a news show and the question/comment came up that the US needs to recognize Iran as regional power. Scowcroft immediately said “the US will never accept that!”
Fast forward to a few months ago when Javad Larijani told Fareed Zakaria that “we want to be treated as a regional power.”
Iran’s status as perceived by herself vs US attitude to Iran’s status is at the crux of everything else.
Second-hand intelligence gathering is clearly in pursuit of undermining Iran. Direct ambassador level contact would be in pursuit of a modus vivendi.
Any thoughts?
James Canning,
Sorry, forgot to add….amount of money spent for each would also be useful in our calculation. Don’t worry about currency conversion. I could do that myself.
James Canning Says,
“Operating an embassy in Tehran would open avenues of communication, which can be described as “intelligence gathering”. And the flow of information goes both ways (nd to third parties). The Soviet ambassador in Washington in 1962 was indispensible in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Well, I think it would be far more useful for us in evaluating if indeed your assessment is accurate if you provide more specific evidence of a contemporary efforts such as those since re-opening of the British embassy in Tehran. Data about types of information, dates, points of contact, etc. would be excellent.
Empty,
Is is quite true that after Britain saved the Turks’ bacon, in the late 1870s (when Russia was close to occupying Constantinople), the British were unable to preserve the Ottoman provinces in Europe. And how would that have been accomplished, in any event?
Britain did not want war with the Ottoman Empire. The Turks who threw in their lot with the Germans thought Germany could help Turkey to suppress rising Arab nationalism that already threatened the survival of the emprie. It seems unlikely Turkey could have kept its Arab provinces even if it had stayed out of the First World War. Demographics and changing cultural perceptions were putting paid to the continuance of the empire in Syria and Mesopotamia. The process of defection probably would have taken decades, however.
Empty,
Operating an embassy in Tehran would open avenues of communication, which can be described as “intelligence gathering”. And the flow of information goes both ways (nd to third parties). The Soviet ambassador in Washington in 1962 was indispensible in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Yes, tens of billions of dollars are squandered every year by the US, in “intellgece gathering”, when the obvious course of operating an embassy in Tehran is blocked by: ISRAEL LOBBY!
James Canning Says,
“The US spends $75 billion on ingelligence in one year! Ludicrous! And wouldn’t the US benefit from operating an embassy in Tehran? Obviously it would.”
Are you suggesting that one of the critical functions of an embassy is “intelligence” work especially given that the host country affords the staff diplomatic immunity for mainly diplomatic functions? Has Britain cut the cost of intelligence after the British embassy re-opened in Iran? If yes, could you provide information by how much it has done so? Also, if you wouldn’t mind, please provide specific information that has been collected so far. It would be useful for us in calculation of “per intelligence cost” and final determination whether or not it would be economical for the US to do so. Thanks a lot.
“Sugar-coated manure is still manure.”
–By Someone
James Canning Says,
“Britain did not expect Turkey to join the Central Powers. Full stop. The British were surprised and dismayed that the Germans succeeded in convincing the Turks to enter the war. Had it not been for Britain, Russia would have destroyed the Ottoman Empire, decades before the First World War.”
“The British government attempted to help the Ottoman government improve its control of Ottoman domains, while simultaneously strengthening the security of British India by a gradual encroachment upon Ottoman territory in Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Peninsula. Similarly, British leaders pledged to help the Turks reform their own state institutions, but insisted upon continued control of the Ottoman economy by Europeans. Finally, British statesmen proclaimed the importance of the Ottoman Empire’s territorial integrity, but made no effort to prevent European armies from conquering the Turks’ European province in the Balkan Wars. In light of these contradictions, the Turks began to view Britain not as a benefactor but as a threat.”
[Source: J.D. Rayburn (2002). “The Greatest Disaster: The Failure of Great Britain’s Ottoman Empire Policy, 1914,” Military Academy West Point, NY (pages 9-10).
James Canning says: “Great Britain did not take control of Palestine after the First World War, in order to set up a “Jewish” state controlled by Jews.”
That is correct. Britain did not take control. Rather, it actively and unambiguously facilitated and supported the efforts.
The Balfour Declaration
November 2, 1917
During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
Source: ;http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Balfour%20Declaration
Rehmat,
Britain did not expect Turkey to join the Central Powers. Full stop. The British were surprised and dismayed that the Germans succeeded in convincing the Turks to enter the war.
Had it not been for Britain, Russia would have destroyed the Ottoman Empire, decades before the First World War.
hans,
The US spends $75 billion on ingelligence in one year! Ludicrous!
And wouldn’t the US benefit from operating an embassy in Tehran? Obviously it would. But won’t. Why? ISRAEL LOBBY.
Pirouz_2,
Great Britain did not take control of Palestine after the First World War, in order to set up a “Jewish” state controlled by Jews.
Free advice to dictators suppressing ‘dignity’ revolutions:
Blaming al-Qaeda does not work.
“From Egypt, to Libya and to Iraq, Arab leaders cite an al-Qaeda threat as a reason to crack down on domestic protests and opposition to garner military and financial support from the US. ”
http://rt.com/usa/news/al-qaeda-scapegoat-middle-east/
However, blaming Iran works a charm:
” Saudi and UAE forces will only leave Bahrain when an Iranian threat to Gulf Arab countries is judged to be over, Bahrain’s foreign minister said on Monday, hinting that Gulf troops could be there for some time. ”
,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42644225/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
Saudi money wins Obama’s mind
Speeches from the Barack Obama administration suggest Saudi Arabia’s hint it may extend the largest purchase of American arms in history has worked. In no time at all US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has twisted from urging reform in Gulf states to bowing to Riyadh’s role in suppressing revolt and sharing its view that Iran is meddling in the Arab spring
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD19Ak02.html
WARNING LABEL: “irrelevant” response to the post continues…. Part II*This post, when read as directed, might cause irritation. If you believe you have a sensitive nature, please consult an emotional therapist before proceeding to read. *
RE: “that is, the particular form of Islam that has been championed by the al-Saud since the mid-18th century, commonly known in the West as wahhabi (though many Saudis resist the term), and described by many of our Iranian interlocutors as salafi (though that strikes us as a more general term that can apply to Sunni Muslims who do not follow a Saudi-prescribed religious line)”
Why some nations choose a particular term to describe a group or a doctrine or a phenomenon must/does have geopolitical and cultural significance and relevance that must be understood. How “things” are described is also indicative of particular worldviews and approaches.
When one is faced with a headache, for example, Cartesian model encourages treatment of the headache as a local phenomenon in the head region and suggest taking a pain killer. Alternatively, when one is faced with a headache, systems thinking approach suggest finding out why the headache occurred in the first place and while calming the headache temporarily (as it is needed) going further and identifying root causes and addressing those so that the vicious scenario, as illustrated above, does not escalate out of control.
Now, what is the relevance to the use of wahhabi vs. salafi terms. Because it is an extensive discussion, I think it is useful if I translated portions of a report from a conference titled, وضعیت کنونی وهابیت و سلفیه در جهان اسلام [Condition of Wahhabiah and Salafiah in the Islamic World Today], sponsored by Bagher-ol-Oloum Research Center on February 28, 2011.
According to Dr. Farmanian, The head of the College of Islamic Schools of Thought (دانشکده مذاهب اسلامی), the world of Islam currently has five (5) Salafi school of thoughts that might spread (has the risk of spreading) in the future throughout the world of Islam:
1) Salafi Wahhabi
2) Salafi Zeidi (two groups of E’tedali—moderate—and Efrati – extremist)
3) Salafi Dehlavi (or Divbandi)
4) Salafi Jihadi Seyd Qotbi (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and extremists of Ikhvan-al-Muslimin –or extremists within Muslim Brotherhood)
5) Salafi E’tedali Ikhvan-ol-Muslimin (Moderate Salafi of Muslim Brotherhood)
He believes that “Salafi Wahhabi”, concocted by Muhhamad Ib Abdol-Wahhab and politically supported by Al Saud, was a product of a coordinated effort between Britain and Al Saud to solidify and spread both in the Saudi Arabia and across the world of Islam (in the previous post, I brought in a bit of history to that end). He also contends that this form of “Salafi” (i.e. Wahhabi Salafi) is currently quite shaky and will collapse with the collapse of Al Saud and it has very little influence and maneuverability among Muslims and is destined to disappear.
In parallel with the above Salafi branch, Salafi Zeidi was formed by Ibn Amir San’ani . This branch, while shared many elements of the above, it opposed the killing of other Muslims based on certain practices (such as shefa’at and tavvasol, etc.). A member of this group, Muhammad Ali Shokani, established its doctrine in Yemen and gathered many followers.
The third Salafi, Salafi Dehlavi or Divbandiah was established by Shah Vali Allah Dehlavi who began his schooling in Medina and afterwards created an amalgamation of various teachings of Hanfai, Sufism, etc. with Salafi and began to preach in India. One particular characteristics of this teaching was that it, to a great extent, ignored the four (4) main school of thoughts in Sunni (Shafe’I, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali). In India, this school of thought has established nearly 26,000 schools and it is anticipated to increase even more. This movement has also become increasingly close to Wahhabi [which cannot be accidental].
[Translation/interpretation from: http://dipna.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4599&Itemid=47
More later…..
Fiorangela,
RE: “A few years ago I borrowed another Iranian film, about the conflict between several families over whether the price of redemption would be paid to release a man from punishment for committing some crime. I don’t remember the name of that practice — of redeeming/forgiving a convicted wrongdoer, and even worse, I don’t remember the name of the film so that I can study it some more.”
I think you’re referring to the concept of دیه [Diyeh] or خونبها “blood money”. That means, if someone has killed another person and convicted and sentenced to death, he/she seeks forgiveness of the family and the family of the victim forgives him (with or without money), then he could be pardoned for that particular death.
Sorry….wasn’t meant to bold the whole thing……only the warning part…
@Arnold Evans
Re your message on April 18, 2011 at 1:12 am
Arnold;
I agree pretty much with every thing you said in that message. In fact I think what you said was brilliant in expounding the US-Arabia relationship (in general US-middle east relationship).
There is one thing that I want to hear your explanation about. In your opinion what is (and has been) the motive for USA in trying to create a government based on the rule of a racial minority in this region? And it is not just US, Great Britain was the main power behind the creation of Israel (at least that is my opinion), so what was the rationale for GB in doing so? Especially considering that this was not the only case that GB tried to pull such a trick. If your answer is the powerful jewish community, then my question will be what was that jewish community’s motive in creating such a state in this region (especially considering that as some historians suggest many Jews at the beginning of the creation of Israel, went there as a last resort and not out of a great love for that god forsaken land)? For me this becomes especially important because “a powerful jewish community” implies a wealthy jewish business community, and a businessman’s primary commitement is to the profit that it gains from making an investment (otherwise if he goes by any criterion conflicting with his financial interests, it will go bankrupt).
WARNING LABEL: “irrelevant” response to the post continues…. Part II*This post, when read as directed, might cause irritation. If you believe you have a sensitive nature, please consult an emotional therapist before proceeding to read. *
RE: “that is, the particular form of Islam that has been championed by the al-Saud since the mid-18th century, commonly known in the West as wahhabi (though many Saudis resist the term), and described by many of our Iranian interlocutors as salafi (though that strikes us as a more general term that can apply to Sunni Muslims who do not follow a Saudi-prescribed religious line)”
Why some nations choose a particular term to describe a group or a doctrine or a phenomenon must/does have geopolitical and cultural significance and relevance that must be understood. How “things” are described is also indicative of particular worldviews and approaches.
When one is faced with a headache, for example, Cartesian model encourages treatment of the headache as a local phenomenon in the head region and suggest taking a pain killer. Alternatively, when one is faced with a headache, systems thinking approach suggest finding out why the headache occurred in the first place and while calming the headache temporarily (as it is needed) going further and identifying root causes and addressing those so that the vicious scenario, as illustrated above, does not escalate out of control.
Now, what is the relevance to the use of wahhabi vs. salafi terms. Because it is an extensive discussion, I think it is useful if I translated portions of a report from a conference titled, وضعیت کنونی وهابیت و سلفیه در جهان اسلام [Condition of Wahhabiah and Salafiah in the Islamic World Today], sponsored by Bagher-ol-Oloum Research Center on February 28, 2011.
According to Dr. Farmanian, The head of the College of Islamic Schools of Thought (دانشکده مذاهب اسلامی), the world of Islam currently has five (5) Salafi school of thoughts that might spread (has the risk of spreading) in the future throughout the world of Islam:
1) Salafi Wahhabi
2) Salafi Zeidi (two groups of E’tedali—moderate—and Efrati – extremist)
3) Salafi Dehlavi (or Divbandi)
4) Salafi Jihadi Seyd Qotbi (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and extremists of Ikhvan-al-Muslimin –or extremists within Muslim Brotherhood)
5) Salafi E’tedali Ikhvan-ol-Muslimin (Moderate Salafi of Muslim Brotherhood)
He believes that “Salafi Wahhabi”, concocted by Muhhamad Ib Abdol-Wahhab and politically supported by Al Saud, was a product of a coordinated effort between Britain and Al Saud to solidify and spread both in the Saudi Arabia and across the world of Islam (in the previous post, I brought in a bit of history to that end). He also contends that this form of “Salafi” (i.e. Wahhabi Salafi) is currently quite shaky and will collapse with the collapse of Al Saud and it has very little influence and maneuverability among Muslims and is destined to disappear.
In parallel with the above Salafi branch, Salafi Zeidi was formed by Ibn Amir San’ani . This branch, while shared many elements of the above, it opposed the killing of other Muslims based on certain practices (such as shefa’at and tavvasol, etc.). A member of this group, Muhammad Ali Shokani, established its doctrine in Yemen and gathered many followers.
The third Salafi, Salafi Dehlavi or Divbandiah was established by Shah Vali Allah Dehlavi who began his schooling in Medina and afterwards created an amalgamation of various teachings of Hanfai, Sufism, etc. with Salafi and began to preach in India. One particular characteristics of this teaching was that it, to a great extent, ignored the four (4) main school of thoughts in Sunni (Shafe’I, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali). In India, this school of thought has established nearly 26,000 schools and it is anticipated to increase even more. This movement has also become increasingly close to Wahhabi [which cannot be accidental].
[Translation/interpretation from: http://dipna.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4599&Itemid=47
More later…..
Arnold Evans says: April 18, 2011 at 1:12 am
Thank you for your long reply, which, unfortunately, I do not find persuasive.
I think that the comparison with China under the Qing points out substantial differences: the Qing were under military pressure, they were disorganized and clueless about what was going on in the wider world at that time, parts of their territory were under foreign occupation, the White Devils were enjoying extra-territorial legal protection, and Christian religious propagandists were all over China.
None of that holds for the Kingdom of Suaid Arabia.
For example, the oil sector and the Haj sector of the Saudi Arabian economy are very well organized and run.
And when the leaders of Saudi Arabia asked US to close her military bases the Americans did that and left.
Or when Mr. George Herbert Walker Bush was visiting US troops, he complied with the bigotted, mean, and intolerant demand of government of the Saudi Arabia to spend US Thanksgiving Holiday on a ship in Persian Gulf with US troops lest a non-Muslim prayer to the same God be uttered by a Christian on the Arabian penninsula’s soil.
Empty says: April 17, 2011 at 6:04 pm
If there are, per your admission, no natural political constructs (not even the Extended Family) it follows that the qualification of natural/un-natural neither confers legitimacy nor detracts from it.
That is, the legitimacy of a political construct must be sought elsewhere; it is not subject of empirical research.
Persian Gulf @2:44 am wrote: “. . .it’s time for you to leave all these stuff and go for fishing.”
A wonderful library in my town has a collection of Iranian films on DVD. A few weeks ago I borrowed “When Fish Fall in Love.” I suppose it’s a ‘chick flick,’ a bit of a romantic story, but it does communicate aspects of Iranian society at the micro-level and the human level that one might not learn about from US MSM or Hollywood, or even Reza Aslan’s attempt to propel Iran into the stream of US popular culture.
Aslan recently was the hub of several events introducing Iranian artists to US cities. The events were disappointing in that it seemed that in order to get western attention and acceptance, Iranian culture had to debase itself to western pop standards. I suppose Aslan is doing good work and creating a niche in a tough atmosphere, and I wish him well, but I wish Americans could be educated to envision some higher qualities rather than higher values debased to appeal to American dumbed-down tastes.
A few years ago I borrowed another Iranian film, about the conflict between several families over whether the price of redemption would be paid to release a man from punishment for committing some crime. I don’t remember the name of that practice — of redeeming/forgiving a convicted wrongdoer, and even worse, I don’t remember the name of the film so that I can study it some more.
M.Ali,
RE: “I’m very impressed by Al-Assad’s speech, that he gave yesterday. A very pragmatic, reasonable President.”
Do you, by chance, have a link to his speech? If so, would you mind sharing? It would be greatly appreciated. I looked for the full speech and don’t seem to find it.
Last week in Jerusalem, the Zionist entity’s prime minister, Benji Netanyahu, told ambassadors from EU countries: “I am very concerned over some of the voices we’ve been hearing from Egypt recently. I’m especially concerned over the current Egyptian foreign minster’s statements.”
I am not sure who Benji was lying about; former Egyptian FM Ahmed Aboul Gheit who had said in Beirut last year that his trip was not to relay messages “from the (Lebanon’s) enemy to a sister Arab state” – or the current FM Nabil al-Arabi, who did not make any such anti-Israel statement. Though some senior foreign ministry officials did call Zionist regime “an enemy”. Commenting on the possibility of economic ties with Tel Aviv, Egypt’s Finance Minister Samir Radwan did stress that Cairo did not need investments from “the enemy.”
The Zionist entity has already lost Turkey as its strategic muslim ally. If the current pro-USrael miltary junta holds fair democratic election – the supporters of the banned Islamic movement, Muslim Brotherhood, certainly will come out as the largest group in the new parliament as they did in 2005.
Franco Pagetti wrote in the Newsweek in February 2011: “Democracies do not emerge fully equipped from ordinary people’s heartfelt protestations. Democracies need honest legislators, professional judges, incorruptible civil servants, and unbiased public-opinion makers. Such institutions will not grow out of the cracked pavement of Tahrir Square alone”. One wonders which country he had in mind where such democratic system does exits – not in Israel, the US, Britain or India for sure.
Canada’s veteran war correspondent and author, Eric Margolis, in his latest article entitled Mubarakism still rules Egypt has tried to throw some iced water on Benji & Co’s itchy Zionist nerves.
“The fact remains, in spite of Mubarak’s fall, not much has changed in Egypt. The Old Guard of generals and bureaucrats still rule Egypt. An intensifying struggle goes on behind the scenes between the military and the fragmented democratic opposition. So far, the military retains an iron grip on Egypt in spite of noisy street demonstrations.
Muabarak is gone but Mubarakism still lives,” he wrote.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/bibi-%e2%80%98israel-may-lose-egypt-next%e2%80%99/
I’m very impressed by Al-Assad’s speech, that he gave yesterday. A very pragmatic, reasonable President.
This is how the USA gets it’s information regarding Iran. This is from cables which were leaked to McClatchy newspapers
Filed by a special corps of US diplomats known as Iran watchers, the cables are a mix of surprising insights into life inside Iran and large blind spots about a country key to US foreign policy. They are based on phone calls to and emails from sources inside Iran, interviews with members of Iranian rock bands on tour in neighboring countries, foreign journalists who’ve recently been to Iran, and conversations with Iranian businessmen, academics, and former officials traveling outside their homeland. One cable even recounts an Iran watcher’s chats with truck drivers crossing the border into Turkmenistan..
Yes gentleman the billion $ Intelligence Services resort to rock bands to get it’s information. Maybe Pak also gets his from the same rock bands!
Pirouz_2 says:
April 16, 2011 at 10:47 pm
As you have duplicated your silly message here, I thought it would be better to say something that I forgot in my last message (I was in Tehran yesterday anyway ;)).
In fact, before the first class in primary school (around age 7), I was not able to speak, and somehow understand, Farsi. I can now be a public speaker in Farsi. does it have anything do to with the suppression of people like you or losing my ex-identity or worse feeling insecurity? and I can see enormous hurdles that ordinary people (not the very new generation that has somehow, wit the lack of option, adopted Farsi as their mother tongue) from my region face when caring out their stuff in places like Tehran.
It’s indeed called ADAPTABILITY (old great man, you mixed up the words too). on the contrary, it’s the deep feeling of insecurity which people like you are engulfed in that has made the life of a big portion of this HOLY LAND a hardship. with the same token, we the new generation feel as the evidences clearly show, that we can be integrated in the world and lead, instead of being ruled by a bunch of backward people with frozen mind, and at the same time keep our Iranian and Islamic identities, which supposed to be dynamic anyhow, alive. obviously, we can think locally and act globally or if you like think globally and act globally too.
lastly, you said “I don’t reveal my educational background and my age, because I find it very much beneath my dignity to rely on such things when I am making an argument.”
what a strong reason and dignity you have!! a Nobel prize winner won’t mind to mention her/his educational background (I think Obama himself says that he holds a law degree. what does it have to do with dignity?!!!-it’s in fact an act of professionalism). you can’t talk nonsense in a field you don’t have any expertise about and yet condemn others that are active in those fields for not understanding things and having no illusion at all. you escaped to answer a very simple question at the core of our dispute, that whether or not you have an engineering degree (and up to what level?), and yet labeling others for being irrelevant. you tried to take advantage of your age and force me to respect you (old man, it’s time for you to leave all these stuff and go for fishing. I pray to God to let you soon get out of this hell that we are all trapped in: to quote Sydney Brenner in one of his interviews!). I also leave it to the people of this forum to judge. they can also judge who brought very childish issues to the discussion. luckily the Leveretts don’t delete the comments.
fyi says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:59 am
I see a sovereign state with close military and political to the United States and indeed the Axis Powers.
I see nominally sovereign states in both Qing China and in Chinese current communist dictatorship.
However, these states are not the same. There was active foreign involvement in the policy making of Qing China, in the form of advisors and military and diplomatic integration. There is none of that in the policy making of the current Chinese dictatorship.
A Chinese democracy would likely pursue a foreign policy very similar to that of the current Chinese dictatorship but would not be as accommodating to foreigners as the late Qing dynasty was.
Critics of the Qing dynasty described it as a colonial stooge government. A story goes that there were parks in China where Chinese were not allowed. I’m comfortable going along with those critics and also describing that government as a colonial subordinate especially of Great Britain but also of other European powers.
I’ve never in any context seen modern China described as anyone’s colonial subordinate.
If we set a scale between Qing China and contemporary China, where does Saudi Arabia fall?
I say very close to Qing China, possibly surpassing Qing China in the distance between the policies its people would vote for and the policies the ruling regime puts into place.
Now some people feel it is very important that the Saudi regime – which began rule while the Qing still ruled China and unlike the Qing has never been thrown off – is nominally independent. I really am not impressed by this nominal sovereignty in Qing China’s case or in Saudi Arabia’s case.
If Qing China was a colony as its critics claimed (I say rightly), then the US current Middle East structure containing Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and others are colonies today.
One could, with a lot of effort, try to explain Qing policies with respect to supposed Chinese strategic objectives. China made a strategic decision to be a colony of outsiders. That is just false because fundamentally no country makes a strategic decision to depend on outsiders for internal and external security. The whole purpose of foreign strategy is to avoid being anyone’s colony.
Another thing one could do is say that Qing China’s relationship with the foreign powers was necessary for the Qing regime itself. That would be more true, but now we’re not talking about China any more. Now we’re just describing a colonial relationship with a stooge regime. The discussion is now completely removed from “China’s” strategic interests and is now solely centered on the “Qing” interests.
We see these efforts in “explaining” the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. Saudi Arabia is a colony. It does what the United States tells it to do. This relationship is necessary because an independent Republic of Arabia (thanks Lysander) would render Israel nearly or even completely non-viable and the US has a strong commitment to the idea that slightly less than six million Jewish people must have a majority state.
The over 25 million people ruled by the Saudi colonial dictatorship are, by actual US values, an acceptable sacrifice for ensuring the viability of a Jewish state for fewer than 6 million Jews. The same goes for hundreds of millions of other non-Jews in Israel’s region whom the US actively works to keep under non-accountable governments on behalf of Israel.
Americans almost never face how horrible and disgusting US values are regarding the Middle East, but there it is. 2011 United States is morally on par with or worse than 1911 colonial Great Britain regarding that region.
A lot is made of the 1973 Saudi protest against the US’ role in maintaining Israel and perpetuating the accompanying injustice against the Palestinians. Considering the extent of US intervention at that time and the level of affront it was against Arab values, the 1973 oil embargo was the equivalent of Mubarak opening Rafah to limited personal travel after the Gaza flotilla incident. Both of these minor protests were nowhere close to how independent countries would have responded in those positions. If anything both of these events demonstrate the subordination of the US colonies to the US regardless of the US’ and Israel’s provocations against them.
Saudi Arabia is a US colony and will continue to be unless its regime is removed from power the way Nasser and Mao broke their countries out of colonial rule. I am waiting hopefully and guardedly optimistically to see if the people of Egypt actually have broken Egypt free of colonial rule.
US claims that it wants reforms of its colonies so that their colonial regimes can remain in power and continue ensuring Israel’s viability by continuing ultimate US control over their policies is as disgusting as colonial Great Britain’s rationalizations for continuing its colonial relationships with the same veneer of reform that is today suggested by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Saudi Arabia does not in any sense direct US Middle East policy. In no way can the rulers of Saudi Arabia be described as an influence on US policy. US policy in the Middle East has as its primary aim ensuring that fewer than 6 million Jewish people have a viable majority state against the wishes of hundreds of millions of non-Jewish people in the region who therefore must be kept relatively powerless through dictatorships and sanctions and occupations.
If the US had to choose between Arabia’s oil and Israel, quite possibly it would choose the oil. But as long as there is a subordinate colonial regime in power there, it does not have to make that choice.
What kinds of policies would an independent “Saudi” Arabia (I hope some day “Republic of Arabia”) implement? There are a few possibilities.
1) It could institute a policy of total neutrality. This would be a huge improvement over today. It would mean it would not fund Anti-Shia’ political or military forces in Lebanon or elsewhere. It would have cordial, or at least normal, relations with Iran. It would avoid conflict with Israel but would not cooperate with it. It would not try to game the results of elections in Lebanon or Egypt or elsewhere. Were a future Arabia to adopt such a policy, few could find fault in it. Neutrality is a reasonable policy for all nations.
2) It could seek a position of leadership in the Arab and Muslim world. That would require a more robust resistance to US/Israeli policies. The Arab and Muslim public invariably rally around anyone who adroitly confronts western schemes.
If option two is chosen, what could the Republic of Arabia do? Well, it could blunt any western attempt to sanction or economically harm like minded pro Palestinian nations and groups. It itself would be impervious to western sanctions given its crucial role in the global economy. Just as it now buys compliance to western wishes with its wealth from Arab politicians, it could buy resistance. Just as it sows conflict now, it could use its wealth to enforce unity.
It could send financial markets reeling simply by selling whatever western treasury notes it holds. Or demand payment for oil in Gold/Silver or precious minerals.
If the R of A REALLY wanted to stick it to the great Satan, it could, for example, encourage Pakistan to cut off all supply lines to NATO in Afghanistan. By offering to replace whatever losses Pakistan incurs, and then some, it could do this. Or it could refrain from doing this by extracting some concessions from the US. Probably a painful concession.
Of course, by offering to buy whatever weapons Russia or China wanted to sell, and offer them dibs on investment opportunities, it could buy their good will as well and ensure whatever crazy idea that enters the heads of US policy makers never makes it past the UNSC.
That’s just what I could think of in 5 minutes. I’m sure there is a lot more. In short, current US policy and global prestige would be very difficult to maintain if Saudi Arabia’s cooperation were lost, and would be unfathomable if Saudi Arabia actively resisted.
Off topic;
This would strengthen the Egypt-Hezbollah ties.
Iran freed 100 Egyptian prisoners with the mediation of Lebanon’s Hezbollah Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175361.html
Perhaps, a Fiorangela says, “money that went to Israel is money that DID NOT go to American citizens,” excepting, of course, the money that went to AIPAC and into political campaigns. It’s called priming the pump for more aid. And it takes only a tiny fraction of that $3 billion of US aid to fully fund any strategic campaign that AIPAC chooses to focus on. It’s how US aid and government contracts end up corrupting the system.
The statement from the three ‘Stooges of Zionism’ – Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron makes clear the war on Libya is not about protecting civilians but bringing about a more subverted regime change. Having ignored peace moves from the African Union, NATO is now set on escalating the bombing.
Libya: ‘Liberation via depleted uranium weapons’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/libya-liberation-via-depleted-uranium-weapons/
James Canning – I would recommened you to watch the movie ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ to find out who were the skunks against Muslim world including the Ottomon Empire.
It was Turkey which sided with Germany and not the other way around. Turkey knew the power of Zionist Lobby in the West and its agenda to dismember the Ottoman Sultanate.
speaking of buying Egypt on the cheap, here’s an interesting comment in a discussion on Mondoland:
“bijou April 17, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Another thing to tally under the “cost” column would be the folks in the US who lost out because of the inconceivably high sums of foreign aid the US has provided to Israel over the years.
One such estimate (from 2008, and deemed by its author as a ‘conservative’ one): $114 billion.
Let’s not kid ourselves — money that went to Israel is money that DID NOT go to American citizens. Sure, maybe some of it came back in defense contracts, but that is NOT the same as funding basic health, education, and welfare. In my view this is a direct collateral cost of this neverending conflict.
Another way to think about this is, how much American political, economic, intellectual energy — raw, human creativity and will — has been DIVERTED away from US growth and development and toward Israeli growth and development? Maybe that is a silly question, but imagine if all that effort had been directed instead at helping the US improve, grow, achieve its national interests, become a better place, whatever, who knows what we would have been able to do? It’s a national asset that has been lost to the US, and it’s hard to calculate it.”
Rehmat,
The British were extremely dismayed to find themselves at war with the Ottoman Empire.
What country manipulated the situation to produce war between Turkey and Britain? Germany. But Germany’s idea was certainly not to weaken Turkey so that “no Muslim power” threatened “the west”.
Bussed-In Basiji,
I think the hostile attitude toward Iran, taken by a number of Saudi leaders, is a mistake. I think I have made this clear in previous posts. However, the Saudis should get credit for pushing as hard as they thought themselves able, for justice for the Palestinians. And this is an issue which obviously divides the Saudis from the Zionists. Prince Bandar bin Sultan loathed the Zionists in Washington.
Rehmat,
The French refused to accept Feisal as an Arab king ruling from Damascus, though many Brits involved in the ME favored this. France insisted on taking control of Syria, so it was impossible for Britain to connect the three Ottoman provinces (Iraq) with what became Palestine and Transjordan.
Rehmat,
King Farouk of Egypt was keen on annexing Soudan (Anglo-Egyptian Soudan), and this object was supported by the American ambassador in Cairo. The British were not opposed to such annexation, provided Sudanese leaders accepted it.
fyi,
RE: “Could you please furnish examples of natural political constructs?”
There is none. All social constructs are artificial/conventional by design. As I stated, the use of “natural” in the post needs to be clarified as what it means.
“get the ball on the wood….” rather…
“…days go by without…..
well, and other corrections.
Dave,
RE: “You write a long — but mainly irrelevant — commentary on Leverett’s piece. How is that the case?”
Well, as a general rule, most posters on this site (including myself) usually get ball on the wood only occasionally. Sometimes days go by with any of us making comments related to that which has been posted by the Leverett’s and do our own thing. So, what I have done is not actually extraordinary. I think the Leveretts will find it refreshing that at least some reference was made to their statements.
Also, this is just part I. I’ll do parts II and III a bit later. I was just warming up with this one.
RE: “You do not need to accept the Leveretts historical framework to accept what the Leveretts say are “…the principal objectives and major elements of Saudi…”.”
I do not necessary disagree with their conclusion (at least parts of it) and I haven’t gotten to discussing that yet to accept or dispute it. However, I do think correct assessment of the historical framework is quite important since I think there are behind the scene actors who have played pivotal historical roles and unless we fully make those explicit and understand them, we might not be able to meaningfully discuss that which follows.
RE: “Your narrative shows that you are an unappreciated, but very good “historian”.”
I do not know enough about who reads/doesn’t read my posts to agree or disagree with the “unappreciated” part. I disagree with “very good ‘historian’” part though. I am not a “historian” therefore I cannot be either a very good or very bad one at that. I only copied and pasted a few quotes from a couple of sources related to the role of Britain in the formation of Saudi Arabia and the way Saudi Arabia has been able to keep control of the tribes in addition to the policies of forced settlements about which I have a bit more knowledge.
RE: “But how does your historical facts negate Leverett’s views on “…the principal objectives and major elements of Saudia Arabia’s current…”?”
I haven’t negated anything yet. Once I get there, should you care to critique I’d appreciate reading it. And if you believe it’s a waste of your time, just skip over it. I wouldn’t take it personally.
Hope these clarified things a bit.
John H, my point was not that US could not buy the election in Egypt — whatever it takes, the US can and will ensure that Egypt’s government complies with US-Israel/Economic Hit Man diktat.
My point is that $150 million is NOT a “LOT of money,” it’s peanuts; a drop in the bucket. Egypt will be bought at a bargain price.
Kurt Volker, former NATO diplomat, appeared on C Span this morning to recite Israeli MFA scripted reasons why US is killing Libyans — “for humanitarian reasons; everybody wants liberty and freedom . . .we couldn’t stand by while Qaddafi killed [I don't think Volker used "massacre" and "slaughter." Hmmm, free-lancing.] Someone asked about Arab involvement, especially whether Arabs would pay US for the intervention. Volker said, “They will try to wriggle out of paying. They frequently do. Arabs will not even contribute to support Palestinians.
Now that takes balls the size of Madeleine Albright’s.
Israel holds up US for $3.075 BILLION to support its 6 million Jews, including 17 billionaires; Israel imprisons, “massacres and slaughters” Palestinians on a daily basis, and then Israelists kvetch that Arabs are not paying to support Palestinians.
peace, Castellio.
Don’t be fool by this ‘analysis’. Israel is the main enemy along with Saudi Arabia.
Israel has pushed everyone around to steal not only Palestine but destabilize and partition the regional states based on religeous and ethnic divide. ISRAEL IS USING AMERICAN POWER TO ESTABLISH A JUEDOFASCIST ‘greater Israel’ according to ODED YINON STRATEGY AND A CLEAN BREAK.
No one can fool us. People of the region must be united against their main enemies, Israel and Suadi Arabia.
Empty,
You write a long — but mainly irrelevant — commentary on Leverett’s piece. How is that the case?
The Leveretts try to put a broad framework on the emergence and evolution of the countries in the middle east and north Africa, particularly those of S. Arabia. Then they proceed to say that
“This record helps us understand the principal objectives and major elements of Saudi Arabia’s current national security strategy. The Kingdom wants to have at least a quasi-hegemonic status on the Arabian peninsula; at the same time, it does not want another regional state to attain what it would see as hegemony over the Middle East as a whole. And, even in the post-Cold War period, the Saudis have wanted to see their relationship with the United States as the ultimate guarantee of their security and survival…”
Hence, the main premise of the Leveretts’ article is to highlight what they consider to be “…the principal objectives and major elements of Saudi Arabia’s current national security strategy.” You do not need to accept the Leveretts historical framework to accept what the Leveretts say are “…the principal objectives and major elements of Saudi…”.
Now, go back to your long commentary. You have picked a number of sentences from the Leveretts’ historical construct, advertised them as “assumptions”, and then tried to dispute the “assumptions”. Your narrative shows that you are an unappreciated, but very good “historian”. But how does your historical facts negate Leverett’s views on “…the principal objectives and major elements of Saudia Arabia’s current…”?
The US investment in a suitable election result in Egypt: Obama spent $8/ vote cast. The US is investing about $8 / expected vote cast (the same number of voters as in the recent constitutional referendum.) Does anyone really doubt that this amount of money can’t buy the desired outcome by overwhelming the efforts of emerging grass roots organizers? Dream on.
In October 2009, when Saudi King visited Damascus – Jewish-owned The Wall Street Journal (October 7, 2009) gleefully reported that the King was following western ZOGs to pursue Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to distant himself from non-Arab Iran and assert his influence over Lebanon: “The US and EU officials who see Syria as a linchpin in curbing the influence of Iran and its proxies, such as militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas”. Aside from Israeli propaganda – the fact is that both Hamas (a Sunni resistance group) and Hezbollah (a Shia resistance group) are much less proxies of Shia Iran than the Christian US is the proxy of Jewish Israel. Tehran provides moral support to Hezbollah, while both moral and financial support to Hamas – which is far less than the moral and financial support Zionist regime receives from the US and EU.
Incidentally, Damascus cannot play Washington’s agenda in occupied Iraq. Shia’s make more than 60% of Iraqi population and most of its leaders lived in Iran during their exile. On the other hand, al-Assad belongs to a tiny Alawite Shia minority in a Sunni-majority Syria.
Saudi do have major influence over Taliban, as majority of Taliban are students from Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrasas in Pakistan’s northern province. However, over 500 million Iranian aid for Afghan infrastructure and Agha Khan Foundation’s social works have won the hearts of Karzai government officials and milions of Afghans – both Sunnis and Shias. It’s interesting to note that every time Karzai has visited Washington – he has made a stop-over in Tehran. So is the case with Pakistan’s presidents General Pervez Musharraf and Asif Zardari.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/bibi-turkey-not-an-honest-mediator-but-riyadh-could-be/
$150 million to secure a suitable election result in Egypt is not a LOT of money? Well, it’s almost $2/vote. Obama spent about $1 billion ($3/vote) for two elections (primary and general). And the cost of living in Egypt is a lot lower. And let’s not forget that the Saudis and Egyptian uber-wealthy will be throwing in a lot of their own money.
The counter-revolution in Egypt will be well funded, with the US contribution being a big factor.
Empty – Every time someone uses Israeli propaganda source Wikipedia to support his ignorance – he loses his rationality.
Israel, Jordan and Lebanon were all part of al-Sham (Syria) until WW I. These countries were created by the English and French colonialists, controlled by Zionist Jews even at that time – to make sure that no Muslim power challenges the West. Hatred toward Iran falls in the same category.
Sudan was split from Egypt; Bahrain from Iran and Kuwait from Iraq – as a part of Zionists’ plan of establishing a western proxy, worse than Nazis, in the middle of Islamic heartland.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/western-wars-on-islamic-world/
fyi,
The US is an imperial plutocracy, not a representative republic…My reading of the Leveretts analysis is that Israel and Saudi own US foreign policy in the Middle East and that this is not good for the US. Agree or no?
James,
Unfortunately I cannot take any of your comments about Saudi Arabia seriously as you have never displayed even the slightest level of critical analysis of anything related to Saudi Arabia. I defend the IRI but I also criticize where I find things to be criticized. Based on everything you have written about the Saudis in these many months, I’m convinced that you are “committed” to the Saudis in more the one way…I’m sorry but that’s just the impression you leave.
The issue is not “balance” when both Israel and the Saudis are throwing the US off the cliff.
Israel and Saudi are “forcing” the US to adopt policies which are diametrically opposed to the political goals of the majority of the population in the Middle East. This cannot be a good thing FOR AMERICA in the long-run. Any thoughts on this particular issue anyone?
Fiorangela,
what complete cr*p from those American rabbis! The US obviously undermines its own national security by encouraging Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and the endless war or near-war that policy entails. Israel in fact costs the American taxpayer at least $100 billion per year.
John H wrote:
“. . .And the US is contributing $150 million of its own, a LOT of money,. . .”
How charmingly naive.
Egypt has a population of about 85million. Let’s say 2/3 of them are voting age, that’s ~56,610,000 voters; $150million spread over 56 million voters = $2.65/vote.
Now consider this:
American rabbis are circulating a letter among their fellow rabbis soliciting signatures to a letter to be presented to US Congressmen insisting that Israel’s foreign aid be continued—
“Aid to Israel is an investment in U.S. security and Israel’s security. President Obama’s proposed FY2012 budget includes an increase in foreign aid to Israel to $3.075 billion as part of the 10-year agreement signed in 2007. This aid is essential to Israel, which spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on its own defense than any other industrialized country in the world. (source: Rabbis: Urge Congress to Support Foreign Aid for Israel” )
a. ~6 million Jews live in Israel. US annual aid = $512.50/Jew. The 2007 increase
alone, from $3 billion to $3.075 billion, is half of that “LOT of money” that US will throw at Egypt to buy the correct election decision. And that “half of a LOT” divided among only 6 million Jews puts $12.50 in every Israeli Jew’s pocket.
b. Two things in common about the “LOT of money” to Egypt and the continued aid to Israel that the rabbis so desperately neeeed from Congress:
1. it all comes out of the pockets of American taxpayers; and
2. it all entrenches zionist power ever more firmly in US politics, government, and policy.
Bussed-In Basiji,
The only way I see, for the grotesque over-influence of the Israel lobby to be reined in, is for countervailing influence to be brought to bear in Washington. The Saudis have pressed for years for justice for the Palestinians. Stronger Saudi influence in Washington may be the only way to weaken the power of the ISRAEL LOBBY to control American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Arnold Evans says: April 17, 2011 at 4:01 am
I see a sovereign state with close military and political to the United States and indeed the Axis Powers.
I also see a leadership whose trust in the ability of the United States to formulate and carry-out intelligent policy is shattered: on Israel, on Iraq, on Iran, and on Egypt.
I think there is now the possibility, albeit small, for Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia to come to an acceptable modus viviendi.
Bussed-in Basiji says: April 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
The United States is a representative republic.
Her elected officials, over at least 3 generations, have consistently identified support for the State of Israel to be in the interests of the United States.
US is the Champion of Israel and will defend the racialist Fantasy project of Jews in Palestine to the bitter end (of fighting Islam).
This fact must be faced and accepted.
Reza Esfandiari says: April 17, 2011 at 6:34 am
Egypt, Moroco, Oman, and Yemen are the only contemporary Arab entyities that one could, with some justification, consider to have been existing states in the 19-the century.
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Tunisia , Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan did not exist until early 20-th century. Arabs ceased to be historical actors in the Levant and in the Persian Gulf by the 14-th century.
New Jersey, in the United States, has had more of a state structure than Iraq ever had.
Empty says: April 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
You wrote: “States are social institutions created based on artificial political constructs”.
Could you please furnish examples of natural political constructs?
M.Ali says: April 17, 2011 at 5:01 am
Mr. Qaddafi did not charge Iran for the scuds.
The issues between Iran and Libya had to do with the disappearance of of Imam Musa Sadr and later – in 2001 – with Libya’s surrender to the Axis Powers and what Libya’s government had told the Axis Powers about the Iranian nuclear efforts.
Mr. Qadafi’s government has not been anti-Shia and has not been viscerally anti-Iran.
There is no formal alliance structure between Iran and Libya; therefore Iran has no obligation to help Mr. Qaddafi.
But Mr. Qaddafi’s treatment by the Axis Powers indicates the limitation of any settlement that the Axis Powers offer.
One may conclude that any settlment offer by the Axis Powers must be understood to be temporary and tactical for the Axis Powers will be calculating, all the while, how to break out of that obligation and resume a hostile posture.
In other words, business as usual among international actors.
A good article.
One observer, As’ad AbuKhalil, sees the hand of the Saudi royal family behind many of the events in the Middle East.
http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/10101
After being thoroughly disenchanted with US behavior, the Saudis seem intent on assuring that the Arabian peninsula remains a democracy-free zone. In addition, Hariri is seen as the Saudis’ tool in Lebanon, and they are intent on restoring him. The uprisings in Syria may have been promoted by the Saudis, since they were initially concentrated in Sunni areas. Qadhafi is hated by the Saudis, and Western intervention in Libya was sponsored by a Saudi-initiated Arab League resolution. Essentially, the Saudis want to get rid of any regimes that don’t play by the Saudis’ rules.
Israel shares the Saudis’ concerns, and Assad sees a coming Saudi/Israeli alliance being formed to strategically dominate the Middle East. After cleaning up Arab regimes and restoring Sunni despots to power, the alliance would tackle Iran and Iranian influence (ie. war on Iran and severe repression of Shi’a in Arab countires, including Hizbullah).
As for Egypt, the game has only begun. Elections will see a lot of Saudi money injected into the process. And the US is contributing $150 million of its own, a LOT of money, to assure that only suitable candidates win. In other words, democratic elections may merely serve as the process for ushering in the next tyrant.
Though the spotlight is on the Saudis and their increased aggressiveness, I see no reason to doubt that the US is a full, but silent partner in the project. Gates and Feltman were both in Bahrain just before the Saudi intervention, probably to review plans. And I see no daylight between the Saudi position and the US/Israeli one, except for the veneer of “democracy” in which the US wants to envelope the counter-revolutionary project.
Thanks for the analysis Leveretts,
They way I read it is that if Israel doesn’t eventually sink the US, the Saudis will.
It seems the next rational step is to start a movement in the US to challenge the Israeli and Saudi influence on American politics. Or is that “too real” and potentially too lethal to attempt in the land of the free and the home of brave?
Let’s get into this discussion (and stop analyzing how and when and why the last time Moussavi and Karroubi went to the crapper…)
It seems that there is a consensus among the regulars that Israel and to a certain extent Saudi own US foreign policy in the Middle East- and that this is contrary to US national interests.
Agree? Any thoughts on this? If true, what should be done by Americans about this? Can anything be done within the current political system? If not, is it time to start cracking some heads? etc…
My Goodness…where could one begin….perhaps with assumptions…
RE: “Unlike Iran and Turkey, many Arab states are not, within their current boundaries, “natural” states. Most, in fact, are the creations of colonial powers, at least within their present borders—e.g., Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the smaller GCC states all fit this bill.”
States are social institutions created based on artificial political constructs. The phrase “’natural’ state” is, therefore, an oxymoronic phrase. Putting quotations around “natural” would not solve this complexity and clarify things but adds another layer of unnecessary ambiguity. If it is meant to imply an interplay between the continuity of people/cultures and nationhood formation with more or less defined geographic boundaries throughout human history, then it must be said so. In that case, Turkey would not fit the bill. [Please see ;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_earliest_date_of_nationhood.PNG Also, note that Iraq is incorrectly represented by the map and the Leveretts’ assessment is more accurate (if they clearly define the term “’natural’ state” that they use and not leave it to the reader’s interpretation).
RE: “The Saudi state was definitely created—but by indigenous actors, not outsiders.”
This statement misleads. State “creations” in recent history has entailed using indigenous actors as proxies for outsiders. Examples of exceptions to these (in reverse chronological order) is the creation of Israel, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, various countries of Americas including the United States and Canada, all of which were created using imported people and using extermination methods (to a greater or lesser degree) against the indigenous populations. Directly related to Saudi Arabia, however, Britain was (unequivocally) the most significant outsider in creation of the Saudi state by using both direct agents and indigenous proxies. Below is limited excerpts from the book by J. Kostiner (1993), titled, “The making of Saudi Arabia, 1916-1936): From Chieftaincy to Monarchical State,” Oxford University Press, intermittent excerpts from Pages 6-9]. I highly recommend this reading (with critical eyes, of course) to Iranians, Arabs, and Turks alike.
QUOTE 1: “The first two Saudi states (1744-1818 and 1821-91), which coalesced around the doctrine of Wahhabism, did not deviate from the chieftaincy structure typical to the area. Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (1268-1328), the scholar whose area is evident in treaties such as that signed between Britain and the shaykh of Kuwayt in 1899, which gave Kuwayt protection in return for subordination. By 1913, Britain had considerably increased its influence in the Gulf area; in the same year, it concluded an agreement with the Ottoman Empire that confirmed its dominance. When it became clear that war with the Ottomans was imminent, Britain’s involvement in the Peninsula became even more energetic.”
QUOTE 2: “The second was the tactic of encouraging local rulers to fight the Ottomans and their allies, promising them independence to draw them to the British side.”
QUOTE 3: “Britain’s major political undertaking, initiated by its intelligence officers in Cairo (the Arab Bureau) and supported by the Foreign and War offices in London, was the Arab Revolt, led by the Hashimite family of Mecca. Accordingly, the Sharif (i.e. the descendant of the prophet Muhammad) Husayn, the head of the Revolt, which was intended not only to oppose the Ottomans militarily but also to culminate in the establishment of a British-protected Arab state, goals that received the blessings of Arab nationalists in Syria.”
QUOTE 4: “The British began providing financial aid to Ibn Sa’ud in late 1917.”
QUOTE 5: “The British gave far-reaching but vague commitments to Sharif Husayn as well. Their promises to establish Arab independence over mush of the Middle East, with Husayn as leader, as expressed in the second letter of the ‘Husayn-McMahn correspondence,’ were encouraging but ambigious; they were not affirmed by treaty. In addition, such promises were practically contradicted by a reinterpretation by other British officials, which limited their scope, and by Britain’s pledges to France and the Zionist movement in the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 and the Balfour Declaration in 1917.”
QUOTE 6: “Beginning in July 1916 and continuing for a period of nearly a year, Husayn received approximately 125,000 (British Pound- can’t put the symbol) per month in gold to finance the Revolt, supplemented by consider amounts at later dates. Husayn also received weapons from Britain and was assisted by military advisers dispatched from Cairo.”
QUOTE 7: “…Sir Mark Sykes, a supporter of the Arab Revolt, commented that ‘the success of Britain’s policies in Arabia would depend rather on the expenditure of gold than on native initiative and enthusiasm.”
RE: “Saudi Arabia is the product of hard-fought tribal wars and alliances, legitimated by an indigenously generated ideology.”
This is an incorrect statements. Saudi Arabia is the product of many processes/plans. “hard-fought tribal wars and alliances,” is not one of them. In fact, Saudi Arabia (since its inception as a state) has been on an aggressive campaign of dismantling and forced sedentarization and pacification of all tribes modeled after forced sedentarization pacification of Native Americans in the United States. From “Desert Kindgom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia” by T.C. Jones (2010, page 30), for example, the following quote:
QUOTE: “Less than two decades after establishing control over Riyadh in 1902, the Saudis launched a two-pronged strategy to bring the Bedouin under control. The first plan was to promote their loyalty to the ruling family by exposing them to an intensive proselytizing and recruiting campaign that used faith to gain fealty. The second part of their strategy was to restrain and manage the Bedouin through settlement, by transforming them into a hadari, or settled, farming and warrior class subordinate to the centralized power in Najd.”
And from El Farra (1972) and Habib (1978) [referenced in “Commission on Nomadic Peoples: Control of Resources and Social Cohesion, The role of the Bedouin Domestic Group,” by U. Fabietti published in Nomadic Peoples, Number 28, 1991]….. QUOTE: “History demonstrates nonetheless that aside from declarations, and from the fact that the Al Saud have pursued a policy of alliances with tribal elites, all the policies concretely implemented towards the Bedouin have always aimed –in actual fact—at undermining the foundations of tribal solidarity.”
It seems one could write a book critiquing even the first 3 paragraph…….well, more later perhaps.
M. Alu,
The brief technical “support” rendered by Israel to the IRIAF was more important during the Iran-Iraq war than Libya’s select provision of armaments. So was Iran-contra supplied spare parts from the U.S.
And the long memory of what happened to Musa al-Sadr may be coming into play here.
M Ali, thank you for the link to that link-rich comment in Guardian.
The next comment also offered insights:
“geddingarmour
14 April 2011 1:28PM
RO42
“…and democracy will follow.”
Well, there was a lot of backslapping when Afghanistan and Iraq had some sort of voting mechanism installed. Now what? What actually is this panacea held in such lofty acclaim? The electorate of the U.K. and France don’t seem especially enamoured with their elected representatives – fiddling expenses, womanizing, reneging.
And why is the “House of Lords” still going strong? Lying “Lord Browne” resurfaces.
Democracy? Bah. Humbug.”
Tzipi shares the commenter’s caution about the relative meaning of “some sort of voting mechanism.” According to Livni, only votes that make “democratic” choices that comply with the wishes of the Livnis of the world are acceptable. And Livni, daughter of Irgun terrorists and herself a Mossad agent, has a greater than casual acquaintance with the means of, Rehmat, shall we say shaping? — “democratic” choices to fit the preordained outcome.
Livni explained to Simon Shama that [Livni] is a great believer in the strength of principle, championing an international code of practice to govern elections in newly born democracies. Recalling that in Israel the expulsionist Kach party was disbarred from participating in elections, she wants the same principle to apply to parties in Muslim countries that use democratic means to overthrow democracy. Hitler, she remembers, came to power through the ballot box. “This would not be patronising or imperialist,” she says. “They can all do what they like. But if they want to participate in an international community they should abide by those conventions.”
If people like Livni would permit the facts of history to be known, our children’s textbooks would report that Hitler was supported by Jewish bankers from Berlin when he won election. The “conventions” that Livni would like to impose on the international community are the conventions that operatives like AIPAC have imposed on the American election process, in which the wealthy control elections just as they did in Germany. And just as Israel and the US united under zionist control to attempt to destroy Hamas, which won a popular election, so zionists and the US and Churchill’s Great Britain organized to destroy the popularly supported and nationalistically motivated NASDP government of Germany in the 1930s.
The wink wink interpretation placed on Livni’s remarks about elections is that she opposes the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and of Islamic influence in the other “democraticizing” Arab states. Tarek Masoud addressed Livni’s concerns directly in his responses to a House of Representatives Committee hearing on the Muslim Brotherhood, chaired by Rep. Sue Myrick. While expert witnesses Norman Brown and Robert Satloff insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood had great and malevolent power that they were clever enough to deploy in an opportunistc fashion. Satloff and Brown were keenly concerned that Muslim Brotherhood would press for Egyptian policies that would disadvantage Israel.
Masoud disagreed with Satloff and Brown’s assessment of the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood, explaining that MB was one group among many. Furthermore, Masoud said, not just Muslim Brotherhood or even Muslims but a large percentage of the Egyptian populace is in favor of measures that might disadvantage Israel.
A good analysis. Thank you. I have a couple of observations.s
First, outcome of turmoils in Yemen is as important for Saudi-US strategy as that of the war on Libya. And, unlike in Libya or Bahrain, neither the Saudi’s nor the US seem eager to use the military option.
Second, you suggest that the “Saudis are not handling [the Arab Spring] well”. But you do not explain how they could have handled it better.
M.Ali,
OK azizam a little history lesson because unfortunately the facts are not on your side…
When Saddam starting shooting Scuds at us, we had to respond. Gaddafi at that time was competing with Saddam as “Leader of the Arabs”(when that didn’t work, he switched to “Leader of Africa” but that went down the craphole as well) and he decided giving us Scuds would be a good way to stick it to Saddam. I should be more precise, the Soviets wanted to sell us Scuds but couldn’t do so directly, so they told Gaddafi to sell us some and they would sell some to him. I should be even more precise, the west wanted to prolong the war and told its trustworthy agent-provocateur Gaddafi to accept the Soviet deal so that Iranians and Iraqis continue killing each other.
So Haj Mohsen goes to meet Gaddafi and Gaddafi says we will sell you the Scuds under the condition that a colonel from Libya controls its launch and I have final say where and when to launch the rockets into Iraq.
Haj Mohsen says OK fine, but Gaddafi doesn’t realize he’s dealing with the smartest cookie east of the Euphrates (never underestimate the short ones, Haj Mohsen, Ahmadinejad…) The Libyan colonel comes to Tehran, they set up the launch room and the guy and his assistants do their thing and go back to their hotel for a some r&r.
Next morning the colonel gets a panic phone call from Muammar yelling at him and asking why he has launched rockets into Iraq without his permission. The colonel is confused and says that he’s in the hotel and was sleeping…
Turns out Haj Mohsen had installed cameras in the room and filmed the colonel launching the scuds and now no longer needs the colonel to launch them. The rockets are in Iran, the colonel has become “redundant” and Gaddafi, the Soviets and the US can kiss our a.. (sorry Liz).
So M.Ali-jan if you want to call this brief episode (all together a few weeks) as “support” you can call it that. As you can imagine Gaddafi was not too happy- especially after we got rid of his forces in Iran in the Ayat. Montazeri’s bayt and well let’s just say that relations cooled after that. Gaddafi neither helped us nor was he our friend. And we haven’t even discussed Imam Musa Sadr in all this.
Therefore as far as I’m concerned, Gaddafi can go to hell…the sooner the better.
We all know how Washington is obsessed with human rights violations in foreign countries, especially the Muslim world. So much so, that State Deparment issues its own annual human rights report – because it believes that United Nations Human Right Council is baised toward Washington and its allies especially Israel. On February 28, 2011 – Hillary Clinton in her speech delivered at UNHRC meeting in Geneva – welcomed the ouster of Libya from the council and demanded the creation of a special envoy to monitor human rights abuses in Iran, however, she slammed the Council for “its structural bais” against Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/americas-child-sex-slaves/
The kidnapping and assassination of Vittorio Arrigoni, activist and correspondent of the International Solidarity Movement with Palestine in Gaza – was meant as an Israeli warning: “Stay away from Gaza and Palestine”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/gaza-flotilla-ii-and-vittorio-arrigoni/
On Saudi Arabia
Generally, in a ‘colonial’, neo-colonial’, and for that matter any unequal relationship between two entities, one should not ignore the influence of the slave on the master. An excessively servile demeanor is itself a slave’s ‘independent’ posture, uncalled for by the master, and which poisons the relationship which, in turn, diminishes the master’s legitimacy, and even his self-worth. Of course the US has a set of interests that is at odds with the interests of the Saudi population. However, the House of Saud’s fawning compliance and servitude, not only is not a requirement of the US, but hinders the formulation of sustainable policies. Counter-intuitively, aside from the pleasure of getting one’s boots licked, the House of Saud are hurting America’s interests in the region. Me thinks.
A proximate result of this sick relationship is that the slave will find the master insufficiently masterful; will start acting unadvisedly monstrously (independence?). Eventually the relationship will unravel.
This brings me to the next thought, obvious but occasionally lost in the heated discourse: not every independent action is necessarily a good action.
Lastly, here’s an alternative worldview:
Davutoglu added: “We are announcing to the world that Turkey and Iran will be friends for eternity.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jA0KZkLKTxnDGhf8alP1lAVWcHkQ?docId=CNG.d28e977733e212d40d816e1892692c61.b71
I completely disagree with the Leveretts on the issue of colonial creation:
Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Iraq are all states that have existed as provinces or the like throughout the history of the region.
On the other hand, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and the UAE were completely drawn up by imperial powers. The House of Al-Saud also owes its power to the British in many respects.
offtopic, but I’m getting concerned about Libya’s rebels. It seems more and more like the rebels are going to ruin Libya for the worse.
This comment has several links that shed an interesting light on the rebels:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/10368680
Also, linking it to Iran, in a discussion on Syria, I remember Bussed-in-Basij proudly proclaiming that Iran, unlike the west, does’t abandon its friends, since Syria supported Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. But so did Libya, and it seems Iran HAS abandoned Libya. What’s the answer to that?
Fyi,
If you look at Saudi Arabia and see an independent country then I’m not sure what to say. Some people don’t believe there was ever such thing as a subordinated country. The Shah, Egypt under Farouk, Jordan today, Qing China – all independent.
I’ll say that today there are the US equivalents of viceroys in Saudi Arabia.
1973 was a protest, but far less than how an independent country with that country’s population would have done under those circumstances.
Years ago I hoped Saudi Arabia would be able to chart a more independent course. Not while the current regime is power.
Morteza says: April 17, 2011 at 12:09 am
The interesting thing is the possibility that the Saudis now have the freedom of action to reach accommodation with Iran.
If I were them, I would settle with the Iranians.
Arnold Evans says: April 17, 2011 at 12:38 am
Your assertions regarding colonial structure is patently rubbish.
If one comapres Great Britain and India with US and Saudi Arabia one find nothing in common.
There were viceorys and Governerl Generals and Englishmen running the show there and England derived significant commercial and strategic benefits from here Indian posessions.
Saudi Arabia, together with OPEC, undercut the basis of US prosperity in 1973.
Care to enumerate the reasons for your assertions?
Remember what happened to the last KSA king that dared map out a course that crossed Zionism? He was assassinated by a CIA associate in 1975.
It is difficult for American analysts to wrap their minds around the fact that there was no Saudi counter-revolution. There is an American counter-revolution.
A question is raised, what should the US do regarding its colony of Saudi Arabia.
At its heart, the Saudi monarch is no less a dictator than Qadafi or Mubarak or Ben Ali. The United States should have suspended its relations with all of them until they established mechanisms by which their policies would be accountable to their citizens.
But of course, Israel is not viable without the US colonial structure in the Middle East, so the US can’t do that, as for domestic political reasons – meaning the dependency of the US political system on funds from a numerically tiny but disproportionately wealthy group of Americans who strongly identify with Israel and are invested in that country’s viability even at great cost to the non-Jewish people of the region and to the detriment of classically considered US interests in the region.
So the US cannot take a stand against its own colonial dependencies which renders the earlier question irrelevant.
But actors in the US can deal with the truth that there is no difference between the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia than there was between colonial France and Vietnam, or between the colonial US and South Vietnam. Pure colonialism is necessary for there to be a majority Jewish state for about 6 million Jews and part of the cost of that is that hundreds of millions of non-Jews have to live under US colonial dictatorships or be sanctioned for their independence.
Part of the cost of that is the body scanners US travelers must pass to fly from Arizona to Georgia.
Does Washington really defer to Saudi Arabia?
We have to include in a history of “Saudi” Arabia that it somehow has managed to oppose every single one of Israel’s adversaries from Nasser to Nasrallah while it has a population whose vast majority has never accepted Israel as legitimate.
Would a ruling regime over the country that depended on voters of its own population to remain in power _NEVER IN ITS HISTORY_ made common cause with other opponents of Israel? Of course not. It is to laugh. What we know as Saudi Arabia is not an independent country any more than pre-Nasser Egypt was.
One can analyze China, Turkey or Russia in terms of their own strategic considerations but not the US colonies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others. Those countries do, by and large, what their patron tells them to do. The United States opposes an independent Bahrain just as much as its subordinate colonial dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. An independent post-Saudi Arabia would have no problem with independence of Bahrain, Iran, Egypt or anywhere else.
Saudi Arabia intervened in Bahrain to maintain a colonial structure that specifically benefits the ruling family of the country, not much different from the benefits King Farouk gained by being a subordinate of the British Empire. The country itself benefits no more and no less than Egypt “benefited” under Farouk.
What we call Saudi Arabia has over ten times as much annual oil revenue as Israel’s defense budget. If its government was accountable to its citizens, Israel would not be a viable state. There is no way Israel could withstand the amount of resources that would be available to hostile forces if Saudi Arabia was not a dependency of countries that committed to Israel’s viability.
The simple test is, if you’re legitimate, win an election. Nobody is under any illusion that Saudi Arabia’s colonial monarchy could outcompete the rest of its citizenry. China does not have elections. And if the Chinese foreign policy structure was as closely tied with the US or any outside power’s as Saudi Arabia’s, then China, as it had been when the current Saudi regime was born, could rightly be called a colonial dependency.
But one might raise the question, is the colonial monarchy of Saudi Arabia really coerced to cooperate with the United States, does it have an option of refusing? On paper it does. By the late colonial era, many dependencies were legally independent of their patrons. Saudi Arabia’s colonial patrons, from the beginning of the state in the late 1800s until the present, before and after the transition of Britain to the US in that role, have been deeply integrated into the military and foreign policy apparatuses and there is no domestic power structure, even on paper capable of countering US influence over Saudi policy.
If tomorrow the Saudi King decides to try independence then US assets in US/Saudi policy apparatus will remove him from power and replace him with a more pliable Prince. Interestingly children of stooge dictators make excellently reliable stooge dictators themselves because to do otherwise could bring into play psychological issues of repudiating the identity of one’s parent. It will not happen that the Saudi dictator will forge an independent path tomorrow, but not because of any national strategic consideration.
House of Saud complains about Iran interfering in their Internal affairs. Yet what we see is that US and Zionists are already interfering into the very depths of their internal affairs! just see how Robert Gates went to Bahrain and gave the green light for military invasion… One wonders if there is anything internal left at all for the Saudis to want to protect it against Iran’s interference!
According to Quran Sura Maeda verse 51 and 57 all Arab puppet governments are against Islam as they are clearly described in those verses. In the same Sura verse 54 it is talking about a different nation, tribe, people replacing those who seek friendship or protection from Jews and Christians and these people will be different and will be loved by Allah and they love Allah(swt) too and they are strong in their Jihad and are not afraid of opinions and jokes of others! This verse is clearly describing Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Wahhabis and Salafis say that: “Zionists and Americans allowed Iran’s Islamic revolution to happen to show that Shia is falsely the true sect of Islam so that Sunnis would leave the true Islam and become Shia…” have you ever heard any funnier joke than this?! These Wahabis and Salafis go too far to justify their inability to actually make Islamic revolutions. If Shia is evil then why they seek help from US and Zionists to fight Evil? Their hypocrisy is crystal clear.
Millions of, Indian, Pakistani, Saudi, Indonesian, Egyptians, Jordanian, etc… millions upon millions of Muslims, it took 3000 Hezbollah warriors to defend Honor of Islam. Prophet of Islam said that he will be proud of Muslim numbers, these are the numbers that he will be proud of not millions of inconsequential, leaderless, insignificant Muslims. Sad but true.
PG;
As I said before I find your conversation extremly “band-e tombooni” (for the lack of a better word to translate, let’s call it “shallow”) and therefore this is my last message to you and I will waste my time on you no more.
I don’t reveal my educational background and my age, because I find it very much beneath my dignity to rely on such things when I am making an argument.
And lastly I have no problem in saying that I have a very distinct Persian accent when I speak English, having no accent is neither a source of pride nor a source of shame. Feeling proud of having no accent only indicates a deep feeling of insecurity and race related inferiority complex.
Try to grow up.
fiorangela – Vittorio Arrigoni was murdered by Israelis.
“A Criminal website incites the killing of volunteers in Gaza. Vittorio Arrigoni isalso in their sights. There should beinvestigation against Lee Kaplan.The criminal website invites people to kill the few volunteerswho are providing health treatment in Gaza under Israeli bombs.They are Americans, Spaniards, Australians, Italians and other volunteers whoreport us what news they can about the real impact of the Israeli aggressionin Gaza. Amongst them there is Vittorio Arrigoni, human rights activist…….
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53046178/Israeli-HIT-LIST-Includes-Vittorio-Utopia-Arrigoni
Last month, Benji Netanyahu, Saudi FM Saud al-Faysal and the West Bank ruler Mahmoud Abbas were all in Moscow to meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (a Crypto-Jew). According to Israel daily Yediot Aharonot, the three not only warned Medvedev of Islamic Iran as an emerging regional power – but also held a secret meeting to come up with a common plan to fight Tehran’s rising influence in Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Labanon and Gaza Strip.
All three leaders agrees that if the on-going democracy movements succeed in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Muslim world – Tehran, most probably, will come out as the winner.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/tel-aviv-riyadh-how-to-counter-iran-as-regional-power/
Rehmat says: April 16, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Yes, they could never live down their position in 2006.
And complaining of Iranian “interference” in “Arab affairs is rather disinegeous; after the Pan-Arab war of Iraq against Iran.
Iranians are doing all the right things: they have positioned themselves as the defenders of Islam, the Champion of the Palestinians, and now the Protector of the Bahrainis. These are excellent propaganda positions that cannot be assailed by anyone; Saudi Arabia, or US, or EU or anyone else.
But the politically significant aspect of Saudi Arabia’s activities over the last few years has been that she also has moved away from toeing the US line to one in which the efficacy of US policies has been questioned.
Thus, even Saudi Arabia is moving away from US – for different reasons than Iran – politically.
Saudi ‘royals’ are the creation of British Foreign Office. British colonial power put them as ‘custodians’ of the two most sacred cities of Islam – Makkah and Medinnah – to make sure there would never be a political Islamic revival. One of the reasons British choose the Saud tribe to do its dirty work was – Saudi hatred of Muslims – based on their Iraqi Jewish roots.
Since the Islamic Revolution (1979) in Iran – Saudi ‘royals’ have been at the forefront of the Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict – to fuel the sectarian divide within Muslim Ummah. Saudi ‘royal’ have been the backbone of US arms industry. So far they have pumped over US$300 billion into US coffers some of which ends up every year into Israeli hands to murder young Palestinian Muslim and Christian kids.
During the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war – Riyadh lead the other Arab poodles (in Cairo and Amman)to wage a Zionist jihad against Hizbullah – calling Hizbullah an Iranian proxy which was killing the so-called ‘peace process’ between USrael-proxy (Abbas) and Hamas which is supported by Tehran.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/saudi-royals-secret-mission-to-syria/
Thanks for the history, Drs. Leverett, and the keen and crisp observations about the pressure points. It is so much to be desired that the information and perspective you bring to the region could find its way to the US Congress. Satloff, Makovsky, WINEPics have read from the same script so many times that the pages look like used Kleenex and Congresspersons are making decisions based on mindsets that are more in line with Ben Gurion than with a future-oriented United States.
Sure would like to know more about Saudi-Israel relations.
James Canning, can you provide some references to support your contention that Saudis have tried to get Israel out of West Bank?
James, Do you believe Saudis had anything to do with the alleged Salafist kidnap and murder of Vittorio Arragoni in Gaza? Local Salafists are denying the charge, as are almost all the other groups acting in the region, and Hamas has pledged to find the killers and bring them to justice.
Once the US so foolishly destroyed the Sunni power structure in Iraq, it was inevitable that a member of the Shia community would end of in control of the country.
In Lebanon, the Shia community grows larger, proportionally, year by year.
Britain made protectorates of the several Arab emirates in the Gulf and nearby. But they already were largely independent.
The Saudis have tried to get Israel out of the West Bank and Golan Heights, and to resolve the Israel/Palestine problem.