[Texgreen] The Iraq mess getting messier

[Roger Baker]

... if there are two countries in the world with real influence on =20
the Bush White House, they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both =20
these countries are telling President Bush that he must pull the plug =20=

on Iraq=92s Shia Government...

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

<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-2530313,00.html>
=09
Opinion - Anatole Kaletsky

The Times 	January 04, 2007

An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe
Anatole Kaletsky

Our correspondent on a concerted attempt to confront Iran and Shia Islam

Most people think that the bungled invasion of Iraq, climaxing last =20
week with the bungled execution-assassination of Saddam Hussein, will =20=

go down in history as the ultimate symbol of the Bush =20
Administration=92s hubris and incompetence. They should think again. =20
With the dawning of a new year, the Bush-Blair partnership is working =20=

on an even more horrendous foreign policy disaster.

What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the =20
usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern =20
equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-=20
embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable =20
alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to =20
confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam.

The logical outcome of this =93pinning back=94 process would be an air =20=

strike by Israel against Iran=92s nuclear facilities, combined with a =20=

renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, =20
aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq=92s =20
Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the =20
increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad.

Consider the ominous events that occurred in the Middle East and =20
Washington over the holiday season, while most people were paying =20
more attention to their turkeys and Christmas stockings. The first in =20=

this sequence of events was Tony Blair=92s abrupt announcement that =20
members of the Saudi Royal Family accused of taking bribes from =20
British defence contractors would be exempted from the application of =20=

British law. To risk a confrontation with the Saudi Royal Family, Mr =20
Blair asserted, would have jeopardised Britain=92s security interests =20=

in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, as well as dashing hopes of =20=

progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This =20
embarrassing announcement by Mr Blair was quickly followed by his =20
Dubai speech, in which he called for an =93arc of moderation=94 to =93pin =
=20
back=94 Iran=92s advances in the Middle East.

The second event, almost simultaneous with Mr Blair=92s bribery =20
announcement, was the equally unexpected resignation of Saudi =20
Arabia=92s Ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on =20
December 15. Prince Turki has long been a key figure in the Saudi =20
security establishment, whose last abrupt career move occurred in the =20=

autumn of 2001, when he suddenly resigned as liaison between the =20
Saudi Royal Family and the Taleban terrorists that they had been =20
financing until just before September 11. Turki was a leading member =20
of a faction in the Saudi Royal Family that has for months been =20
advocating a more conciliatory response towards the Shia hegemony in =20
Iraq, including an effort to open direct negotiations between America =20=

and Iran, as recommended by James Baker=92s Iraq Study Group. The Turki =20=

group=92s main rivals in the Saudi establishment have by contrast =20
argued for much tougher military action against what they called the =20
=93Christian-Shia conspiracy=94 created by the US toleration of Iranian =20=

influence over Iraq.

The Saudi power struggle came into the open through an article =20
published in The Washington Post in mid-December, by Nawaf Obeid, a =20
Saudi security consultant ostensibly working for Turki, but actually =20
closer to the hardliners. Obeid cautioned that if American troops =20
were withdrawn from Iraq prematurely, in line with the Baker report=92s =20=

recommendations, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene =20
forcibly =93to stop Iranian-backed Shi a militias from butchering =20
Iraq=92s Sunnis=94. Turki immediately fired Obeid, but shortly =
afterwards =20
was himself replaced by a hardliner.

Within Saudi Arabia itself, meanwhile, the anti-Iranian rhetoric is =20
gathering strength. Take this example from al-Salafi magazine, quoted =20=

in The New York Times: =93Iran has become more dangerous than Israel =20
itself. The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence =20=

in our region. This is the real clash of civilisations.=94

The link between Israel and Iran in Saudi thinking brings us to the =20
third event in this chillingly unfestive sequence: the confrontation =20
over nuclear proliferation between the UN Security Council and Iran. =20
If Iran is now really hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, Israel =20=

has made it abundantly clear that it is equally hell-bent on stopping =20=

it =97 whether by diplomatic or military means. Whether Israeli bombing =20=

would in practice do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear programme =20
is far from clear, but there are certainly hotheads in the Israeli =20
Government and military establishment who are itching to try.

There is, however, one binding constraint on Israel=92s freedom of =20
action against Iran. This is the US. It is unlikely that Israel would =20=

bomb Iran without explicit American approval and it is certain that a =20=

US president would stop Israel if he believed America=92s national =20
interest demanded it.

That has been the situation until recently, since America has =20
depended on Iranian-backed Shia politicians to prevent a total =20
collapse of order and a humiliating Saigon-style expulsion of =20
American soldiers in Iraq.

Although Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation =20
treaty, many Israeli politicians believe that they are entitled to =20
punish Iran for its non-compliance with the treaty. For these trigger-=20=

happy Israelis, Iran=92s backdoor influence over Washington via the =20
Iraqi Shia has become a nightmare. The same is true of the Saudi =20
princes. The Saudi Royal Family rules a largely Shia country on the =20
basis of a fanatically enforced state religion whose senior spokesmen =20=

denounce the Shia as heretic scum. These feelings are entirely mutual =20=

=97 Iran=92s mad mullahs hate the Wahhabis every bit as much.

Thus, if there is one country in the world more worried than Israel =20
about an Iranian A-bomb, it is Saudi Arabia. And if there are two =20
countries in the world with real influence on the Bush White House, =20
they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both these countries are =20
telling President Bush that he must pull the plug on Iraq=92s Shia =20
Government, tear up the Baker report, whose most important advice was =20=

to open diplomatic channels to Tehran, and prepare to attack Iran, =20
either directly or using the Israelis as a proxy. This is the basis =20
of the unholy alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, with =20=

Mr Blair contributing a few choice soundbites.

The anti-Iranian =93arc of moderation=94 may seem like another =20
meaningless Blairism, not nearly as threatening as Mr Bush=92s =93axis =
of =20
evil=94. But this soundbite could unleash a disaster on the Middle =20
East, beside which the war in Iraq would be a mere sideshow.=20=