Bush Throws Gauntlet at Saudis With Middle East Plan

STRATFOR ^ | 25 June 2002 | Staff

[Axion]

Bush Throws Gauntlet at Saudis With Middle East Plan
25 June 2002

Summary

The Bush administration's new Middle East peace plan will allow the United States to pursue its primary mission: hunting al Qaeda in the Gulf states. However, it will also strengthen Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and widen the split with the Saudis, who will be forced to seek closer ties with Iran and Iraq.

Analysis

U.S. President George W. Bush threw down the gauntlet June 24, when he outlined the new U.S. plan for peace in the Middle East and specifically set the terms for dealing with the Palestinians.

The president called on Palestinians to reform and promised that when -- and by implication only when -- "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders, and certain aspects of its sovereignty, will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East."

By demanding that the Palestinians essentially replace Yasser Arafat, Washington has substantially improved Arafat's position. Anyone within the Palestinian community who now demands Arafat's resignation is open to the charge of collaborating with the Americans.

The United States is aware of the consequences of its demand. By making reform and new leadership prerequisites for further American participation in a peace process, the United States has created the framework for its withdrawal from that process.

Bush in effect is washing his hands of trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington's challenge, however, is not aimed at the Palestinians but at the country that pushed for greater U.S. involvement in the peace process: Saudi Arabia. Riyadh tried to shift U.S. attention from its war against al Qaeda by making resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key prerequisite for Saudi cooperation on hunting Osama bin Laden's associates and financiers. Bush's speech warns the Saudis that Israel and the Palestinians will no longer serve as a distraction.

This means that a Saudi-U.S. confrontation may be on the horizon. By no longer taking responsibility for the Palestinians, Washington is affirming its goal of destroying al Qaeda. To do this, it must strike at the network's center of gravity: Saudi Arabia. In response, the oil-rich kingdom will now seek to create alliances to resist American pressure. Worried about U.S. military deployments in Yemen and the surrounding Gulf states and unable to trust U.S. ally Jordan, Riyadh likely will move to strengthen ties with the two countries bent on resisting U.S. dominance: Iran and Iraq.

From the Palestinians to Riyadh

Saudi Arabia inserted itself in the peace process when Crown Prince Abdullah used a column by New York Times writer Thomas Friedman earlier this year to publicize his own Middle East peace proposal. Abdullah offered Israel complete normalization of ties with all the Arab states in exchange for the Jewish state's complete withdrawal to its 1967 borders. Though this was a promise Riyadh actually could not deliver, the tactic worked to buy time and direct the U.S. focus away from Iraq and al Qaeda.

On its surface, Bush's new Middle East policy makes Washington appear eager to expand its involvement in the Middle East conflict. The president promised that the United States would -- along with the international community -- help organize and monitor fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year and also help reform and develop the Palestinian economy.

But these promises are superficial. The Bush administration will not be able to achieve any reforms unless the Palestinians are willing to work with Washington. At the same time, by stating that "peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born," Bush ensured that no Palestinian politician or security chief would be able to cooperate with Washington without appearing to the Palestinian public to be a U.S. stooge.

By making unrealistic demands and ensuring that no partners can be found who are credible, Bush has in effect ended Washington's responsibility for solving the conflict.

The United States isn't able or even interested in completely disengaging from the Middle East conflict. It will no doubt continue to chair security meetings between Israel and the Palestinian security forces and maybe even send U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to promote cease-fire negotiations.

Bush has indicated that although Washington will continue to be engaged, its focus will change. Specifically, the Bush administration will try to segment its Middle East policy, placing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a box to free itself to pursue its primary Middle Eastern goals: destroying al Qaeda, trouncing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and containing Iran.

Saudi Arabia - The Road from Ally to Adversary

The single-most important piece of any strategy aimed at annihilating bin Laden's terrorist network will require the United States to do something about Saudi Arabia. Since Riyadh has until now been a key U.S. ally in the Gulf, where the other two regional powers Iran and Iraq are decidedly anti-American, Washington has resisted laying the blame for Sept.11 squarely on the Saudis.

Yet there can be little doubt that the key components of al Qaeda derive direct support -- financial, moral and perhaps even intelligence -- from the desert kingdom. The group's leader is himself a Saudi from one of the country's richest and most powerful families. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were allegedly Saudis, and though there is no direct evidence yet, logic suggests that much of al Qaeda's financing comes from sympathizers there.

By taking the Palestinian question off the table, Washington signals to Riyadh that it will now expect full cooperation. The difficulty lies in Saudi Arabia's inability to do what the United States wants.

From Riyadh's standpoint, there is little to gain and a lot to lose by helping Washington. First, the Saudis do not want a U.S.-friendly regime in Iraq, which has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world. American control over Baghdad would considerably lessen U.S. strategic reliance on the Saudis. More immediately, the ruling House of Saud cannot risk a domestic political backlash by moving against politically powerful patrons of al Qaeda.

Before Abdullah's conversation with Thomas Friedman, the United States and Saudi Arabia seemed on a collision course over al Qaeda, Iraq and what it means to be allies. The Saudi peace proposal provided a detour that gave both sides time to reflect on their positions and affirm the alliance -- as Abdullah's visit to Crawford, Texas, in April demonstrated. But the fundamental divide driving the dispute remains in place. Al Qaeda, though so far silent, continues to exist, and too many arrows point toward Saudi Arabia.

[mad puppy]

Wow. I love it when the surface message is exactly what I want (throw him out or forget it) and the deeper, less obvious message is also what I want (we know the real source of the problem and we are STILL tracking toward you and your spawn).

[denydenydeny]

Riyadh likely will move to strengthen ties with the two countries bent on resisting U.S. dominance: Iran and Iraq.

I usually disagree with Stratfor, but in this case I say: From their lips to God's ears.

If this analysis is correct, then we are finally in a position to deal with the Saudis as they are--in other words, our enemies.

[Congressman Billybob]

Doesn't anyone at Stratfor possess a history book and occasionally read it? Remember the communists and leftist allies in the US during WW II who were pushing the US to open up the "second front" in Europe?

They claimed their purpose was to "aid the defeat of Germany" to make sure it was under attack in both the East and the West? Of course, their real agenda was to save the Soviet Union from being crushed by Germany.

Eventually the winter and the Russians defeated the Germans at the former Stalingrad, the "second front" became a reality. Germany was defeated, but we were left with the Soviet Union on our hands.

The current War on Iaslamists (to call it by its correct name) can do with a "second front" that has no downside. The radical Palestinians -- which means about 80% of their population, cheered when Saddam took Kuwait. They cheered when Saddam lobbed missiles into Isreal. More recently, they cheered when the World Trade Center Towers fell. And they cheer everytime another psychotic Palestinian bomber murders another handful of Israelis.

An all-out attack on the Palestinian radicals will be a genuine "second-front" in the War on Islamists. And we have a staunch and willing ally who can do that with no aid from the US, other than the financial aid we are already providing.

So what if the Palestinians are so geopolitically stupid as to retain Arafat, or anyone else who is as bad or worse on the subject of supporting terrorism? What's the downside? Our ally, Israel, will take out our proxy enemy, Palestine, like a hot knife through butter.

And as for the House of Saud, what does it matter that they are put between a rock and a hard place in trying to stay cozy with both the US and the Palestinians? The House of Saud, an artificial British creation of recent vintage, may disappear, but its oil will remain. (Actually, the 7,000 princes of the House of Saud will all wind up on the French Riviera, driving real estate prices there through the roof, but I digress.)

If Islamists take over Saudi Arabia, then the gloves will be off. We can sweep them aside and install a truly functional government. Doesn't anyone remember how Panama came to exist? Columbia, which then owned the isthmus of Panama, was driving too hard a bargain for the rights to build the canal. So, the US rounded up some compliant locals, staged a revolution, and then struck a bargain with the new leaders of the new Palestine.

In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer:

"They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Until some one we like can be elected....

"We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?"

From "Send the Marines."

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "This Column is About Nothing."

[Congressman Billybob]

The last line of my text should have said "Panama" rather than "Palestine." The brain got ahead of the fingers.

Billbybob

[RJayneJ]

You didn't flag me-- I just found this. Do you want it published on your webpage?

[swarthyguy]

"last line of my text should have said "Panama" rather than "Palestine""

Wishful thinking, maybe.

DoubleWow. Now Stratfor's sounding like Debka.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

HUH?

[swarthyguy]

"widen the split with the Saudis, who will be forced to seek closer ties with Iran and Iraq."

This. And this.

"The Road from Ally to Adversary"

little doubt that the key components of al Qaeda derive direct support -- financial, moral and perhaps even intelligence -- from the desert kingdom"

"fundamental divide driving the dispute remains in place. Al Qaeda, though so far silent, continues to exist, and too many arrows point toward Saudi Arabia."

These statements are reminscent of Debka's line and tone.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think there is much truth there.

The Saudi's are not supporting us very well in the hunt for Al-Queda.

There was a line in the Presidents address where he called for the Arab governments to stop statements demonizing the US in the state controlled media . Probably referring to the Saudi's and Egypt!

[Redcloak]

There are times when STRATFOR is little better than DEBKA, but I don't think that this is one of those times.

Bush's proposal is one that will not be accepted by the Palestinians. They will not dump Arafat. The Palestinian people are as monolithic in their support of Arafat as Blacks were in their support of Algore in 2000. Thus there will be no change of leadership. (And even if there were sentiment for change within the Palestinian electorate, any serious challengers to Arafat's reign would be found dirt-napping in the Ramallah city dump before election day.) No leadership change means no US pressure on the Israelis to negotiate with the PA.

The Saudis did indeed intend their peace initiative as a distraction away from Al Qaeda. And it had that effect. They wanted to get the US off of its hunt for Al Qaeda. The dumb bunnies have managed to paint themselves into a corner with the Wahabis in the Kingdom. Wahabi political favor is what keeps the House of Saud from being swallowed up in an Islamic revolution. And it is Wahabi extremism that fuels Al Qaeda's religious zeal. The House of Saud wants to stay on their good side. But staying on their good side means getting on our bad side. They are between a rock and a hard place. Hence they probably will try to curry favor with the Iranians and or the Iraqis. They need to replace us as muscle to keep the Wahabis on their leash.

There are several things that don't bode well for the Saudis. One is that they aren't as indespensible to the US as they had been. We have a large air base at King Kahlid Military City. That base is being replicated in Qatar. The Qataris aren't Wahabis; in fact, they are quite liberal when compared to Wahabis. Base agreements are also being sought with the other Gulf states. Each passing day makes the House of Saud less and less relevant to us.

Removing our bases from Saudi territory would also allow us to attempt to destabilize the Kingdom. The Eastern provinces, where the oil is, aren't all that thrilled with Wahabi control. They are largely Shi'ites and have been oppressed by the Wahabis. We could do well by fomenting revolution there and helping to establish non-Saudi states. (A la Panama, to borrow from the Gentleman from the backwoods.) We would separate the Saudis from their income source and gain a more stable source of oil. (And this is also an advantage that we would gain by establishing a stable Iraqi democracy.) Again, the Saudis will need military muscle to protect their oil income. Saddam Hussein and or the Ayatollahs are a place for them to turn.

In short, the Saudis and the US are on a collision course. They tolerated Wahabi terrorism as it helped keep them in power. Now, that terrorism has put them in the crosshairs. They are unwilling to defy the Wahabis and are foolishly challenging Bush. The Saudis may be good at political intrigue, but they are amateurs compared to Bush. They have been outmaneuvered. If they realize it in time, they can correct their error and stay on our good side. If not, they're toast.

[swarthyguy]

"They're toast."

[Lessismore]

This analysis is too narrow. It doesn't consider the impact of the speech on Europe -- even Britain is distancing itself from the US. Thus, Bush's ability to pursue a campaign against Iraq is impaired, rather than enhanced, by this policy.

[ReveBM]

Ah yes, I'm quivering in fear of the next European peace mission to any one of these countries.

Seriously, I think that once the US Marines get their boots on the ground against Iraq, everyone else will get out of the way. Remember in the runup to the Gulf War, there were some peace activists that were seeking to interpose themselves between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to prevent our attack? What ever happened to them?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think you are right on the mark!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Grampa Dave]

Thank you Honorable Billybob for taking a fire hose to this massive amount of Bravo Sierra posted by nottostraightfor.com.

This article sounds like it was written by Bubba Clinton and Mad Halfbright after they inhaled too much. I needed Chest Waders just to get through the first sentence. Then my eyes glazed over with their second sentence where they said that Arafatty would be strengthened. Time for these writers to stop inhaling certain smoke products hours before setting in front a keyboard.

Thanks again for setting them and us straight on this massive load of Bravo Sierra posing as a news or oped article.

[monkeyshine]

They won't get too close to Iraq. If we decide to take Iraq, we'll take it with our without them. They will not take us on. They will let us take Iraq, whereby they can preserve their personal wealth but lose their leverage in the world.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this was posted 6/25/2002. Thanks Axion.

...hunting al Qaeda in the Gulf states. However, it will also strengthen Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and widen the split with the Saudis, who will be forced to seek closer ties with Iran and Iraq.

Psychic Powers ping.