Posted on 04/24/2002 6:46:46 PM PDT by Pokey78
HOUSTON, April 24 — Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is expected to tell President Bush in stark terms at their meeting on Thursday that the strategic relationship between their two countries will be threatened if Mr. Bush does not moderate his support for Israel's military policies, a person familiar with the Saudi's thinking said today.
In a bleak assessment, he said there was talk within the Saudi royal family and in Arab capitals of using the "oil weapon" against the United States, and demanding that the United States leave strategic military bases in the region.
Such measures, he said, would be a "strategic debacle for the United States."
He also warned of a general drift by Arab leaders toward the radical politics that have been building in the Arab street.
The Saudi message contained undeniable brinkmanship intended to put pressure on Mr. Bush to take a much larger political gamble by imposing a peace settlement on Israelis and Palestinians.
But the Saudi delegation also brought a strong sense of the alarm and crisis that have been heard in Arab capitals.
"It is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is necessary to survive," the person close to the crown prince said, "and if that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it. It's damned lonely in our part of the world, and we can no longer defend our relationship to our people."
Whatever the possibility of bluster, it is also clear that Abdullah represents not just Saudi Arabia but also the broader voice of the Arab world, symbolized by the peace plan he submitted and that was endorsed at an Arab summit meeting in March.
Those familiar with the prince's "talking points" said he would deliver a blunt message that Mr. Bush is perceived to have endorsed — despite his protests to the contrary — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's military incursion into the West Bank.
Abdullah believes Mr. Bush has lost credibility by failing to follow through on his demand two weeks ago that Mr. Sharon withdraw Israeli troops from the West Bank and end the sieges of Yasir Arafat's compound in Ramallah and of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
If those events occur and Mr. Bush makes a commitment "to go for peace" by convening an international conference, as his father did after the Persian Gulf war, to press for a final settlement and a Palestinian state, the Saudi view would change dramatically.
But those close to the Saudi delegation said there was no expectation that Mr. Bush is prepared to apply the pressure necessary to force such an outcome.
"The perception in the Middle East, from the far left to the far right, is that America is totally sponsoring Sharon — not Israel's policies but Sharon's policies — and anyone who tells you less is insulting your intelligence," the person familiar with Abdullah's thinking said.
Western analysts see the prince as a blunt Bedouin leader whose initiative is regarded by many Arabs as a gesture worthy of the late Egyptian leader Anwar el-Sadat, who flew to Jerusalem in 1973 to sue for peace with Menachem Begin. Abdullah's offer, now the Arab world's offer, calls for recognition of Israel and "normal relations" in return for a Palestinian state on lands Israel occupied in 1967.
The Saudi assessment was apparently being conveyed through several private channels.
On Tuesday President Bush's father had lunch with the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the kingdom's longtime ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Their specific message could not be learned, but in the familial setting, where Barbara Bush was also the hostess for Princess Haifa, Prince Bandar's wife, the strong strategic and personal ties of the Persian Gulf war that characterized Saudi-American relations a decade ago was a message in itself.
Abdullah, in a luncheon today with Vice President Dick Cheney, was to convey the seriousness with which he regards Thursday's meeting with President Bush as a "last chance" for constructive relations with the Arab world.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, also flew to Houston to join in last-minute discussions before the summit meeting. A senior official in Washington said Mr. Rumsfeld and General Myers were dispatched to brief the prince personally on the American accomplishments in Afghanistan and in the broader war on terrorism.
"The idea was, if he thought we were strong in Desert Storm, we're 10 times as strong today," one official said. "This was to give him some idea what Afghanistan demonstrated about our capabilities."
United States military commanders in the Persian Gulf region have been building up command centers and equipment depots in Qatar and Kuwait in recent months in anticipation of a possible breach with Riyadh.
Saudi officials assert that American presidents since Richard M. Nixon have been willing to speak more forcefully to Israeli leaders than the current president when American interests were at stake.
"If Bush freed Arafat and cleared Bethlehem, it would be a big victory, show a stiffening of spine," the person close to Abdullah said. "But incremental steps are no longer valid in these circumstances," meaning that Mr. Bush would have to follow up with a major push to fulfill the longstanding expectation of the Palestinians for statehood.
The mood in the Saudi camp was that of gloom and anxiety in private even as Saudi and American officials went ahead with preparations for a warm public encounter with the Bush family.
On Friday, after his meeting with President Bush at his home in Crawford, Abdullah is to take a long train ride to College Station, the central Texas town where the former President Bush will be host at his presidential library. On Saturday, Saudi's Arabia's state oil company is gathering the luminaries of the international energy industry to dine with Abdullah and his party.
But the person close to the prince said that if the summit talks went badly, Abdullah might not complete his stay in Texas. Instead, he might return directly to Riyadh and call for a summit meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to report to its 44 leaders, who represent 1.2 billion Muslims.
"He wants to say, `I looked the president of the U.S. in the eye and have to report that I failed,' " this person said. His message to the Arabs will be, "Take the responsibility in your own hands, my conscience is clear, before history, God, religion, country and friends."
The person close to Abdullah pointed out that Saudi Arabia's recent assurances that it would use its surplus oil-producing capacity to blunt the effects of Saddam Hussein's 30-day suspension of Iraqi oil exports could quickly change.
That Saudi pledge "was based on a certain set of assumptions, but if you change the assumptions, all bets are off," he said. "We would no longer say what Saddam said was an empty threat, because there come desperate times when you give the unthinkable a chance."
Abdullah is reported to be bitter over the White House's assertion that the president is taking a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he wants to evaluate in person whether Mr. Bush understands how his actions are being perceived in the Arab world.
"This is not a mistake or a policy gaffe," the person close to Abdullah said, referring to Mr. Bush's approach. "He made a strategic, conscious decision to go with Sharon, so your national interest is no longer our national interest; now we don't have joint national interests. What it means is that you go your way and we will go ours, economically, militarily and politically — and the antiterror coalition would collapse in the process."
Now, we know that the Jewish vote is migrating to the Republican side of the aisle; polls have shown this. If suddenly Bush is portrayed as being pro-Arab, who would it help?
Think real hard, and I think you might see some ulterior motives in this article.
I believe we did and they paid it, but I'm darned if I can find a source for saying so except my own memory.
I just hope Dubya's 'principled' set of handlers is at the meeting instead of the 'flexible' one.
Either all adult Palestinian males suffer from a gender-confused type of multiple personality disorder, or they're lying about just how "oppressed" and "victimized" they really are.
It is a bigger mistake to think WE won't do what is necessary for America to survive. That includes taking over your oilfields or blowing your ass to hell. Pray to Allah and tell him you're coming soon.
"Saudi to Warn Bush of Rapture over Israel Policy"
That's enough to give our Dispensationalist friends Anxiety attacks!
Jean
Question is, who would float this? The PLO?
Their grasp on control of the country has never been more tenuous, and the oil threat is a joke. I don't believe any of this story.
Oh, it's quite likely that Saudi Arabia wants to portray itself as this story depicts to the rest of the arab world. And perhaps that is all that this is--a cover story.
The fact that Powell, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld will be there indicates to me that this meeting is more about Iraq than about Israel.
This story is smoke. Let's look at the actions. I think that will be far more reliable.
He has said the same thing before, not long ago. Our erstwhile bud, "Unnamed Source" is just repating old threats, in new form, to the NYT. For clues, try Planetarabia.com
Their news USED to seem pretty unbiased. No longer.
(Even as it is, with 14% of our oil coming from Saud-owned Arabia, a embargo would not bring us to our knees, though it wouldn't be good, but the loss of revenue could very easily bring the Saudis to their knees.)
In other words, regime change in Iraq means a sharply declining rationale for the US - Saudi "special relationship," without which Abdullah and all his kin are chopped liver.
I'm personally glad Dubya is meeting Abdullah at the Crawford Ranch, though the nasty devil doesn't deserve the honor. Crawford brings out the Texas in Bush, which is exactly the frame of mind he needs to be in for this meeting.
There is an interesting article on The Strategy Page today that talks about the domino effect that the Iraqi operation could have.
The article itself is pure bluster, an attempt to frighten the Bush Administration into thinking it won't be able to pursue the war on terrorism if it doesn't sell out Israel.
Bush won't cave in to that. He'll be just as blunt as the Prince, the one difference being that Bush is in no danger of getting overthrown and has a military that can wipe out the Saudi and Iraqi military simultaneously. If Prince Abdullah wants to be against us rather than with us, so be it. And if he walks out and has a public meeting washing his hands of the matter, then attacking Iraq to set up a democratic secular regime becomes even more imperative, because that domino will topple some other ones in the Mideast.
And, again, just what the heck has Saudi Arabia done for the U.S.? Sell us oil? Like, given their economic problems, they were going to sit on it. There's a reason all these oil boycotts only will run for 30 days, it's because the Arab states can't afford to cut off oil for longer than that.
The Saudis have sold us a commodity and given us a base from which we saved their rear ends 11 years ago. The U.S. already is preparing to leave their rotten little fiefdom. If Abdullah wants us to accelerate that process, we can oblige him--with the warning that if they don't rein in their terrorists and thugs, we'll reduce them to Third World status in a couple days.
It makes NO sense to me that a story like this would be floated by the Saudis in an American paper. It is guaranteed to alienate Americans (as we have seen on this thread) and force us to cut deals with Russia and Mexico.
If this story were floated in the Saudi paper, I might buy the idea that it was floated for the Arab street. But it is in an American paper. And incidentally, if the Sauduis were trying to intimidate Bush, wouldn't they float the story in a Texas paper, since he will be in Texas? They aren't so naive as to not know which papers are read where.
I just can't help but think this is either attempted sabotage of the talks from the democrats, or maybe a dissatisfied faction in the Middle East.
If McCain comes out tomorrow yammering about this, then we will know the entire article was planted by Kristol! (I just HAD to stick a Kristol reference in, Pokey! Ha!)
While this evil and unprincipled meeting goes on...
MR SHARON BLOW HEBRON TO BITS! DON'T LEAVE ONE STONE ON ANOTHER!
Either that, or invite him out for a "snipe hunt"... Lotsa interesting things can happen on a snipe hunt. ;-)
Either way, the prince might just have a WHOLE change of attitude real sudden like.
Only with our permission will we consider it a weapon. Should they be so misguided, we could encourage Sadam to take their oil fields and then knock him out, keeping the fields as "Spoils of war".
Sure, Saudi can buy a three page spread in the WSJ, insisting that they are warm and fuzzy and peaceful, but the regular Joe's in the Internet Cafes in Dahrain or wherever will eventually get wind of the news. Word gets around.
They begin a rumble of discontent that their leaders are caving in to the imperialists...and BANG...the "leaders" have to come out with strong (yet rather vague) sabre-rattling statements to the imperialists in order to appease their grumbling populaces.
All dictators recognize that it is in their best interests to have their populace hate some distant, foreign enemy than to hate the dictators who rule them.
This has been the Saudi's problem. They are frauds in the business of mere survival.
Screw them and let the chips fall.
Go pollute some Tennessee rivers with Al Gore, play around the Senator from Occidental's former oil fields
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.