 |
| File picture of King Abdullah and President Obama |
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New
York back on September 20, 2005, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told
his audience:
“…If
you allow for this—for a civil war to happen between the Shiites and the
Sunnis, Iraq is finished forever. It will be dismembered. It will be not only
dismembered, it will cause so many conflicts in the region that it will bring
the whole region into a turmoil that will be hard to resolve. The Iranians
would enter the conflict, because of the south, the Turks because of the Kurds,
and the Arabs—because both these countries are going to enter—will be
definitely dragged into the conflict. So work to unite these people and then
you can look at the practical aspects of how to hold them together…
“We
fought a war together to keep Iran from occupying Iraq after Iraq was driven
out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason…
“Now,
[Iraq’s] south is pretty much pacified. There is no conflict in there, because
those who could cause conflicts, whether they’re supporters of Iran or others,
are happy with the situation that is happening. The Iranians now go in this
pacified area that the American forces have pacified, and they go into every
government of Iraq, pay money, install their own people, put their own—even
establish police forces for them, arms and militias that are there and
reinforce their presence in these areas. And the British and the American
forces in the area are protecting them in doing this…”
Dr. Khalid al-Dakheel,
a Saudi academic with a PhD from the University of California who teaches
political sociology at King Saud University, uses these quotes to introduce his
think piece today for
the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat.
Wondering whether the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was let down by the United States or its own foreign
policy, he writes:
Has anything
changed in the eight years since Prince Saud al-Faisal’s 2005 remarks at the
Council on Foreign Relations?
America is
still likely to disappoint the Saudi foreign minister further.
Eight
years on, the U.S. under a Democratic administration seems to be giving an
indifferent shrug to the killings and ruinations in Syria.
President Barack
Obama is busy with Jabhat al-Nusra -- not the daily death toll, or Iran’s
intervention, or Russia’s sponsorship of the regime in Syria.
Significantly,
the president is not too concerned about the fallouts on America’s friends in
the region.
The fact
Israel is contented with his handling of the Syria war on her doorstep is
telling -- the two share a concerted Syria policy.
The
implications are many.
One of
them is that Saudi weight on American policy in the region seems lacking and
incommensurate with the breadth of political, security and economic interests
shared by the two allies.
For
instance, Washington under the Bush Administration chose to jump into bed with
Iran on Iraq.
The fact
this did not change under Obama shows Washington does not allow its relations
with allies to impede its freedom of action and choice, even when the ties do
not coincide.
Prince
Saud al-Faisal’s 2005 remarks prove Washington ignored Riyadh’s interests when
it formulated its Iraq policy during the occupation.
It is
doing the same thing now under the Obama Administration as concerns Syria.
Unlike
Riyadh, Obama continues to dither on supporting the Syrian revolution. The two
agree on excluding Assad from the new Syria but differ on the way -- and the
time it would take -- to do it.
They
equally don’t see eye to eye on post-Assad Syria or Iran’s role in all of this.
Is Saudi
Arabia undermining its status and political interests to sustain this
relationship more than it is getting in return?
Why is
Washington paying no heed to Saudi, Gulf and Arab interests in determining the
U.S. stand on the Syria war?
Iran is
the only side holding on to Assad because his fall would wreck her regional
ambitions.
Israel,
which cohabitated with the Assads for 40 years, is happy with the devil it
knows. It is also happy to see the Syrians continue exterminating one another.
But how
can the man who entered the White House as the champion of justice, freedom and
equality turn his back on the oppressed Syrian people?
Obama has
three problems:
1. The
hemming and hawing nature of his foreign policy and his inability to shake off
the legacy of Bush’s wars or tell apart Iraq’s case from Syria’s.
2. His
rock-solid dedication to Israel’s interests.
3. His twin
committals to a political solution of the Syria crisis in partnership with
Russia and to a political deal with Iran.
So what is
the nature of his planned understanding with Iran? What are its borderlines?
What does it aim to achieve? How will it affect the political situation in
post-Assad Syria?
America’s
Iraq policy since 2003 shows Washington is familiar with the sectarian schism
in the region and wishes – since 9/11 – to take the edge off Sunni clout in the
region. That’s why it handed power in Iraq back then to Iran’s Shiite allies in
Baghdad.
Is the
Obama administration’s stand vis-à-vis Syria a follow-on objective in another
place, in different ways and under dissimilar pretexts?
Saudi
Arabia’s interests as regards Syria are twofold: the regime’s fall and Iran’s
exit.
America’s
stance puts the kingdom on the spot after the abject frustration of its Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon and Arab-Israel foreign policies.
The
kingdom’s Iraq policy ended with Iraq’s catastrophic invasion of Kuwait,
followed by America’s invasion of Iraq and the divisions of the Iraq spoils
between Washington and Tehran.
Riyadh’s
Syria-Lebanon policy saw Syria fall in Iran’s lap, Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri assassinated and Hezbollah crowned as Lebanon’s kingmaker and
Iran’s regional cat’s paw.
Why all
this failure?
Because
the kingdom’s foreign policy was primarily based on cajoling and mollycoddling
others in order to win them over for lack of assertiveness and military muscle
commensurate with the kingdom’s regional role and national interests.
