Two weeks ago Dick "dick" Cheney was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, meetingwith King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud. The official story was first that Mr Cheney had asked King Abdullah for some help in quieting the bloodshed in Iraq, and as a quid pro quo the US was to obtain some control over the Shiites, especially the Mahdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr. The fact that he traveled all the way out there for a meeting of several hours added significance to the gravity of the situation.
Before the meeting, a Saudi official said Cheney was expected to ask oil-rich Saudi Arabia to use its considerable influence with Iraq's Sunni Arab minority to promote reconciliation with Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. Sunni insurgents have staged some of the bloodiest attacks on U.S. troops and Shiites.
In return, Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. to help rein in Iraq's Shiite militias, which have been blamed for sectarian attacks that have killed thousands, said the official, who agreed to discuss the meeting only if not quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the talks.
But then a second version of the meeting started gaining ground through news and internet reports. Mr Cheney had been "summoned" there by the King, and read the riot act over the failed BuShCo occupation of Iraq, which has resulted in a catastrophic weakening of the US position in the world. Once considered the moral and ethical standard by which other nations were judged, the continuing record of Bu$h failure in Iraq, with daily massacres of Iraqi civilians, sectarian civil war between Shia and Sunni, the completely bungled attempt to impose participatory democracy by means of the gun, the horrendous spectacles of brutality and savagery at Abu Ghraib have all placed our nation perilously close to what is normally described as a "rogue nation."
It has been reported that King Abdullah told Mr Cheney that the Kingdom had great concern with the widening chaos and death in Iraq, and worried that the Shiite majority, led in part by Muqtada al-Sadr would succeed in ethnically cleansing much of Baghdad and Iraq of the Sunnis, co-religionists of the Saudis. The King supposedly insisted that the Kingdom was prepared to offer considerable financial support to the Sunnis in an attempt to help them. The King further indicated that there was great concern about Iran and the potential of its becoming more openly involved in the Iraq tumult.
It’s certainly quite true that much of the Sunni Gulf region fears Shiite Iran, led by a group of fundamentalist clerics, and views Iran as a long-term destabilizing influence in the region. Since al-Sadr has strong political and religious ties to Iran it’s not surprising the House of Saud would like to see his power curtailed in Iraq.
In an effort to try to defuse the situation in Iraq, the US had considered discussions with the Iranian government, attempting to persuade them to exert their influence over al-Sadr. King Abdullah was apparently quite adamant that his government would consider that a tripwire event, causing immediate support for the Sunni minority in Iraq. It was reported by CNN that Jordan was supposedly in agreement with Saudi Arabia on these points.
As an outgrowth of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq report, there had also been suggestions that a conference of regional nations, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, meet with the US to discuss methods of dealing with Iran and Syria’s perceived interference in Iraq. Josh Marshall noted that it was not planned to invite Iran and Syria to these discussions.
Okay, so it'll be us, "Iraq", Jordan and the Saudis holding a conference to get the Syrians and Iranians to stop messing around in Iraq. Why didn't we think of this before?
The situation in Iraq has become so complicated, and such a tinderbox, that navigating all the potential flashpoints requires the wisdom of two Solomons.
All hierarchical governments appear to be monolithic edifices, especially monarchies like Saudi Arabia, and that appearance is very deceiving. There are always factions, divided by policy, ideology and sometimes even family rivalries. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was Ambassador in Washington for an unheard of 22 years recently returned home to become Secretary General of the Saudi National Security Council. (Prince Bandar is the man often seen in public photographs holding hands with Mr Bu$h. It is quite common in Arab culture for men to do this as a sign of friendship and unity.) He was replaced by Prince Turki bin Faisal as Ambassador, who abruptly resigned this week, creating a storm of speculation
Steve Clemons, who writes the amazingly resourceful blog The Washington Note has penned a revealing article for Josh Marshall’s TPM Café in which he discusses tensions between the two princes, speculating that the recent resignation is an indicator that the disagreement stems from two different views about Iran.
The tension is about Iran and how to contain Iran. While Bandar and Rihab Massoud [a close aide of Prince Bandar who - while formally a Foreign Ministry official -- is now on leave to serve as Bandar's "No. 2" in his National Security Advisor office.] allegedly have affirmed Cheney's views and are perceived to be Bush administration sycophants, Turki was charting a more realist course for Saudi interests and advising the White House to develop more serious, constructive strategies toward the region that would produce stability and not lead to "a terrorist super-highway stretching from Iran through Iraq and rushing through Syria and Jordan to the edge of Israel."
Mr Clemons also notes,
While reports of how far Bandar has gone in supporting Cheney's desire for military action vary, insiders report that Bandar has "essentially assured" the Vice President that Saudi Arabia could be moved to accept and possibly support American military action against Iran. Another source has reported to me that Bandar himself strongly supports Cheney's views of a military response to Iran.
It is well-established that Mr Cheney favors an immediate attack against Iran in order to eliminate that country’s nuclear reactors and suspected weapons fabrication facilities. Pessimists believe that he is quite willing to use nuclear warheads to ensure a thorough "dismantling" of the suspected facilities. Cynics maintain that Mr Bu$h will ultimately do whatever Mr Cheney tells him to do, although the directive would most likely be delivered in the form of a well-reasoned recommendation.
There are no good options in this mess. A lack of planning got us into this mess. An administration eager to exploit and control Middle East resources was easily influenced by the blandishments of ideologues with more loyalty to Israel than to the US. Despite the warnings of some military professionals they adamantly insisted that Iraq must be conquered. With an excellent operational plan for conquest, a very well equipped army waged a swift and successful campaign to conquer the country. But since the plan was conquest rather than intelligent administration of the prize, we now have a situation in which 600,000 trained and well-equipped soldiers might have difficulty maintaining order.
The obvious solution is to start another war.