Some Saturdays I offer a translation of a readworthy piece from the Scandinavian press. Today's item is a
, a quality full-format daily. Taking as its point of departure a forgotten meeting between Roosevelt and the Saudi King occurring 60 years ago this Monday, it succintly presents the most convincing analysis I have yet seen of what the neo-cons were hoping to achieve by invading Iraq: They were trying to pull off a strategic Columbus' egg.
More below the fold.
The USA's 60 Year Long Journey to Baghdad
The regime change in Iraq was calculated to resolve an inherent dilemma in American Middle East policy - the tension between the friendship with Israel and the dependency upon Arab oil.
Per A. Christiansen, Aftenposten 11.02.05
[From the Norwegian by Sirocco]
The high-ranking American diplomat does not hesitate for a moment. We are discussing the US relationship to the oil states of the Golf, where he has been posted for years. And my question goes something like this:
-Do you sometimes hear local leaders complaining that the USA's support of Israel damages its relations to the Arab world?
-I hear it every day, the diplomat sighs.
To understand the depth of this answer we must go 60 years back in time to a meeting held on board an American naval vessel in the Suez Canal, whence two thematic threads weave themselves through American Middle East policy. One twists its way through developments that have established Israel as the US 'strategic ally' in the region. The other is simpler and straighter, following the USA's increasing dependency on Arab oil.
Palestine and oil.
The historic meeting took place on 14 February 1945 on board the American warship USS Quincy. There US President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Saudi King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia.
Two main issues were on the agenda: First, the question of developments in Palestine where the Zionist movement wanted to create a Jewish state contrary to the wishes of the Arab popular majority. Second, the question of how the USA could contribute to oil production in, as well as the defense of, Saudi Arabia.
Jewish suffering.
King Abdul Aziz acknowledged that the Jews had suffered during the world war now nearing its end, but he believed it would be wrong to let the Palestine Arabs pay the price. - Let the Jews take over the best and richest areas of Germany, was his councel to his host.
Roosevelt then pointed out that the Jews who had survived the Nazi horrors would hardly want to become Germans after the war. But at the same time he promised to abstain from helping the Jews against the Arabs and to take no initiative detrimental to Arab interests. He subsequently confirmed in a letter to the King that this was indeed the official US policy, which the Americans would not change without consultations with both Arabs and Jews.
However, Roosevelt died a mere week after writing this letter, and his successor Harry S. Truman would as time went on completely disregard his promise.
Oil and defense.
As to the other main issue, the source material is less extensive. What is nonetheless clear is that the Saudi treasury was running out and that the country needed new and considerable oil revenues, while the USA was pursuing access to oil.
The US was already involved in Aramco, the company managing Saudi oil production. As the vastness of the resources hidden beneath the deserts sands became evident, new American companies were pulled into this cooperation during the 1940s. Meanwhile the US military was allowed to use the airport the Americans were building near Dhahran in the oil-rich area close to the Golf.
A conflict of interests.
For nearly six decades now the US has been living with this inherent conflict of interests - on the one hand, its ever stronger support of Israel; on the other, its increasing dependency on Arab, and especially Saudi, oil.
In later years the situation has become even more acute as the US boosted its military forces in the Golf following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, seeking to defend Saudi oil fields against possible further Iraqi aggression. This military presence in the holy land of Islam has intensified the wrath of Muslim extremists toward the USA, a wrath contributing to the terrorist strikes on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.
Iraq as a solution.
The US invasion of Iraq nearly two years ago was in reality aimed at resolving this conflict of interests, suggests the French Middle East scholar Gilles Kepel.
By deposing Saddam Hussein and his regime, the so-called neo-conservative driving forces behind the invasion intended, according to Kepel, once and for all to conciliate the Americans' need for reliable oil supplies with their obligations toward Israel's security.
Specifically, the US would reduce its dependency on Saudi oil through the emergence of Iraq as a heavy new supplier. Thus the need to defend Saudi oil fields would also vanish, permitting the US to downscale its military presence in the Golf. Additionally, a new and democratic Iraqi government might establish diplomatic ties with Israel and by its example lead other Arab countries to do the same.
In other words: Through such an alliance between the USA and an oil-rich, Israel-friendly Arab country with major political clout, the Americans would once and for all get rid of the inherent dilemma in their Middle Eastern policy.
So far, however, none of these chips have fallen into place.