A mouthpiece for the Saudi leadership, Nawaf Obaid, has placed an unofficial announcement of official Saudi intervention in Iraq in the Washington Post – and the Saudi 800 pound gorilla offers a deal: Stepping Into Iraq.
To get attention Obaid starts off with a serious blast against Bush 43:
In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.
One hopes he won’t make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel
of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki
al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came
into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."
[…]
Now the Saudis fear the U.S. will leave Iraq and in effect deliver it to Iranian influence. They will not sit still over this and warn against any withdrawal at all. The warning is not primarily directed at Bush (see the intro paragraph above). But it is definitly intended to impress especially Democrats who are supporting the voters demand of a phased withdrawal.
Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
The ongoing civil war in Iraq would escalate into Saudi/Iranian proxy war.
Next there is this paragraph which I first thought to be a bit weird:
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran’s ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
Can one threaten the U.S. with lower oil prices?
Definitely not – so this paragraph is the carrot for keeping the U.S. troops in harms way. Saudi financed Sunni brigades could take over Anbar, relief the U.S. there and defend Sunni Iraqis. Meanwhile the U.S. troops shall buffer and fight against Iran influenced Shia Iraqi. The U.S. would be payed for this with lower prices at the pump (that is – if the Saudis really can pump that much.)
That is the offer, and now again the threat:
There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia’s advice. […] But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.
In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region.
To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.
The Saudis do have a lot of expensive modern military equipment, but their manpower lacks and their performance in the field is dubious. A serious engagement with Iran would have uncertain results for them. Their own eastern Shia minority would probably try to have a violent say in this too, endangering the oil production.
The threat for a regional war might thereby be a bit of bluster. But the spice must flow and even an uncertain threat of a bigger regional war that would endanger that flow should be enough to get Wall Street thinking.
One could interpret the Saudi argument as a demand to attack Iran, and the neocons will definitly use this in that way, but I doubt that the Saudis really want a Sunni/Neocon Entente.
The Saudi demand is only to stop Shia expension right where it is. This requires, in their view, permanent stationed U.S. troops in Iraq as a tripwire and guarantee that any Iranian expension attempt will have to face a serious U.S. response.
The deal they offer is juicy enough to be swallowed by Baker/Hamilton and any "centrist" Democrat.
But the deal may not be enough for the Neocons. As Professor Cutler explained in two recommanded Znet pieces (1, 2) the Neocon grand strategy has three phases.
- Empower Iraqi Shia and split them from Iranian Shia, especially over the wilayat al-faqih — the rule of the jurisprudent, which is supported by Ayatollahs in Iran but not accepted by Sistani in Najaf, Iraq.
- This will lead to a new, U.S. friendly center of Shia realm in Iraq, and help to roll back Iran as the Shia state and its influence in the Middle East
- Split off the Saudi Shia minority (and the Saudi oil which conviniently lies is in the same area) and thereby roll back Saudi influence.
The end state of the Neocons desired outcome is expressed in Ralph Peters map (click on the "next" button under the image and then the image) with Saudi Arabia split into three smaller states.
That is definitly not a favored solution for the absolute kingdom in Saudi Arabia. So while the Saudis feared phase one, but supported to a certain degree phase two by taking an anti-Iranian side in the war on Lebanon, they will most probably fight any decisive move further into the direction of phase three, i.e. an attack on Iran.
For the Saudis, the current situation is bad, but unable to reverse it, they are now willing to pay quite a price to freeze it as it is and to stop the development before it gets even worth.
The carrot is on the table. Cheep oil and loyal Sunni brigades if the U.S. stays in Iraq. The stick is there too: If the U.S. retreats it is all out war across the Persian Gulf which would certainly bring the oil-flow and the world economy to a halt.
So what choice will the U.S. establishment and public take?