Has last week has seen a major turn in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?
This is quite speculative, but there are some data points that suggest a big shift has happened.
The Bush administration may have turned away from its Sunni allies in the wider Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and towards some rapprochement with Iran.
Consider:
- The main agitator for an attack on Iran in Cheney’s office has been removed.
- Bush himself moves the blame for U.S. problems in Iraq away from alleged Iranian insurgency support and towards al-Qaida.
- Information leaked to newspapers emphasizes the connection of al-Qaida in Iraq and Saudi financing and highlights Pakistan’s lack of action against al-Qaida in Pashtun-land.
- High level U.S. officials press the Saudis to retract support for the Sunni side in Iraq.
- Bush’s intimate relation with the Iran friendly Maliki in Iraq is pointed out.
- Recent talks between the U.S. and Iran seem to expand.
Some details below the fold:
Back in mid June there were intense discussions within the administration about an attack on Iran. The NYT version:
The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
[…]
Only a few weeks ago, one of Mr. Cheney’s top aides, David Wurmser, told conservative research groups and consulting firms in Washington that Mr. Cheney believed that Ms. Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing, and that by next spring Mr. Bush might have to decide whether to take military action.
That discussion was won by Rice and Gates. On Tuesday Robert Dreyfuss (and Steve Clemons) reported:
Vice President Cheney is losing a trusted aide: David Wurmser, Cheney’s chief adviser on Middle East affairs and perhaps the Bush administration’s most radical hawk.
According to multiple sources, Wurmser will leave the office of the vice president (OVP) in August for the private sector, where he will start a risk-consulting business.
For now an attack on Iran seems thereby likely off the table.
The U.S. has largely stopped to blame Shiites (al-Sadr) for the insurgency in Iraq and emphasizes a personal Bush-Maliki relation.
Bush has started to renew the al-Qaida meme. In a long speech last week on the War of Terror (simple version here) he mentioned al-Qaida or Bin-Laden every 15 seconds. Iran isn’t mentioned at all. What happened to the axis-of-evil?
Of course this is obfuscating the real Sunni insurgency, but it helps to pressure Saudi Arabia, which is one main point of this policy shift. Here you can see it being played out.
Last Friday I flagged this astonishing op-ed by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Khalizad. He wrote:
Several of Iraq’s neighbors — not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States — are pursuing destabilizing policies
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal had a page A1 piece about a Saudi bank financing Al-Qaida:
But the Saudi government has been far been less willing to tackle the financial infrastructure essential to terrorism. U.S. intelligence reports state that Islamic banks, while mostly doing ordinary commerce, also are institutions that extremism relies upon in its global spread.
As a result, the Bush administration repeatedly debated proposals for taking strong action itself against Al Rajhi Bank, in particular, according to former U.S. officials and previously undisclosed government documents. Ultimately, the U.S. always chose instead to lobby Saudi officialdom quietly about its concerns.
The confidential reports the article is based upon were certainly leaked "just in time" for more to come.
Today the New York Times has a major piece about interviews with some "Senior Administration Official" (i.e. Rice and Gates) being frustrated with Saudi Arabia. The earlier quiet lobbying the WSJ reported is officially over:
Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.
[…]
Senior Bush administration officials said the American concerns would be raised next week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates make a rare joint visit to Jidda, Saudi Arabia.
At the same time the administration is also threatening direct attacks on Pakistan and furthering a nuclear deal with Pakistan’s primary enemy, India. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are said to have been financed with Saudi money and Pakistan is a major supplier for Saudi weapons.
While the two most important U.S. allies in the Sunni realm come under severe pressure from Washington, relations with Iran seem to get warmer.
During Tuesday’s talks between the U.S. and Iran in Baghdad, a major point was an anti-Sunni alliance. Juan Cole picked up the importance of this:
[I]n my view the money graf in this Telegraph report is this one:
‘The two countries did agree to form a security committee, with
Iraq, to focus on containing Sunni insurgents. The committee would
concentrate on the threat from groups such as al-Qa’eda in Iraq,
officials said, but not those[Shiite] militia groups the US accuses
Iran of funding and training. ‘If the US is allying with Iran against the Sunni insurgents and
al-Qaeda, this is a very major development and much more important than
some carping over Shiite militias. (..).If the report is true and has legs, it will send Saudi Foreign
Minister Saud al-Faisal ballistic. The Sunni Arab states do not like
"al-Qaeda" in Iraq, but they are much more afraid of Iran than of the
Iraqi Sunni Arabs who are fighting against US military occupation.
There even seems to have been a private follow up meeting between the U.S. and Iran without Iraqi participation. Iran is ready for high-level talks with US over Iraq and maybe other things too? The U.S. is still rejecting sich higher level talk for now, but that could be just to keep them private.
Iran is in a much better position to help the U.S. in Iraq and in Afghanistan than any other partner. With the Saudi oil production peaking out, a strategic shift away from the Sunni world towards Iran also makes some economic sense.
The original grand strategy plan was to take over Iraq AND Iran and then to clean up the Gulf monarchies. With the first part stalled, the same result, though with less assured influence, might be gained by simply allying with Iran.
If such a shift is really in the making, there is other trouble ahead.
The Saudis are already pissed about the ousting of the Palestinian national unity government they had sponsored. They have little leverage except money to make much trouble in Palestine, but they do have other weapons. OPEC is already sniveling about the lower dollar. A nice excuse for some production cut in Saudi fields. There could also be some man portable anti-air weapons finding their way from Saudi warehouses to Anbar.
In Pakistan al-Qaida would love the U.S. to invade as this would certainly result in a serious backslash. One consequence could be the Pakistani secret service renewing its payments (with Saudi money) and weapon deliveries to the Taliban. Then U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan will be in really serious trouble.
But these futurities may be unavoidable anyway.
As of now in terms of historic legacy Bush will be regarded as one of the
worst presidents. A successful opening towards Iran could add a major
positive point to his rapsheet.
Is another Nixon goes to China moment coming? Henry Kissinger prepared that trip with some secret meetings. He is still around somewhere … does anyone know where exactly?