Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Tue

13

Feb

2007

The Saudi Lesson
Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:18
by Stephen P. Pizzo

Folks on the extreme left and extreme right share at least one trait in common; they can only hold and process a single black and white belief on any given subject. When anyone tries to inject a shade of gray or one of those nasty “nuances” into one of their certainties, they react with suspicion and anger.

Of course we see this most when the issue of Iraq comes up. Those on the far right believe that “if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here, in our own streets.” That's complete and utter nonsense, of course, but believe me, they believe it.

I got a taste of lefty anger last week when I had the audacity to suggest that Iran may be doing to the US in Iraq exactly what the US did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Specifically by making sure Iraqi insurgents have the gear they need to blow up our armor vehicles and shoot down our helicopters.

Yep. I said that, and oh my! The emails poured in. How dare I!.

How dare I what?

Well, how dare I provide aid and comfort to the war-mongering Bushies! “That's just what they want us to believe,” the lefties whined. They want us to believe the Iranians are supplying Iraqi insurgents, to justify attacking Iran. And I fell right into that right-wing trap.

Right?

Ah, no, not right -- and not left either. Both sides are missing the point. One side sees black, the other sees white. I see gray.

Let's dissect the matter:

Question: Does the Bush administration want to attack Iran?

Answer: Does a bear crap in the woods? Sure they do. Fueled by Neocons and Israeli interests in Congress (can you spell Lieberman?) they'd love to bomb the crap out of Iran. Just as they believed attacking Iraq would yield longterm benefits for the region, they now believe that knee-capping Iran now would end Iran's regional ambitions.

Question: Well, are they right?

Answer: No. Attacking Iran would not only not yield any benefits but would simply kick open another Pandora's box of very ugly realities. And then we'll be talking about how to “get out of Iran,” too. Because, you see, the Iranians live there. And they will still live there long after the dust kicked up by westerners settles. Iran's place in the Middle East of the future can only be decided by themselves and their neighbors. Anyone who believes the West can force such an outcome clearly has no grasp whatsoever of the history of that region, the religion & culture that underpins everything, or the people that live there.

Question: Are the Iranians supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents?

Answer: Duh! Lefties need to understand that, just because Bush says it, does not automatically mean it's not true. Even a broken clock is right twice each day.

Imagine it this way. What if you woke up one morning and discovered that Iran had bombed, invaded and occupied Mexico. Iranian troops were stationed along the US Mexican border and the President of Iran was making threats against the US. Do you think, just maybe, the CIA would be slipping guns-n-stuff to anti-Iranian Mexican insurgents? Of course they would. So, of course the Iranians are. The sooner the US can be convinced to leave Iraq the better for Iran. And the fastest way to do that is for Iran to play the same role in Iraq that the US played in forcing the Soviets to quit their occupation of Afghanistan. And that's precisely what the Iranians are doing.

Question: So, does that mean the US should attack Iran?

Answer: Of course not. Attacking Iran would be no more justified than if the Soviets had attacked the US for providing helicopter killing Stinger missiles to Afghan insurgents.

Question: So what is the right response to Iran's behavior?

Answer: That question brings me back to the first question and answer – that only Iran's neighbors can affect Iran's behavior. We saw the first indications of just how that would work last week. It may have appeared to those wearing political blinders to have been an unrelated matter. But in fact it was arguably the most important thing that happened in the region this month – or, for that matter, any month lately.
It happened, not in poor beleaguered Iraq, or Mulah-run Iran, but in filthy-rich Saudi Arabia.

Last week the Saudis, not exactly known for making bold diplomatic moves, suddenly reached down into Palestine, grabbed waring Fatah and Hamas leaders by the scurfs of their necks and dragged them to Mecca for a sit-down.

Why?

The Saudis have had a good thing going for nearly century, selling their oil to the West. But they realized that the growing tide of instability around them – some of which they had financed -- is getting out of hand. Sunni and Shia are increasingly facing off in what many believe may be the beginning of a regional civil war,. And kind of regional instability would directly threaten the Saudis sweet (crude) deal.

CAIRO -- Egypt is the Arab world's largest Sunni Muslim country, but as a writer once quipped, it has a Shiite heart and a Sunni mind. In its eclectic popular culture, Sunnis enjoy a sweet dish with raisins and nuts to mark Ashura, the most sacred Shiite Muslim holiday. Raucous festivals bring Cairenes into the street to celebrate the birthdays of Shiite saints, a practice disparaged by austere Sunnis. The city's Islamic quarter tangles like a vine around a shrine to Imam Hussein, Shiite Islam's most revered figure. The growing Sunni-Shiite divide is roiling an Arab world as unsettled as at any time in a generation. (More)

So, after years of looking the other way and paying protection money to radical, anti-Israel groups, the Saudis decided it was time had come to send the dogs of war to obedience school.

First of all, the Saudis have far more reasons to fear Iran than the US does. And it would not be the first time in recent history that Iran and Syria made trouble in Palestine that resulted in regional misery. Finally, Hamas gets its money and arms from Iran, and it has been Hamas fanning the flames of a Palestinian civil war.

I have no idea what the Saudis actually told the two warring factions, but I bet it went something like this:

The Saudis to Hamas leaders: “You guys have had it pretty easy. Iran sends you what you need when you need it. Meanwhile the West has embargoed the Palestinian government since Hamas won elections. That cut off western aid to Fatah, making them easy pickings for your Iranian-armed Hamas fighters. We Saudis can, if we must, provide Fatah with all the money and arms it needs. Is that what you want? A full out civil war with a well-equipped and financed Fatah? Because that's what you're going to get unless you knock it off.”

The Saudis to Fatah leaders: “How was that?”

Fatah to the Saudis: “Perfect.”

Hamas to the Saudis: “You Saudi Sunni swine! Allah will eat your children, kill your crops, dry up your oil and render your wives and camels barren."

Saudis to Hamas: “Whatever. Take it or leave it.”

The photo-op that followed the Saudis sit-down showed Fatah and Hamas leaders kissing. The next move will be Iran's. Do they keep egging Hamas on to undermine any form of secular, moderate Palestinian government? Or do the Iranians back off? That ball is not in Iran's court. The Saudis have more oil and more money than Iran. And the Saudis have warehouses full of modern US-military gear. Should the Saudis decide to back Fatah they could turn it into a formidable force. (And this time the Israelis would approve – maybe even help.)

JERUSALEM -- Leaders of the rival Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement to form a coalition government Thursday in an effort to end months of factional fighting and lift international sanctions imposed on the Hamas-led administration....The agreement, which followed talks hosted by Saudi Arabia in the holy city of Mecca, was signed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who heads Fatah, and Khaled Mashaal, the exiled leader of Hamas. (More)

What's really important to learn from that event is this: It was the Saudis, not the American fleet, that changed the equation for Iran -- and in ways the Bush administration could only dream of.

It's a valuable lesson, for everyone involved. The west's only strategic interest in the region is oil. But those who actually live in the Middle East have much broader and far more personal interests at stake. For the peoples of the Middle East it boils down to a stark choice: peaceful co-existence, growing trade and growing economies, or life on-end in a Mad Max world.

Only once the West, particularly the US, butts out will that choice come into high relief. The Saudis clearly get it – at least those Saudis who benefit most from regional stability. (Eventually ordinary Saudis will get it too, and that won't be good news for the corrupt phony “princes,” now running that sandpit of a country. Of course, when that day arrives, the US will not like that particular display of “democracy ” in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, it will be a matter for locals to decide, not Exxon.)

So, let's review.
  • Is Iran sending military assistance and anti-aircraft missiles to Iraqi insurgents? Almost certainly.
  • Is the Bush administration lying to us again? Almost certainly.
  • Does that mean Iran is not sending military assistance to Iraqi Insurgents? No.
  • Does that mean we should attack Iran? No.
What it does mean is that the sooner we get our troops out of Iraq, the sooner Middle Easterners will have to stop blaming others for their dysfunctional societies and get down to addressing the religious/cultural anachronisms that underlay almost all of it.

No longer able to blame the Great Satan they will have to “get” what the Saudis got. The choice facing Muslims in the Middle East is between life in dark ages, or peace, cooperation and progress.

Take it or leave it.
More from this author:
Predictions for 2007 (6314 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The War: Jenna & Barbara Bush will not be part of their dad's troop surge. Ditto for any member of the Cheney clan. ...
White House Chess (5918 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the...
Fine Mess You Got Us Into This Time (7470 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo At the moment all the focus is on what George W. Bush is going to do about the mess he's made of Iraq. But the larger...
New Lies Forward (5915 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Well it's a new year, and you know what that means... time to update the administration's list of stated reasons for it's...
The GOP's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Scam (6422 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Traditional conservative, William F. Buckley was once asked how he would describe a “liberal.” He thought for...
Related Articles:
The Anguish of the Overlords: Bush Brother Stands Up for Saudi Royals (5252 Hits)
by Chris Floyd When he's not globetrotting with rightwing bagman and arms-dealing cult godling Sun Myung Moon, or being served with free...
The Ethic of the Market and the Erosion of Moral Values: One More Lesson from the the Coulter Disgrace (5633 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler From the inception of NoneSoBlind, I’ve been talking about not only the evil of the Bushite regime but also about...
From the Whales Learn This Lesson (3164 Hits)
by Ray McGovern, AfterDowningStreet.org I know not everyone believes in God. But I do; and I’m really struck by the ways she chooses to...
The Royal Treatment: Saudi Involvement in Iraq Overlooked (3699 Hits)
by Dahr Jamail First published in Foreign Policy In Focus Reporting on Iraqi benchmarks in mid-September, Bush and his team of Gen. Petraeus...
Saudi Power - Shaping another U.S. Foreign Policy Misadventure (3632 Hits)
by Dan Lieberman The Saudi Arabia kingdom can be the poster child for a characterization of the Middle East as an area that contains despotic...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (7)add comment

a guest said:

0
Missed it
I think I missed the previous contentious article.

I am not sure Iran needs to supply weapons to its allies in Iraq since the US is supplying Iran's allies, like the Badr brigade, with weapons in order to foment sectarian strife. It is also a stretch to claim

"Iran may be doing to the US in Iraq exactly what the US did to the Soviets in Afghanistan."

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison, I think. Iran might wish they could, but they can't.

The Saudi regime is about to wipe itself off the map.


 
February 13, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The Iranians do no add 'milk' to the tea they cons
"They (the United States) were misled, and their last move in Najaf shows how the smart Iranians are leading the Americans deeper into Iraqi sands," Jaafar al-Jawadi, a political analyst from Baghdad told IPS.

"I do not really understand what those Americans are doing because now they are just like an elephant in a china shop, and everything they do is terribly wrong as if they are committing suicide,"

Is there a better way of describing the American involvement in Iraq - in the region?? This is one BIG experiment that has gone wrong from Day-1!

Bush has not attacked IRAQ - he has raped American Democracy! Who in America can see this happening? What will it take to get America to STOP this supposed role of Resource Saviour ..... not for the WORLD but for The United States of America?

Ask the orphans and widows on both sides of the equation.... and there will be countless dead bodies... mangled bodies and blood drenched - Flag Draped Coffins that will answer this question in the near future.

The Americans and their Allies are there for the Cake and Confetti. This cake is bitter and tastes of death.

 
February 13, 2007
Votes: +0

Russell Wellen said:

0
Iraq as America's Afghanistan
"Iran may be doing to the US in Iraq exactly what the US did to the Soviets in Afghanistan."

And if Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam, maybe it's come full circle. With Russia nominally aligned with Iran, you could say Russia is getting its revenge for how we fomented the mujahadeens in Afghanistan.

I always look forward to reading Stephen Pizzo. You can count on him to find a perspective on an issue that no one else hs.
 
February 13, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Ed Strong
And who's supplying the Sunni resistance? The Saudis, of course.

So why doesn't Bush threaten SA?

Is America switching sides? Are they now out to get the shia militia, allowing the Sunnis to strengthen their position? Having run out of Sunni demons, they turn on Iran.

Mr. Pizzo, You're as biased as the rest of us. As an 'extreme' leftist my basic instinct is to challenge US hegemony. Anything else is incidental.

I'm afraid your credibility rating has taken a knock.
 
February 13, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Imperialism 101
Mr. Strong seems to be correct. Mr. Pizzo's problem seems to be that he has forgotten why the US corporate state is in the ME in the first place. ME countries are dysfunctional because Western imperialist nations keep them dysfunctional, either by controlling their governments through puppet regimes or destabilizing their countries when nationalist and even democratic, governments might be gaining some independence. This effort at maintaining economic and political hegemony over these peoples is known as imperialism.

Destabilizing the ME is in the interest of US and European imperialism. It is this hegemony that anti-imperialists (some who may also refer to themselves as "leftists") need to be in opposition to. All ME states and peoples are victims of these imperialist machinations, and have been for a couple of centuries at least. Condemning the victims and lumping them into the same categories as the imperialist transgressors who not only cooked up the stew of problems, but keep stirring the pot, is not something that anti-imperialists should be hypocritically focusing on.

All Iraq's ME neighbors, quite naturally, have agents in Iraq working at different levels to attempt to protect and defend their varied national interests from US attempts to destabilize, not only Iraq, but Iraq's neighbors as well. Iran, like all others in the area, has the right and obligation to supply weapons to its allies in Iraq in order to defend itself from American hegemonic ambitions in the region. It is the US that invaded the region, not Iran. Apparently, some self-righteous "leftists" think that ME states have no rights to defend themselves against American regional aggression.

Having said this, it is highly unlikely that Iran is able to supply much weaponry at all, and there is very little credible evidence of this. Mr. Pizzo certainly does not supply any. As Mr. Strong has noted, Saudi has also been implicated in supplying money and weapons to Sunnis, which have been used against American troops, but this matters little because the Saudis are American dependents. But the fact is, that most of the weapons supplied to Iraqis, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, are being supplied by the US. Yes, the US is supplying the guns and bombs to Iraqi factions that are in turn using them to kill US soldiers, as well as Iraqis. This is hardly new. Black ops are an Anglo-American tradition. Propaganda and false flag operations are a part of the game plan. Imperialism 101 - destabilize, divide and conquer. Lets stop blaming the victims.

This has been done before,

Blue
 
February 13, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
the enemy of my enemy...
pizzo is right, of course: the shame of it is he has to explain how this kind of thing works to the historically-illiterate. iran is bleeding the US like the US did to the USSR in afghanistan or china did the US in vietnam or the US/UK did the nazis by supporting the french resistance and italian partisans against mussolini--it's the oldest form of war-as-a-continuation-of-diplomacy. difference here is that iran is threatened by the US in a way that the US in afghanistan wasn't.

dirtier still, however, was NATO's 'stay-behind', ready-made resistance to the ever-imminent soviet invasion of western europe in the form of operation GLADIO; when the invasion never came, GLADIO staged attacks and blamed the 'terrorism' on the local communist parties.

what we have in iraq is a nasty GLADIO-cum-foreign supported insurgency melee, in my opinion: the US/UK have been caught running their own 'insurgency' war while iran continues to support SCIRI....
 
February 14, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Pizzo lacks evidence
Pizzo lacks evidence, so how can he be "right". Bush also lacked evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. Of course, he was propagandizing, Pizzo is merely speculating. Believing something is so, and stating it is so, does not prove it is so. Mr. Pizzo proves nothing.

In fact, what evidence exists, proves the US is manufacturing evidence against Iran in order to justify an attack on the country. Real evidence of any substance is, as usual, lacking.

Pentagon Caught Red Handed in an attempt to Frame Iran: Iran Does Not Manufacture 81MM Mortar Shells
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...cleId=4772

The historically-literate "explain how this kind of thing works" with evidence and documents, not mere speculation. Mr. Pizzo's interesting ideas need to be better supported. He needs to do his homework. We have enough lazy journalists in the corporate media.

Gladio type ops were run by the US through the CIA and NATO using ultra-right conservatives in Europe. SCIRI has been armed and employed (as police) by the US as death squads to eliminate Sunnis and Shia nationalists opposing the US. This is not even controversial. Iran may also be supporting SCIRI in some minor ways, but they hardly need to arm them, the US has already done that.

Bush's ?dea of supporting the troops is to arm their enemies so the US troops can better be butchered and justify Bush's further attacks on the "terrorists" he has armed.

Blue

 
February 14, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top