Iran may have control of SCIRI, but little leverage on Muqtada al-Sadr. A man who has made a great deal out of the fact that he never left Iraq, even during the worst of times, and is certainly not beholden to Iran.
Also, the Americans can claim all they want that the IEDs come from Iran, but most unbiased commentators say these things are easily knocked up in a garage and have no sophistication that requires external support.
Maybe the Iranians have fooled the US into thinking they have control, but they don't...and I bet the Saudis know that.
Finally, what's in it for the Saudis ? Access to the Sunni iraqi oil-fields may be attractive, but I really don't see what they gain from this. keep to the Fen Causeway
The whole Saudi-organized process started about one year ago. They called Cheney over in May and made him realize that the takeover idea was not feasible. Then things developed in such a way that I think Chris' point is easily demonstrated. The U.S. slowly calmed its anti-Iran hysteria; the Sunni areas relented somewhat; the Shiites were allowed to cleanse the eastern 2/3rds of Baghdad; the British backed out of Basra; and the U.S. stood down a lot of the search-and-destroy on the ground (granted that they still dropped a lot of bombs from the sky - allegedly on al-Qaeda, which probably meant the remaining hotheads).
What is in it for the Saudis is that they want to pump and ship their oil without a lot of missiles and such making a mess (missiles from Iran, of course). They could easily see - if they weren't directly informed by the Iranians - where the missiles would be directed: U.S. ships and Saudi facilities. (Threatening Israel is just pro forma.) And then there's the al-Anbar oil fields, about which they probably have more data and knowledge than anyone else. paul spencer
If Cheney was given the word in May, then it doesn't really explain why the administration were still trying to talk up military action against Iran in late November, a full month after the NIE blew their case out of the water. I confess I saw no diminution in the rhetoric till people started laughing at them.
Iran knows better than to fire missiles in the direction of the "nation in the gulf most armed to the teeth". I can't believe for a minute the Saudis were concerned about that. 'Sides, if it came to a shooting war with the US, the Iranians have got 140,000 hostages up for grabs (literally) 50 miles from their border, why get involved in risky shit with Saudi ?
Still, the northern anbar field point ins well made, but I can't see the Sunni Iraqis giving that up cos it's their only asset. keep to the Fen Causeway
The U.S. 'hostages' were not really in danger of frontal assault or of encirclement. The danger to them was mostly logistical - that is, they - and the local oil-producers - are dependent on ship support. My reading says that the missiles that the Russkies supplied were all about the shipping.
As far as "armed to the teeth", the Saudi army is about as unproven as the army of Costa Rica at present. They haven't picked on anyone other than a few women car-drivers and some token 'terrorists' in a number of decades. As to their air force - appears to be largely fighters - air-to-air mostly - again, untested - how capable against modern SAMS? paul spencer
I was in a meeting today with an old friend who has spent many years in the Gulf and Washington. He is a private citizen, always has been, i.e., not part of the power structures in either place. But he knows and is privy to the thoughts of many of the power brokers. I have respected him as an individual and an analyst for many years, he is far less hot-headed than I am and is always deeply insightful. He was asked by someone in the meeting his views on current state of Iraq. In a nutshell his view can be summarized as: The Saudi-US relationship is badly soured, they have lost respect for the United States as a nation deeply in debt to China (i.e., squandering global influence to the rising new power), and for having deliberately harmed the Palestinians and now the Iraqis with the invasion that the Saudis openly warned them would be a disaster. The Saudis want the US out of Iraq, they're just making a mess of it, but they want the Americans out on their terms. The Iranians feel almost exactly the same - they want the US out, but on their terms. So the Saudis and Iranians have found common ground and have more or less struck a deal to help calm Iraq so that the Americans can "claim victory" and get out. The Saudis and Iranians are meeting regularly behind the scenes and closely coordinating their efforts. So the Saudis are funneling huge support to anti-Al-Qaeda Sunni elements to tamp those hotheads down, and the Iranians have used their influence to calm down Sadr. So each side is calming down their respective sectors. They are perfectly happy to let the Americans pretend the "surge" is what has caused the recent calming as it will let Americans feel good about themselves then skidaddle quicker. Nobody in Washington has a clue what's really going on on the ground. He thinks Petraeus and a few others likely do, but of course it serves their interests to pretend and let Washington think that they brought about the success instead of other actors beyond their control. So, realist power politics in the Gulf, and yet more incompetence in Washington.
He was asked by someone in the meeting his views on current state of Iraq. In a nutshell his view can be summarized as:
The Saudi-US relationship is badly soured, they have lost respect for the United States as a nation deeply in debt to China (i.e., squandering global influence to the rising new power), and for having deliberately harmed the Palestinians and now the Iraqis with the invasion that the Saudis openly warned them would be a disaster. The Saudis want the US out of Iraq, they're just making a mess of it, but they want the Americans out on their terms. The Iranians feel almost exactly the same - they want the US out, but on their terms. So the Saudis and Iranians have found common ground and have more or less struck a deal to help calm Iraq so that the Americans can "claim victory" and get out. The Saudis and Iranians are meeting regularly behind the scenes and closely coordinating their efforts. So the Saudis are funneling huge support to anti-Al-Qaeda Sunni elements to tamp those hotheads down, and the Iranians have used their influence to calm down Sadr. So each side is calming down their respective sectors. They are perfectly happy to let the Americans pretend the "surge" is what has caused the recent calming as it will let Americans feel good about themselves then skidaddle quicker. Nobody in Washington has a clue what's really going on on the ground. He thinks Petraeus and a few others likely do, but of course it serves their interests to pretend and let Washington think that they brought about the success instead of other actors beyond their control.
The Saudis want the US out of Iraq, they're just making a mess of it, but they want the Americans out on their terms.
The Iranians feel almost exactly the same - they want the US out, but on their terms.
So the Saudis and Iranians have found common ground and have more or less struck a deal to help calm Iraq so that the Americans can "claim victory" and get out.
The Saudis and Iranians are meeting regularly behind the scenes and closely coordinating their efforts.
So the Saudis are funneling huge support to anti-Al-Qaeda Sunni elements to tamp those hotheads down, and the Iranians have used their influence to calm down Sadr. So each side is calming down their respective sectors.
They are perfectly happy to let the Americans pretend the "surge" is what has caused the recent calming as it will let Americans feel good about themselves then skidaddle quicker.
Nobody in Washington has a clue what's really going on on the ground. He thinks Petraeus and a few others likely do, but of course it serves their interests to pretend and let Washington think that they brought about the success instead of other actors beyond their control.
Noting that although the US has been trying to stir the Gulf states into a confrontational stance against Iran, neither the Saudis nor the Iranians have been playing ball. Iran's been making a huge effort to court n' reassure the Sunni gulf states and its overtures have been welcomed - remember Ahmadinejad's invite to Mecca? The bottom-of-the-line fact here is that neither of the regional "big guys" want to find themselves dragged into outright war against each other whether as a sooner-or-later inevitable consequence of out-of-control sectarian strife in Iraq or due to direct US prodding- both countries have much to lose practically nothing to gain from such an outcome, Iran as a nation suffered immensely in the hard bitter war with Iraq and the Saudis' orientation is more towards financial clout + fundie-religious proselytizing and the usual covert-intrigue thingies. So it would rather get on board with the Iranians and use its prestige-etc. to broker some kind of shared-influence deal with them for fully-pacifying Iraq once the US gets out than risk a head-on clash with them now or later. .... Incidentally, the Debka article and relative implications are discussed in Pepe Escobar's latest piece in Asia Times:
As alliances shift, Iran wins. Again "Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami
