Gaza War Pushes Arabs to the Brink: Possible Saudi/Iran Union

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Gaza War Pushes Arabs to the Brink

excerpts --

Anger is boiling over in the Middle East over Gaza, and -- exactly as I predicted -- the result of the war has been to boost radicalism throughout the region, to strengthen the terrorist-inclined fanatics of Hamas, and to enhance the muscle of terrorist-inclined Israelis, including far-right parties such as Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and, of course, Likud's bombastic Benjamin Netanyahu.

You probably didn't know that the reason the Bush administration, in its last days, reversed course on Gaza is because they feared that US embassies in the Middle East might be stormed by angry crowds if they did nothing. You'll remember that, after weeks of supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza, the United States suddenly reversed course and allowed the UN Security Council to pass a unanimous resolution demanding a ceasefire. (The United States didn't vote yes, but it abstained -- rather than threatening its oft-used veto.)

Speaking on January 14 at the New America Foundation, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilizad said explicitly that the United States feared a violent explosion in the region, including the seizure of US embassies by angry mobs, if the United States continued to block action by the UN. A central concern, said Khalilzad, is that mosque leaders all over the Middle East would mobilize the anger and direct it against the United States.

---

In case you think the anger against Israel and the United States among the Arabs is limited to Hamas and Hezbollah, consider the stunning comments of Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, who also served as the country's ambassador to both Great Britain and the United States:

"In the past weeks, not only have the Israeli Defence Forces murdered more than 1,000 Palestinians, but they have come close to killing the prospect of peace itself. Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk. ...

"America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region – from the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib – but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact – especially its "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia – it will have to drastically revise its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine."


These sentiments, that sort of anger, are virtually unprecedented coming from a top Saudi leader. He went on to suggest a possible Saudi alliance with Iran -- yes, Iran! -- in support of a jihad against Israel:


"Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over 'this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children' in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom's primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed in the region.

"So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain."

So: a top US official says that American embassies were on the verge of being "overrun" by mobs, and a top Saudi official warns that his government is finding it hard to resist a "jihad" along with Iran. Heckuva job, Olmerty.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/401599

The costs continue to mount for our fake "war on terror" and our unhoily alliance with Israel.

The arabs and those who stand against the atrocities of Israel have it within their power to inflict serious economic damage on the US .. and if they're smart, that's exactly what they should do.
 
While there may be talk of Iranian/Saudi cooperation in the short term both parties have bigger fish to fry than Palestine.

With the partition of Iraq in full swing and all groups rearming in preparation for the situation once the US pull-out is initiated the Saudi's and Iranians will find themselves on opposite sides once more. If it ever comes to a choice between keeping the Americans onside as backers of a Sunni regime in Iraq or the possibility of a fully-fledged Iranian puppet government on the KSA's borders, there is only one logical outcome.
 
charver said:
While there may be talk of Iranian/Saudi cooperation in the short term both parties have bigger fish to fry than Palestine.

With the partition of Iraq in full swing and all groups rearming in preparation for the situation once the US pull-out is initiated the Saudi's and Iranians will find themselves on opposite sides once more. If it ever comes to a choice between keeping the Americans onside as backers of a Sunni regime in Iraq or the possibility of a fully-fledged Iranian puppet government on the KSA's borders, there is only one logical outcome.
Click to expand...

While they all have bigger fish to fry than Palestine, there are benefits to be had by cooperation, even if just in the short term.

WE handed Iraq to Iran like a wonderful christmas present and the Saudi's are feeling the heat from their own population.

The US economy is in no position to absorb any hits from the rest of the world.
 
blackascoal said:
While they all have bigger fish to fry than Palestine, there are benefits to be had by cooperation, even if just in the short term.

WE handed Iraq to Iran like a wonderful christmas present and the Saudi's are feeling the heat from their own population.

The US economy is in no position to absorb any hits from the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

The thing is, i've been hearing how the Saudi's are under pressure from their own population for as long as i can remember and yet nothing has ever changed.

While the Saudi's could theoretically seek to damage the US economy through the manipulation of oil exports the Saudis also know that without an upturn in American economic fortunes the rest of the world's economy is going to continue to follow in the same downward spiral. A state so reliant on healthy oil prices has no incentive to prolong America's, and in turn the world's, economic pain.

Maybe something will change but i doubt it.
 
charver said:
The thing is, i've been hearing how the Saudi's are under pressure from their own population for as long as i can remember and yet nothing has ever changed.

While the Saudi's could theoretically seek to damage the US economy through the manipulation of oil exports the Saudis also know that without an upturn in American economic fortunes the rest of the world's economy is going to continue to follow in the same downward spiral. A state so reliant on healthy oil prices has no incentive to prolong America's, and in turn the world's, economic pain.

Maybe something will change but i doubt it.
Click to expand...

Even the threat forces change .. as evidenced by Bush's reversal and the US abstaning fron the Resolution vote rather than the usual veto.

And my good brother, the Saudi's have responded to pressure before .. which is why they refused to openly host US troops during the Iraq War and why they forced the US to withdraw nearly all US military personnel from the kingdom.

The question remains of how much force requiires more substantial change.
 
blackascoal said:
Even the threat forces change .. as evidenced by Bush's reversal and the US abstaning fron the Resolution vote rather than the usual veto.

And my good brother, the Saudi's have responded to pressure before .. which is why they refused to openly host US troops during the Iraq War and why they forced the US to withdraw nearly all US military personnel from the kingdom.

The question remains of how much force requiires more substantial change.
Click to expand...

I still think there is a huge difference to bowing to pressure on the presence of US troops on the soil of 'Holy Islam' and the Sheiks opting to gamble on alienating their largest military backer, and ally, by damaging them economically at a time of massive potential upheaval in the region.

But, i suppose we'll all just have to wait and see which way the wind blows...i don't think the outlook will be a particularly peaceful one either way.
 
charver said:
I still think there is a huge difference to bowing to pressure on the presence of US troops on the soil of 'Holy Islam' and the Sheiks opting to gamble on alienating their largest military backer, and ally, by damaging them economically at a time of massive potential upheaval in the region.

But, i suppose we'll all just have to wait and see which way the wind blows...i don't think the outlook will be a particularly peaceful one either way.
Click to expand...

I agree that peace is probably nowhere in the cards no matter which way the wind blows.
 
22%

Thats the percent of oil that we consume from the middle east. Replace that with an aggressive alt energy policy in America and we can wash are hands of that god forsaken area once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top