The House of Saud has always feared - above all other threats - an expansionist Iran. The Iranian revolution in 1979 sent the Saudi monarchy into a panic, mostly stemming from their eternal mistrust of their native Shi'ite minority, which is the majority population of the oil-rich Hasa province. All throughout the 1980s, the two nations fought a proxy war on a series of front, a confrontation which brought the Saudi government closer to the United States.
Now, with Iranian infiltration of Iraq and the rise of the Iraqi Shi'ite community, the Saudis are feeling the heat again, indicated in a speech given yesterday before the Council on Foreign Relations by Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, who stated:
"Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason," he said.Iranians, Faisal said, go into areas that American forces have pacified and "pay money ... install their own people (and) even establish police forces and arm the militias that are there."
"And they are protected in doing all this by the British and American forces," he added.
By indicating Saudi unease, Faisal is signalling that Saudi Arabia might be open to pursuing a foreign policy less in-line with American goals in the region. This includes negotiating or at least opening up independent communications with various Sunni groups inside Iraq (which they probably already have) or, even worse for American interests, moving closer to Iran. There are indications that other gulf states, observing the rise of Iran as a regional hegemon, are beginning to adapt that very position.
"Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason," he said.
What's this we shit, desert man?
Has Saudi Arabia committed troops to Iraq? Or funding? Or anything but terrorists?
If it weren't for these Muslims, what the hell would we all do for entertainment?
It is an article of faith among the Fisks and the Galloways and the Buchanans and the Sheehans that the chief beneficiary, and therefore cunning instigator, of America's war against Saddam Hussein was Israel. A few names, culled from lists of high officials in the Pentagon, seem to have done the trick. But Paul Wolfowitz, despite that last name, has never been much of an analyst of the Arab-Israeli conflict (he relies somewhat on his sister, who is far to the left, in Israel, all for Peace Now and things like that), or indeed, much of anything beyond weapons systems, a man whom Richard Pipes accurately criticised as not learned in culture or in history, or given to comprehending the ideological or other wellsprings of behavior. Perhaps he's learned something. Richard Pipes was not in the Pentagon at all, and though on the Soviet Union, as Jackson's aide, could not be faulted, he has been a little more taken in by Islam (possibly his stint as an agent of Turkey made him susceptible to such views) and if he could be taken in by the likes of Conrad Black, he could certainly be taken in by the smoooth practitioners (to-the-taqiyya-manner-born) of Telling-the-Americans-What-They-Want-To-Hear), of whom there were a great many among the Iraqi exiles whipping up war fever in Washington.
No, for anyone who goes back and reads the articles in 2002, one finds that the Israeli analysts and spokesmen were not unduly concerned about Iraq, that it was consistently Iran, they said, that truly worried them. Nor has one seen, save for that initial silly but well-meaning book by Scharansky, about the need for "democracies" (a book whose thesis was in any case misinterpreted, because unlike those who thought they understood, but missed completely the point that democracy, while it might be encouraged, could not be imposed, and would not take root if planted in the stony soil that had been unprepared, through a change in widespread attitudes and behavior (and the attitudes and behavior that Islam encourages directly contradict the spirit of real, Western, protection-for-minorities Islam). And without many decades of such slow soil preparation, it would not take a gale-force wind, but only a gentle zephyr, to knock that sensitive plant right over.
No, it was not Israel that gained the most from, much less was "behind," the Iraq invasion. Behind the Iraq invasion was an Administration too timid and unimaginative to take on, or even hint of taking on, Islam itself -- though if the Americans leave, there will a great though accidental achievement in Iraq, with the Sunni-Shi'a fissure made permanent, and open, and the possibility of a non-Arab Muslim people obtaining, within the so-called "Arab world," a state that they both ardently desire, and deserve.
The two chief beneficiaries of the removal of Saddam Hussein's locally aggressive regime were Iran, his hereditary enemy, and Saudi Arabia (ditto). Iran is a Shi'a country that Saddam Hussein had attacked at the first available opportunity (in what he took to be the weakness and chaos of Khomeini's first full year). The other is a Sunni (Wahhabi) country that disapproved of Saddam Hussein, and he of course coveted the land of the petty sheikhdoms, such as Kuwait, and the wealth of what he saw as the corrupt (in a different way from his own, perfectly acceptable, corruption) family of al-Saud, and if he were, as he saw himself, as a New Saladin, King of the Arabs and Emperor of All He Could Survey, then the Al-Saud would simply, sooner or later, have to go.
The American soldiers have "liberated" Iraq only to see various other kinds of despotism come right back in Sunni triangles and closer to the Shatt al-Arab. Misrule is the order of the day in Muslim countires; and tha natural order, only here and there, for a certain time, can that natural order be undone.
Is Saudi Arabia worried about Shi'a power? Yes, because to the Saudis, the Shi'a are Infidels. And anything that helps the Infidels is not good for the Saudis. The speech is quite funny -- here we have Faisal showing that he, at least, is aware of what the Americans seem not to realize. They are helping, right now, make Iraq safe for the Shi'a. They are training, not the "Iraqi" army, but an army that is almost entirley composed of Shi'a Arabs and Kurds, traiing that will come in handy, the Shi'a know, when the Americans leave and it will be time to settle the hash of those Sunnis once and for all.
If Faisal has correctly identified what for him is a problem, it is not necessarily a problem for the Americans. For we have a stake in causing as much Sunni-Shii'a intra-Islamic rivalry as possible, and if there are measures taken against the Shi'a, or revolts by them, in Hasa (eastern Saudi Arabia), or at least the security costs to the Saudis mount and mount, and in Bahrain, and in Yemen, and even perhaps between Sunni and Shi'a (i.e., Hezbollah) in Lebanon, the latter being [possibly cut off from its Iranian and Syrian suppliers by Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon, this is all to the good. We should want disputes and even warfare to go on betweeh Sunns and Shi'a forever -- would that the Iran-Iraq War had son so. For eight wonderful years, Iran and Iraq used up money and men and materiel, slugging it out with each other. They left us alone. It was great. May it, or something like it, be restarted, and go on at least as long as it takes to educate a sufficient number of Infidels about what Islam is all about -- think of it as a way to buy time.
Agreed, Hugh. As usual, great thoughts, especially when the Muslims battle it out with one another.
Too bad we're not fight promotors....Sunnis vs. Shi'as would garner world record pay per view buy rates.
Yeah, regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, that's a great idea guys. Look forward to paying 10 dollars a gallon right alongside you guys.
Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out using up their money and cannon fodder jihadis! Less trouble for US and buys time for the West - I pray - to get its act together to finally take a much needed stand against this insanity of Islam.
Bobby, I know we buy around 16% of our oil from the pukes in Saudi Arabia. I was not aware of us purchasing any oil from Iran. Besides, if war between Shias and Sunnis broke out, Iraqi oil would likely be a source, since the proud Muslim death soldiers would march toward the inner-cult war, and our troops, already there in Iraq, would assure delivery of purchased oil from there.
Saudi and Iran aren't the only sources of oil on earth. Mexico is swimming in it. Also, as we import oil from abroad, we also export oil to other nations. The U.S. doesn't just buy oil, we sell it and trade it as well.
All in all, the Shias warring with the Sunnis may turn out to be one of the most productive things they've done for society since the time that crazy pedophile Muhammad invented this belief system.
We don't buy oil from Iran, but the Euros, Russians, Indians, and Chinese all do. If that flow is interrupted by war, all those countries are going to have to turn elsewhere for oil, driving the price up sky high. Please, we'd need a million soldiers in Iraq to guard all those oil wells and lines, if indeed a major civil war broke out. It's hard enough right now and there isn't even a civil war going on! You also could easily see Kuwait get dragged in, along with Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen.
World-wide depression in a month.
Good points, Bobby. I believe Russia has quite a supply of oil reserves themselves, as does Britain, but China and India would be hurting. We'll likely go in and bail the Saudi pigs out anyway, like we always do, all so they can spit in our faces and keep spreading their Wahhabism all over creation.
Iran is doing a lot of sabre rattling, and it's going to come to a halt soon. Israel is going to have to jump into this mix while we're at it.
The world would be much better off without Islam, can we agree on that point?
I wonder if the 'divide and weaken' strategy has even been mentioned in all those high level war strategy meetings? Are they even that far along in understanding Islam, or are they still at the "I Read Karen Armstrong and John Esposito" retard level?
John Sobieski, PI
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog
Don't be fooled by China, they have huge reserves as well, the reason they're now buying so much is because the Gov't banned collecting more oil (in other words, they are most likely gathering it covertly and keeping it for their military for when war does break out an shuts down production in the ME).
Canada also has rather large reserves, estimated to be second only to Saudi Arabia itself. link
BobbyM said "Look forward to paying 10 dollars a gallon right alongside you guys."
As long as the world is dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil to run our economies, we will be forced to continue to allow their jihad to continue.
It will be painful in the short run to wean ourselves off oil, but in any event it has to happen; no matter how much we grovel in dhimmitude, there is only a fixed amount of oil reserves. We should be looking forward, not dragging our heels trying to continue burning decayed dinosaurs and vegetation to run our economy.
"Praise those who speak correctly on the matter of Islam, for doing so, and come down hard on the others, for not."
I guess I'll have to leave Hugh's Moriarty (and his many like-minded well-educated intelligent dhimmis over at the Examined Life philosophy forum) to his own devices; I guess it doesn't matter that such well-educated intelligent dhimmis think that there is no problem of Islam and that any analysis which investigates the possibility of such a problem is symptomatic of "Islamophobia"...
All I know is that I'm not up to the task, while Hugh is. A pity.
I intelligent enough to hold my own with most intellectuals but I swear, Dr. Pepper, I don't understand most of your comment.
whoops, not intelligent enough to write,
"I'm" instead of "I."
Let the Iranians lust for a Pan-Arab empire, as did Saddam. At least it will redirect thier focus away from the US and europe. At most they will start a war that will justify (or necessitate) a regime change and we can rid ourselves of another member of the axis powers.
RE Bobby M's comments:
If the oil supply becomes seriously disrupted, you might well see a "new colonialism", as western societies, as well as China and India, work to protect their energy sources.
Unfortunately it seems that for most of the Middle East there is an erosion of the "National State" and an ever-growing ideological state....an "Islamic State" Sunni populations make up about 80% of the population but Shi'ite Muslims appear to me to be growing more politically powerful. I'm starting to think that the US has unfortunately shifted the power in the region allowing for Sharia or Islamic law to become dominant. Hard choices...Theocracy or Dictatorships. I no longer believe democracy will succeed in the region.
A poster above expresses in two separate posts what we are all supposed to worry about: the price of oil.
One post tell us: "Yeah, regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, that's a great idea guys. Look forward to paying 10 dollars a gallon..." and in a second post, confidently asserts that if we were to allow Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Iraq to proceed that we would have "World-wide depression in a month."
Nonsense. This is the usual Doomsday Scenario which, by the way, is a staple of Arab propaganda. Be good -- or else. Don't do anything to disrupt us or destabilize us -- or else.
This is simply a new variant on the old threat of an "oil boycott" that, as J. B. Kelly showed in his "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West," never really occurred, but was simply a clever cover for quadrupling oil prices, and for panicking the Western world. In fact during the so-called "boycott" after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it was "pro-Israel" America and the Netherlands that received more Arab oil and "pro-Arab" England and France that received less.
The smoke and mirrors business has continued ever since. Every time any policymaker has said "we can't do that because we need Saudi goodwill" the same idea continues. But there was no need for Saudi goodwill. None. The oil is sold at market prices, the same market prices, to the most appeasement-minded customer, and to the most resolutely firm customer. It doesn't matter.
The poster above seems to think that any kind of Sunni-Shi'a problem would magically cause oil to go sky-high. To this one has to answer with several observations:
1. The Iran-Iraq War, a full-fledged war involving large armies, went on for eight years. Tell me, please, what happened to the price of oil during that period -- 1980-1988 (hint: the real price did not go up. What did happen to it?).
2. The price of oil should go up, as soon as possible, and perhaps a sudden quick spike would be the only thing to get our Lords of Misrule to take seriously the idea that we cannot, for all sorts of reasons, simply wait to let the price go up at that point when Matthew Simmons is proved correct, when world-wide oil production does peak, and all hell breaks loose. Since our government, and other governments, show no signs of preparation, a large spike in the oil price might be a good thing.
3. For environmental reasons, as well, we have to change the entire attitude -- ours, and that of every other country -- to fossil fuels. No matter how many sensible scientists with no axe to grind come out with their information, soberly presented, you will always find some shill for the most myopic and least patriotic of oil companies -- and certainly the most self-serving -- to tell us we needn't worry, there is no such thing as "running out of oil" (a distraction by the way from the environmental problem), and who will not face up to global warming, which is not imaginary.
When, for example, I read someone say with utter confidence that global warming had "absolutely nothing to do with Katrina" when every single scientist -- let's start with Kerry Emanuel, at M.I.T., who carefully explained in measured tones why the rise in the ocean's temperature of .5-1 degree causees hurricanes to be much stronger than they would otherwise be, and that the rise in ocean temperature is a result of global warming which in turn is a result of the use of fossil fuels, and when I read elsewhere, from a hundred others who are sober, rational, and worthy of respect (unlike the crazed "conservative" writer who asserted that the unwonted hurricane strength was unrelated to global warming), then one wonders what exactly it will take to get something to be done -- in time. Real disruption of oil in the MIddle East might be a good thing. I think it would.
4. A "depression within a month"? Are you crazy? There may be a depression, but it won't be because of the price of energy, and not within a mmonth. If it were to come to that, are we to ingore the fact that the American military is perfectly capable of seizing the major oilfields and natural gas of tiny Qatar, of the United Arab Emirates, of Kuwait, and for that matter of fabulously rich, and fabulously weak, Saudi Arabia, for the oilfields are located right on the Gulf, in a region (Hasa) full of Shi'a who might, in fact, if the price was right, be willing to collaborate against their Saudi overlords (yes, I know the Saudis have leaked stories about how they have wired all the oilfields -- blah blah blah).
And what would we do? Well, we could pump the oil as long as we needed, and keep a record of the amount. Some we could deduct, for the cost that countering the Saudi-funded Jihad has already cost us (too bad, Saudi Arabia). Some might be given at low cost, so as to at least temporarily win the favor of poor countries around the world, so that they would quickly see the benefits of not protesting too much, and we would of course make all the right noises about holding the oilfields "for the benefit of their owners and the good of everyone" might change things considerably. What could the Muslims do? Howl in protest? Be even more unpleasant and dangerous than they are? In fact, such a display of Infidel power, taking away the one thing that has made the Jihad possible, might help push them back into the right frame of mind, the frame of mind of fearful supplicants rather than those sure that they can ultimately dominate, when they realize that what they assumed the Western world would never do (though if positions were reversed, the Arabs and Muslims if militarily powerful would have seized Infidel oilfields overnight, without a moment's hesitation) it had not only thought, but done.
It would be an excellent thing.
It would also be an excellent thing to regard the necessity of undertaking such an act inthe same way, perhaps, that Hurricane Katrina is being regarded -- as a wake-up call for all sorts of somnolent rulers and their ineffectual aides.
Don't worry about "disruption" and "destabilization" in the Middle East. If there were any chance of dire, "depression-in-a-month" consequences, we have ways to deal with that -- and would.
But it is unlikely to come to that. In any case, let's hasten the day of $10 per gallon gasoline right now, not by returning gasoline taxes to consumers (what a crazy idea, now being considered) but by steadily and quickly raising those taxes.
Prepare now to meet,not your Maker, but what continued unhindered use of fossil fuels will surely bring.
And for god's sake, why seeing through Islam should be considered a "right-wing" thing, and worrying about environmental degradation a "left-wing" thing -- I just don't get it. Let's all join hands. Save the Earth and Fight the Jihad. Would that fit on a bumpersticker?
Only, I suppose, if the print were small, and I want that print to be very large.
Well, if the civil war stayed limited to Iraq, I'm not suggesting we would see the "doomsday scenario." I'm suggesting a doomsday scenario if we see a massive civil war that brings in the active support of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait..you get the picture. If that gets out of control, then we could see the doomsday scenario. Yes, of course, as long as the pumps are still going, prices will only go up because of panic. The war I envision could lead to serious stoppages in work (Shia pump that oil in Hasa) while also causing interference in the Gulf transport routes.
On your first point about real prices going up because of the Iran Iraq war, I checked, and you're wrong. They skyrocketed, reaching the highest point in American history. Only about two weeks ago did we match that level. You also have to understand that we are in a much different energy environment than we were then, with production barely above those 80s level while consumption sky rocketing because of China and India. Also Iranian oil production is actually at a lower level than it was during the war (equipment degradation), as is Iraq's.
On your environmental points and need to get off fossil fuels, I agree 100% percent. However, it's simply too soon to get the massive shock. There is no way we could see a big change over to non-ff within 3 years, even if the price was 50 dollars a gallon. It just can't be done quick enough. I don't mind somewhat higher prices, because I agree they do stir research and development of alternate fuels, but we could see wide ranging economic effects very quickly if it goes much higher. Still think you're going to see 3+ GDP growth if we're at 4, 5 a gallon? Don't see it.
Of course, the US could conquer all the oilfields and set our own price. However, such an action entails a whole host of basic societal changes, we would pretty much be rampantly invading nations for our own benefit. Empire is an extremely messy idea, especially with CNN around.
I agree Hugh. Let's break the energy addiction sooner rather than later and find that the consequences are beneficial in many ways.
The US has never implemented a coherent plan for CONSERVATION of energy, although there was a miniscule movement after the oil embargo in the seventies. Let's use common sense ideas, weatherizing homes and offices, turning down(or up) the thermostat and dressing accordingly, driving smaller cars and carpooling, bringing back trains for personal travel and long distance commerce. The savings of $$ and resources would amaze most people. No rocket science here, only consciousness and the will of the people.
Hugh,
You may have seen this from The American Thinker.
There is mention of Iran so it is not completely off topic. I found it to be cogently written. If you have time, I would appreciate your opinions. Many thanks.
"On your first point about real prices going up [my point was that they did NOT go up -- the poster went to write "down"] because of the Iran Iraq war, I checked, and you're wrong. They skyrocketed, reaching the highest point in American history. Only about two weeks ago did we match that level."
-- from a posting above.
No. The real price of OPEC oil went from $1.80 in 1970 to $3.29 before OPEC seized complete control, after a series of nationalizations of foreign-owned companies in various oil states. It then went, as we all know, way up. It wentup again in 1979, during the political uncertainty and turmoil in Iran. But the Iran-Iraq war started in 1980, not 1979. At the very start, the price spiked, but went down as soon as it became clear that neither Iran nor Iraq was about to destroy the oil-production facilities of the other. And they didn't. And the price kept going down, so that by 1988, to quote one article, the price of oil dipped below $20 per barrel, at one point even reaching $15 per barrel.
So I repeat, with complete confidence, what I wrote above: the Iran-Iraq War, which involved millions of soldiers, and a million casualties, a war that lasted between the second and third major oil producers (after Saudi Arabia) had no effect on oil prices after the first brief panicky spike, and headed steadily downward.
And even though Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. contributed $60 billion to Saddam Hussein's war effort, there was no Iranian retaliation or attempt to destroy oil facilities. But Iranains could have tried; they were able to travel to Mecca, and at least some Shi'a (those of Persian descent, for example) in Bahrain, Kuwait, and elsewhere might have helped Iranian agents.
Nothing of the sort happened. An eight-year war, and not only no rise in prices, but at the end, in 1988, a historic low was reached.
What difference does it make who buys oil from whom? Oil is a commodity that has a going price like gold. If we don't buy oil from Iran ( how would one know..it's black isn't it?) some country certainly will. The sad fact is we have to have it and because of this and only because of this, the Arab muslims have leverage with the industrialized rest of the world. To make matters worse, a significant percentage of Americans don't want our own oil resources utilized and to compound that stupidity they don't want nuclear energy used either. Even the French are not that dumb.
Hugh, I consider myself a conservative in most things especially the state of popular culture and multiculturalism, I just want to say brilliant, brilliant post!
"And for god's sake, why seeing through Islam should be considered a "right-wing" thing, and worrying about environmental degradation a "left-wing" thing -- I just don't get it. Let's all join hands. Save the Earth and Fight the Jihad"
So true, I think that the Islamic threat to the world transcends any differences between left and right, which in normal times can be worked out. But, these are not normal times.
" Let's all join hands. Save the Earth and Fight the Jihad"
This is the clearest truth one can hold.
It will take all of us, left and right, Christian and Jew, Hindu and Buddhist, Atheist and evangelical.
To protect what we all share in common, a world of freedoms and civil liberties, where true science and art, as well as our traditions and culture can exist.
Under Islam we would all be Dihimmis, we would all be slaves to the brutes that want to conquer and force us to live as in the 6th century Arabian desert.