Eyal Zisser makes the case for realpolitik here: “The Moral High Ground Cannot Replace Foreign Policy,” by Eyal Zisser, Algemeiner, February 28, 2021:
A month after taking office, US President Joe Biden has decided to stop sitting on the sidelines in the Middle East.
However, it is not Iran — the aggressive force seeking to destabilize the region — that Washington has in its sights, but longtime US ally Saudi Arabia, which has been dealt one blow after another in recent weeks.
First, the Americans removed Yemen’s Houthi rebels from the list of terrorist organizations, despite the fact that the Houthis — an Iranian proxy on a par with Hezbollah in Lebanon — are waging a war of attrition against Saudi Arabia and could very well turn their Iranian weapons against Israel as well.
On February 5, Washington announced that it was removing the Houthis from the list of terrorist groups. Since then, the Houthis have responded by stepping up their attacks on Saudi targets, including civilians at airports and oil installations, several times a week; in Yemen itself, the Shia group has begun to lay siege to the city of Marib, the last city still in government hands. Now that they’ve been delisted from the American governmenrt’s list of terror groups, they have been emboldened enough to attack even more vigorously these mainly civilian targets; they know the Biden Administration won’t admit to its initial error by putting the Houthis back on the list.
I think Prof. Eyal Zisser’s description of the Houthis as “on a par with Hezbollah” overstates its strength, for Hezbollah possesses more conventional weapons than 95% of the world’s armies; this includes 150,00 rockets and missiles, some of them precision-guided, warehoused in civilian buildings — schools, hospitals, mosques, apartment buildiings — in Lebanon for future use against Israel. The Houthis have ballistic missiles and make frequent use of them, but their armory is much smaller than that of Hezbollah – it’s been much more difficult for Iran to deliver missiles to faraway Yemen than to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Now, in what seems to be adding insult to injury, a US intelligence report has determined that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation to capture or kill journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a critic of the royal family, in 2018 in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, citing the crown prince’s control of decision-making in the Gulf kingdom.
While the Biden administration did not penalize the crown prince personally, it did impose visa restrictions on 76 Saudis “believed to have been engaged in threatening dissidents overseas, including but not limited to the Khashoggi killing.”
The Americans chose to release the report whose contents everyone already knew: the Saudis killed Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident journalist. It was not his killing, but the dismemberment of his body afterwards, in order to remove his remains from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, that seized the popular imagination and made the whole thing seem particularly atrocious. But the killing itself was not different from the summary executions, sometimes following torture, that the Iranians have been inflicting for forty years on thousands of political dissidents.
In the Middle East, the American measures are interpreted as a renunciation of the royal family. This is not too far off from the policy the United States adopted vis-à-vis the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s, thereby contributing to the fall of his regime and rise of the ayatollahs.
The late Shah of Iran had been painted in the West as a despot, whose secret police, SAVAK, were known to torture and kill political dissidents – and the charge was true. When Ayatollah Khomeini, from his exile in France, called on his followers to rise up, in an alliance with the leftist students who opposed the Shah (later Khomeini’s men would destroy those naïve leftist allies), and overthrow the Shah, the Americans didn’t come to his aid to suppress the revolt early on, with a combination of propaganda and military assistance, that had proved so useful in the 1953 coup, hatched by the Americans and the British, that deposed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
One hopes that the Saudi royal family would rise to the challenge and not repeat the mistake of the Shah, who relied on the United States to help him in time of need….
Eyal Zisser is warning the Saudis not to rely, as the Shah did, on the Americans. He doesn’t name those whom they can rely on, though I think it’s clearly implied from his text, and we can say it for him: Israel. The Saudis need that strong regional ally – Israel — that feels even more keenly the same threat from Iran that the Saudis do. That ally has already factored the Khashoggi killing into its decision-making, and decided that despite that act of barbarism, there are important benefits to be derived from continuing, and expanding, relations with the Saudis. Not only does Israel have every intention of continuing its sharing with the Saudis of intelligence about Iran, but in early March it had begun talks about a possible defense alliance with Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Bahrain.
There are times when statecraft requires a deal with the devil. When one is judging between two unsavory regimes, common sense tells us to choose to ally with the one that, for now at least, is on our side. What comes immediately to mind is how America helped the Soviet Union during World War II. Despite its ruler, the sociopath Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his people – by, for example, starving 10 million of them to death in the Ukraine famine of 1932-33 (Holodomor), and sending 250,000 of them to die, as slave laborers, in building the White Sea Canal, despite the NKVD, that enforced Stalin’s homicidal commands to “liquidate” enemies of the people, despite the Lubyanka prison in whose basement inmates, such as the celebrated poet Osip Mandelshtam, were dispatched with a shot in the back of the head, despite all that, nothing got in the way of the American decision to send to the Soviet Union, from 1941 to 1945, as part of Lend-Lease, enormous quantities of weapons and other useful supplies worth $180 billion. These supplies included:
- 400,000 jeeps & trucks
- 14,000 airplanes
- 8,000 tractors
- 13,000 tanks
- 1.5 million blankets
- 15 million pairs of army boots
- 107,000 tons of cotton
- 2.7 million tons of petrol products
- 4.5 million tons of food
And no one, not the most rock-ribbed conservative, objected at the time to this part of our war effort. We put aside our objections to Stalin and his secret police, the same way, Eyal Zisser argues, convincingly I think, that the Americans should now put aside their moral objections to Saudi Arabia and continue to treat it as an ally in the war against the real threat to the U.S., to Israel, and to regional stability, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The allies – or “allies” of the United States — who have in the past eliminated, by killing, dissident journalists, include the Shah of Iran, General Pinochet in Chile, and King Hassan in Morocco. Zisser simply wants to remind us that Saudi Arabia would not be the first American ally to have engaged in such practices, and yet we chose to keep them as allies.
The only mistake the Saudis made was getting caught by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — a champion of democracy if ever there was one.
Here I think Eyal Zisser is flaunting his amorality, in making light of, in dismissing qualms about, the killing of Khashoggi: “The only mistake the Saudis made was getting caught.” No, it was a dreadful act. He should stick to his point: both Saudi Araba and Iran have been guilty of terrible deeds. But Saudi Arabia has been our ally since the meeting of FDR with King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud on the U.S.S. Quincy on Feb. 14, 1945, while the Islamic Republic of Iran has been our sworn enemy for 41 years, ever since the regime of the mullahs began.
Those seeking the United States’ friendship must understand the sensitivities of the administration, which pays great attention to media and public opinion. But when this administration sets about to “right the world” by “destroying the old world,” it must understand that its actions have consequences.
In fact, the Biden Administration has done what Eyal Zisser advises: raison d’état has prevailed over moral purity. Despite the report linking the Crown Prince to the killing of Khashoggi, the American government has not, and likely will not, impose any sanctions on him. He’s too important to alienate. The Administration allowed itself to be seen as a defender of human rights, by releasing the damning report on Khashoggi’s killing that President Trump had kept under wraps. But it has so far carefully refrained from placing any sanctions on the Man Who Will Be King, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The Biden Administration has shown itself willing to overlook a wrong, in order to achieve a greater good: the defeat of a determined enemy that threatens Saudi Arabia, Israel, and us – the Islamic Republic of Iran.
VarAway says
EXCELLENT observation and article!
Thanks.
juleonly says
Chose what Israel chooses. They know whats going on. When anyone turns on Israel, US must immediately help this time,
Frank Anderson says
I have the highest respect and admiration for Israel. There is a problem: The US and other countries guaranteed Ukraine’s borders if they surrendered one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons and missiles in the world. If I was Ukraine, I would take any US guarantee with many grains of salt. The US guaranteed South Vietnam that if it were invaded by the North, the invasion could be stopped in days using precision guided weapons. The South Vietnamese are either dead or escaped to the US and elsewhere, If I were South Vietnamese, I would take a US promise with many grains of salt.
It is not just US pledges that should be viewed with utter doubt. The UK and France guaranteed Poland’s borders in 1939, BUT DID NOTHING worthwhile or effective while 20 percent of Poland’s population was murdered and the country divided between Hitler and Stalin. The vast majority of the German military was in Poland leaving the French border wide open for an attack that could have ended WWII in days instead of years.
Any country that depends on guarantees is delusional. Israel does not depend on guarantees, especially with the present administration. My opinion.
Rob Porter says
Frank Anderson – couldn’t agree more. The U.S. is not dependable. After the Soviets and Cubans got involved in Angola during the 1970s and then South Africa entered Angola to deal with insurgency into then South West Africa, the CIA provided South Africa with logistical support. Then with South Africa fully involved the U.S. dumped South Africa. South Africa had ‘apartheid’, but it still had strategic raw materials the U.S. needed and it was fighting enemies of the U.S.. Never mind, it was essentially on its own.
In 1987 a Soviet-led army of at least 27,000, comprising Angolans, Cubans and hundreds of Soviet and East European advisors, swept down into south-east Angola. It’s goal was to crush the pro-Western UNITA movement. South Africa sent in a force of less than 5,000 to help UNITA. With some support from UNITA that South African force fought in the biggest battles fought on the African continent since WWII. Primarily the South African force smashed the communists at Cuito Cuanavale, killing between 4,800 – 6,000, destroying 94 tanks, an entire armoured car brigade and capturing billions of dollars of Soviet military equipment – no thanks to the U.S. Also captured by the South Africans, who lost 73 men, UNITA two or three thousand, was the Soviet Union’s most advanced SAM system. This the Americans demanded and the South Africans told the Americans to ‘get stuffed’.
South Africa had done the U.S. a favour. After these costly battles the Soviets, already losing in Afghanistan, wanted out. The final agreement saw all foreign troops, Soviet, Cuban and South African withdrawn from Angola.
Frank Anderson says
Having studied WWII for the vast majority of my life, my opinion is that “marriages of convenience” are recipes for disappointment and disaster. “The lesser of 2 evils” is still evil and sooner or later WILL be confronted.
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge and experience with any “branch” of islam understands it cannot change, reform or moderate the evil teachings at its foundation.
To pretend that one evil is less than another for nothing more than convenience is cowardice and, again to me, a perfect illustration of Viktor Frankl’s “delusion of reprieve.”
Lying whenever advantage can be obtained is one of many central teachings that must be considered in every dealing with muslims. They live to kill and conquer. Coexistence is on their list only so long as necessary to continue their conquest. That has been true for 1400 years and hundreds of millions of murders, and will not change today.
somehistory says
+ 1
juleonly says
Russia helped very much, more than many, to destroy Hitlers troops. The world needed Hitler destroyed.
gravenimage says
Generally agree, Frank.
Very occasionally it is necessary to ally with the lesser of two evils–as with, perhaps, the USSR in WWII against the Fascist Axis–although even this had unpleasant and long-lasting consequences.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have both proven they are no allies of ours. Both “flavors” of Islam are poisonous.
Simon Davidtz says
Do you think choosing is diffucult?We most definitely choose Saudi Arabia as they are not threatening to USA and ISRAEL and they are on friendly diplomatic terms with them. Its that easy my goodness me. “You shall know them by the fruit they bare”- Yeshua Messiah Jesus
gravenimage says
No, I don’t think that choosing is difficult–I consider both of these vicious Shari’ah states to be savages. I don’t think that choosing either of these thugs is a good idea–they are both Islamic barbarians.
And while you may believe that the Saudis being involved in 9/11 still means that they are on friendly terms with us, I actually disagree–I think the murder of Americans rather indicates that they are not really on friendly terms with us. Then, Saudi Arabia does not even allow those with an Israeli passport to enter the country–I don’t consider this proof that they are allies of Israel, either.
I think rather that that fruit is pretty ugly stuff.
Giacomo Latta says
We must ensure that no sect of Islam ultimately trumps all others. It is imperative for us that Islam continue its internecine wars. Happily, they are always willing to oblige.
Infidel says
If we look forward to sectarian divisions within islam, that will fail. Shi’a are just 5% of all muslims, if one notes a recent poll that showed that only 32% of Iranians are practicing shi’ites
The real big division within islam that can be cheered on by the rest of us is Arab vs non-Arab. Islam’s overall population is 1.8 billion. Of this, just 400 million are Arab, yet islam is nothing more than a vector for Arab supremacy. As this message is drilled down throughout the ummah, there will be 2 results. Some, like the Turks, who have historically been the biggest islamizing influence worldwide – even more than the Arabs – will try to seize the mantle of leadership of islam from the Arabs, which is what Turkey is trying, and they’ll be supported either by other Turks (like the Azeris) or by other muslim entities like Pakistan. Others, like say East-Indies, would likely apostate once it’s obvious to them that they can’t be in that leadership despite providing the biggest bloc of muslims outside the Indian subcontinent
gravenimage says
Infidel, there *is* Arab surpremacism in Islam, and this irks non-Arab Muslims. But pious Muslims of all ethnicities are happy to murder Infidels.
Infidel says
Graven, I agree w/ that, but if we can get all muslims to fight amongst themselves for the leadership of islam – particularly Arabs vs Turks, that will achieve the alien vs predator internecine war that will heavily weaken them. While pious muslims will always be there, rational non-Arabs are more likely to jettison islam due to the Arab bias, if for no other reason
gravenimage says
True, Infidel–and Muslims so often attack each other, in any case.
Rob Porter says
gravenimage – Yes, it had long-lasting consequences. About 25,000 Americans, POWs in eastern Germany as the war ended, were taken by the Soviet army, marched into Russia and never again see. A similar number of British and Empire troops suffered the same miserable fate. Dealing with the sociopath, Stalin, the world then quickly entered the Cold War.
gravenimage says
Yes–horrible:
“Soviets Executed GIs After WWII”
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-12-mn-234-story.html
Then there was Eastern Europe–the “Iron Curtain” countries lost to Communist conquest for fifty years.
Walter Sieruk says
Two of the reason some American politicians and other US government heads chose Sunni Saudi Arabia over Shiite Iran is that the mullah tyranny of Iran has history. Starting in the late 1970’s of being very hostile towards America, as in for example the US embassy Muslim and kidnapping of US embassy people by Muslim terrorist/criminals who had the gall to false call themselves “students” Still those in power in IN played along and also called them by the inappropriate and bogus title of “students.”
In this century in Iran the leaders get the people all worked up against the USA. That Islamic regime of Iran also support many murderous jihad terror entities.
About that Sharia law based tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which has the official title of “The Islamic Republic of Iran” and also about the chief and head Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had a strong hand in establishing this so called “Republic.”
The very actual essence of that Islamic tyranny, Ayatollah Khomeini, had made in known that “The Islamic Republic of Iran would be Islamic and nothing but .He declared ‘What the nation wants is an Islamic Republic. Not just a Republic, not a democratic Republic, not a democratic Islamic Republic. Do not use the word “democratic” to describe it. That is the Western style. ” [1]
Furthermore, that cruel and tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran regime has severely limited to an extreme much knowledge and wisdom from the outside world. This is because that fiendish and murderous ayatollahs and mullahs in power in Iran are very much afraid the Iranian people might discover different ideas. As the idea’s and philosophy of John Locke
For example, Locke views the people living under any genuine government are people retaining their individual rights after a government has been established to protect human rights. . In other words, the securing of their rights – the protection of the life, liberty and property of all – is the sole legitimate purpose of government. I If a government begins to abuse those rights it then becomes tyrannical and the governed [the people] retain the right to overthrow that government and replace it with one that does its job properly.
So that heinous ”mullah regime” of Iran, greatly fears such ideas and keeps the people under his hideous control of his tyranny in and the darkness of much limited information.
[1]`THE HISTORY OF JIHAD by Robert Spencer, page 318.
Nevertheless, when it comes to Saudi Arabia lesser of the two evils. However the lesser of the two evils is still evil. For that Islamic nation is not innocent in any way.
The Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia in no friend of any Western nation, Saudi Arabia is best defined as a kingdom of Islamic hate
As one Arab scholar who had lived in a Middle Eastern country, for many years revealed “Saudi madrassa notably teach hatred and condemnation of the West and non-Muslims” and “The Saudi Government also provides free textbooks to Islamic schools throughout the world . many of the Saudi- Issued textbook’s contain wording that encourages hatred and intolerance for non-Muslims.” [1]
Saudi Arabia in many ways is no better than Iran.
[1] THEY MUST BE STOPPED by Brigitte Gabriel, page 106
Charlie in NY says
There is plenty of precedent in distinguishing between lousy choices. The very father of the Good Neighbor Policy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was heard to say, “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”
gravenimage says
Alas, though, Saudi Arabia considers Americans their “blue-eyed slaves” willing to die for them and was one of the major factions behind 9/11.
Infidel says
Although that’s true, the Saudis know that it was no longer true under Trump, who in rallies described how he called up King Salman and told him, “King, you need to pay!” So the Saudis no longer expect their ‘blue-eyed slaves’ to defend them: if any of them had doubts about it, they saw it in 2019 when Trump, at the 11th hour, called off an attack on Iran in retaliation for downing a US drone as well as for an attack on a Saudi oilfield
And they’d even take that over Biden, who’s clearly preferring Iran to KSA
juleonly says
Yes, but al Qaeda is not Saudi. Bad as it is, we must follow Israel’s lead because they best no the devious natures.
Infidel says
Al Qaeda is very much Saudi/other Arabian peninsula countries: in fact, Egyptians were lower on the pecking order, since they were not from the Arabian peninsula. Only reason Ayman al Zawahiri is now their leader – if he’s still alive – is that all their top leadership from the Arabian peninsula, let alone the Quraysh tribe – have been wiped out
Gravenimage is right that the Saudis are not our friends, if one considers Saudis to be the average Saudi person. The only definition by which Saudi Arabia can be described as a friend is if MbS is an embodiment of that country as a whole, and is the final word on anything and everything. Which is risky, b’cos if and when he’s toppled or worse, the results would be worse than Iran, ISIS or Egypt under Morsi
gravenimage says
Jule, I hope Israel is watching her back.
somehistory says
There’s a report out today that the sick (il) omar has introduced a bill to sanction the prince. Just what is needed….anytime she is in favor of something, the auto reaction is to be totally against…she’s such a snake and out to create problems wherever and whenever she can. She “reps” evil.
Infidel says
Omar is a pal of Turkish president Erdogan, and has clearly picked his side in the race for the leadership of islam. Her attitude about the Saudis ain’t remotely surprising
somehistory says
Yes, she had meetings with him…photos were taken and posted on this site…and she has worked for qatar as well. She’s a snake. Working for the mb to destroy the “miserable house” from within. And, she is “within” the House.
Infidel says
The question about whether Saudi Arabia is an ally or not depends on what the definition of Saudi Arabia is. If it’s simply Prince Mohammed bin Salman (a la King Louis XIV), then the answer is yes. He’s been happy to cooperate w/ Israel, given the green light to other Arab countries to normalize relations w/ Israel, refused to take Pakistan’s side against India, and has opposed not just Iran but Turkey as well, and supported not just Israel but Armenia as well (in their war against Azerbaijan). Under him, Saudi Arabia has stopped funding jihad and dawa outside their country (I’m not even sure that they fund it within any more, since for the first time in their history, they’re on a tight budget thanks to falling oil prices) A lot of this may be b’cos MbS is a globalist deeply influenced by McKinsey. Normally, that would be a bad thing, but for a country like Saudi Arabia, it’s a step up!
If the definition of Saudi Arabia is the Saudi people, then of course, the answer is no. Who can forget 9/11, and beyond that, it’s only recently that their school system had stopped teaching jihad, so the effects of that won’t be seen until 20 years from now, assuming that MbS consolidates his power and those policies continue. However, if Biden has his way and does what Jimmy Carter did in Iran and sees the Saudis overthrown and replaced by a theocratic regime (if the current Wahabi establishment wasn’t theocratic enough), then yeah, the resultant Arabia would be an Iran + ISIS on steroids, and destabilize all its neighbors – Bahrein, UAE, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan and beyond
We tried the Sharansky doctrine in Iraq, Libya and Syria and saw what it gave us: thankfully, the damage was averted in Egypt and Bahrein. The last thing we need to do is try that again but this time at the center of it all: Saudi Arabia. If the Jihadists get control of Mecca and Medina, it’ll be a shot in the arm for the world jihadist movement unlike any since 9/11. Hopefully MbS can dissect all opposition the way his thugs did Khashoggi, and consolidate a bloc w/ Israel and his Arab allies – Egypt, Emirates, Bahrein, Sudan, Jordan, even Syria, Haftar in Libya and Morocco, so that Biden’s basement dwellers can’t hand over his country on a platter to the muslim brotherhood
gravenimage says
Both Saudi Arabia and Iran Do Terrible Things: America Must Choose
…………….
With all respect, no we don’t. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both hideous unfree Shari’ah states and backers of Jihad terror, and both have targeted America–Saudi Arabia on 9/11 and with Jihad-teaching Mosques and Madrassas. Neither one is an ally of ours–we should not pretend that they are.
Harry Again says
The USA should get it’s oil from Venezuela and take action against ALL these evil Moslem regimes.
Infidel says
We were a net oil exporter under Trump – we didn’t even need Venezuela’s. At any rate, we can’t get Venezuelan oil until the Maduro regime collapses, but unfortunately, most Venezuelans think that Maduro and Guido are just 2 sides of the same socialist coin. It’s not like Venezuela has their own version of a Rand Paul or a Matt Gaetz or even a Marco Rubio
It won’t happen as long as the Dems are in power, but we need to reactivate the Keystone pipeline and resume getting our oil from Canada, resume fracking activities as well as drilling in ANWR. Not only will our energy prices be down again, but we also get to sell energy to major consumers like Vietnam and India. That will keep oil prices down and the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs will have to continue their moratorium on spending on dawa or jihad activities, and Russia will also have less to spend on its military
gravenimage says
Spot on, Infidel! I just hope we stay energy independent under Biden…
Proud Islamophobe says
A moslem is a moslem is a moslem.