This article is published on PajamasMedia
By Barry Rubin
Since the United States is not leading the anti-Islamist forces in the Middle East or protecting the relatively moderate Arab states, the new leader is...Saudi Arabia.
But, you say, isn't Saudi Arabia also Islamist? Well it's as Islamic as you can get without being revolutionary Islamist. Isn't Saudi Arabia profoundly anti-Jewish? Yes, but it mostly just talks about it. Isn't Saudi Arabia anti-democratic? Yes, we'd prefer the United States but President Barack Obama is busy with other things.
Obama wants Middle East Muslims to love America. There are only two problems:
1. His policy doesn't work. They don't love America.
2. The Muslims he keeps appealing to are those who are radical and pro-terrorist. For those who are Muslims but don't want to overthrow their neighbors, go to war with Israel as soon as possible, throw out U.S. influence, and transform their countries into something like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, Obama is a problem.
So the Saudis are doing what I've been telling the Obama Administration to do for 2.5 years: Form an alliance opposing revolutionary Islamism. Of course, the Saudis won't include Israel (at least publicly) and they won't get Europe, but at the moment they're all we've got.
This was completely predictable. Some weeks ago, Nawaf Obeid, who speaks for the Saudi government, wrote an important op-ed piece saying that the Saudis were fed up with the Obama Administration. So he voices the Saudis' anger and disappointment with a U.S. government that fails to fight against revolutionary Islamism and protect the Saudis from Iran.
I've been writing about this split for two years and now it has happened. The thing is that the Saudis are right and Obama is wrong. The Obama Administration helped overthrow the Egyptian regime and was ready to help bring down the government in Bahrain. The Saudis have had enough. The Jordanians would do the same if they could, as would Israel.
And there are plenty of countries in South America, Central Europe, and Asia that also feel this U.S. government has let them down.
Wasn't this the U.S. government that was going to win over the Muslims, make the Arabs love America, and make the United States popular again?
Saudi Arabia has plenty of shortcomings. It won't even let women drive! But at least it won't let Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood get in the region's driver's seat.
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Saudi Arabia, Gulf States: Iran Is Attacking Us; Obama Administration: Excuses, Excuses!
This article was published in PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
How sadly ironic. A few years ago, the two previous U.S. presidents were trying to get Gulf Arab states to do more to foster an Arab-Israeli peace settlement and to stand up against Iran. They didn't respond very much. Now they are ready for the battle and the current U.S. government is at best neutral and at worst on the other side!
In an unprecedented statement, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) has condemned Iran for trying to overthrow them. Tehran has been at it since 1979 but this is the first time that these countries have been so bold.
Why? Because the assault--especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia--has never been so blatant and threatening.
Among the terms used in the statement about Iran were:
"flagrant interference," destabilizing their countries, "deeply worried about continuing Iranian meddling," "violating the[ir] sovereignty," "irresponsible," and "Iran's interference in Bahrain's internal affairs, in violation of international conventions and rules of good neighbourliness."
Meanwhile, Iran is threatening Saudi Arabia, which the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee said, "should know it's better not to play with fire in the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf."
The Saudi government responded that this was an "irresponsible" statement containing "void allegations and blatant offense against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." And, said the Saudi version of parliament, Iran's position "fuels sectarianism," a codeword for pitting Shias against Sunni Muslims. Iran must "stop these hostile policies and respect the rules of good neighbourliness ... so as to preserve the security and stability in this region which is key for the entire world."
The GCC's secretary-general, Abdullatif al-Zayani, the condemned "Iran's meddling in the internal affairs of GCC countries" that "threatened security and stability in the region."
Where is U.S. policy in all of this? Nowhere at all. It is not siding with the GCC. At best, the United States is neutral between the two sides. Such a position is a terrible mistake. The new development is that the U.S. government has stopped criticizing Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. But it hasn't started helping them.
If Washington doesn't support the GCC against Iran, who will? And the expansion of Iranian influence--on the eve of Tehran getting nuclear weapons--is catastrophic for U.S. interests.
By Barry Rubin
How sadly ironic. A few years ago, the two previous U.S. presidents were trying to get Gulf Arab states to do more to foster an Arab-Israeli peace settlement and to stand up against Iran. They didn't respond very much. Now they are ready for the battle and the current U.S. government is at best neutral and at worst on the other side!
In an unprecedented statement, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) has condemned Iran for trying to overthrow them. Tehran has been at it since 1979 but this is the first time that these countries have been so bold.
Why? Because the assault--especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia--has never been so blatant and threatening.
Among the terms used in the statement about Iran were:
"flagrant interference," destabilizing their countries, "deeply worried about continuing Iranian meddling," "violating the[ir] sovereignty," "irresponsible," and "Iran's interference in Bahrain's internal affairs, in violation of international conventions and rules of good neighbourliness."
Meanwhile, Iran is threatening Saudi Arabia, which the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee said, "should know it's better not to play with fire in the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf."
The Saudi government responded that this was an "irresponsible" statement containing "void allegations and blatant offense against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." And, said the Saudi version of parliament, Iran's position "fuels sectarianism," a codeword for pitting Shias against Sunni Muslims. Iran must "stop these hostile policies and respect the rules of good neighbourliness ... so as to preserve the security and stability in this region which is key for the entire world."
The GCC's secretary-general, Abdullatif al-Zayani, the condemned "Iran's meddling in the internal affairs of GCC countries" that "threatened security and stability in the region."
Where is U.S. policy in all of this? Nowhere at all. It is not siding with the GCC. At best, the United States is neutral between the two sides. Such a position is a terrible mistake. The new development is that the U.S. government has stopped criticizing Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. But it hasn't started helping them.
If Washington doesn't support the GCC against Iran, who will? And the expansion of Iranian influence--on the eve of Tehran getting nuclear weapons--is catastrophic for U.S. interests.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Why Moderate Arabs Are Horrified at Obama Administration Policy
Please be subscriber 21,776 (daily reader 38,776). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
I've seen a lot in media expressing the views of the Gulf Arab states and officials' statements--not all of them public, and not to mention similar expressions from Turkish and Iranian oppositionists--expressing horror and shock at Obama Administration Middle East policy. Remember, al-Jazira is NOT typical, as it is run by Islamists and follows the pro-Iran line of its owner, the Qatari government.
In this article in al-Sharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI), a Saudi-controlled but also relatively liberal newspaper, Tariq al-Homayed, the chief editor, expresses the combination of shock and horror at the Obama Administration. The conflict was hot over Egypt and even hotter over Bahrain, where the Saudis want the current regime to survive and U.S. officials have criticized Saudi intervention.
Indeed, he complains, the statements coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
sound "more like what we'd expect to hear from the Iranian foreign minister." The "contradictory statements coming out of Washington have become more than merely perplexing; they are also suspicious."
Why suspicious? Because it isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it, more interested in containing Iran or letting Tehran's influence spread, supporting moderate Arab countries or overthrowing their regimes.
The editor accuses U.S. policy of ignoring Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen and Iranian statements claiming Bahrain. (Reminds me of how Iraq used to claim Kuwait and that was ignored until 1990, when Iraq invaded and annexed that country.)
How, he asks, can U.S. policymakers complain when the Gulf Cooperation Council states intervene in Bahrain--according to previous agreements--and then demanding that these countries support intervention in Libya?
Israel could now say to Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and several other Arab governments (plus the Iranian and Turkish oppositions): Welcome to our world.
The fears of relatively moderate Arabs (and Turks and Iranians) that they are getting thrown under bus are not merely imaginery at all. For example, the New York Times had an article March 17 with the following headline:
"Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Now, of course, one understands what this means in linguistic terms. Yet the headline is amazingly revealing. Yes, the Saudis, not the United States, are now carrying on the main battle against the spread of Iranian influence and revolutionary Islamism. Of course, they cannot sustain this burden long without U.S. support.
Which raises the question: What's the United States doing in the "middle" between Iran and Saudi Arabia! It should be backing the Saudis against Iran. Indeed, it should be leading the anti-Islamist coalition!
To be fair, the Obama Administration is putting early-warning stations into Saudi Arabia for the day when Iran has nuclear-tipped missiles. The Reagan Doctrine (is that still in force?) commits the United States to protect Saudi Arabia from an overt Iranian military attack.
Yet the headline is true. The current U.S. government is essentially neutral between the two sides. Sort of like a headline from 1941 reading, "Interests of Nazi Germany and Britain Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Saudi Arabia isn't exactly like Britain under Winston Churchill but it is now on the front-line against the greatest threat of our time. U.S. policy already mishandled Iran in the 1970s and, more recently, the Obama Administration has watched Lebanon fall, Turkey's government change sides, and Egypt jump ship.
Already a headline would be accurate that read: "Interests of Palestinians and Israel Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Or how about: "Interests of Venezuela and Moderate Latin American States Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Or: "Interests of Russia and Central Europe Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Yes, with this administration being in the "middle" is the best-case analysis. At worst, it's on the wrong side altogether.
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
I've seen a lot in media expressing the views of the Gulf Arab states and officials' statements--not all of them public, and not to mention similar expressions from Turkish and Iranian oppositionists--expressing horror and shock at Obama Administration Middle East policy. Remember, al-Jazira is NOT typical, as it is run by Islamists and follows the pro-Iran line of its owner, the Qatari government.
In this article in al-Sharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI), a Saudi-controlled but also relatively liberal newspaper, Tariq al-Homayed, the chief editor, expresses the combination of shock and horror at the Obama Administration. The conflict was hot over Egypt and even hotter over Bahrain, where the Saudis want the current regime to survive and U.S. officials have criticized Saudi intervention.
Indeed, he complains, the statements coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
sound "more like what we'd expect to hear from the Iranian foreign minister." The "contradictory statements coming out of Washington have become more than merely perplexing; they are also suspicious."
Why suspicious? Because it isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it, more interested in containing Iran or letting Tehran's influence spread, supporting moderate Arab countries or overthrowing their regimes.
The editor accuses U.S. policy of ignoring Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen and Iranian statements claiming Bahrain. (Reminds me of how Iraq used to claim Kuwait and that was ignored until 1990, when Iraq invaded and annexed that country.)
How, he asks, can U.S. policymakers complain when the Gulf Cooperation Council states intervene in Bahrain--according to previous agreements--and then demanding that these countries support intervention in Libya?
Israel could now say to Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and several other Arab governments (plus the Iranian and Turkish oppositions): Welcome to our world.
The fears of relatively moderate Arabs (and Turks and Iranians) that they are getting thrown under bus are not merely imaginery at all. For example, the New York Times had an article March 17 with the following headline:
"Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Now, of course, one understands what this means in linguistic terms. Yet the headline is amazingly revealing. Yes, the Saudis, not the United States, are now carrying on the main battle against the spread of Iranian influence and revolutionary Islamism. Of course, they cannot sustain this burden long without U.S. support.
Which raises the question: What's the United States doing in the "middle" between Iran and Saudi Arabia! It should be backing the Saudis against Iran. Indeed, it should be leading the anti-Islamist coalition!
To be fair, the Obama Administration is putting early-warning stations into Saudi Arabia for the day when Iran has nuclear-tipped missiles. The Reagan Doctrine (is that still in force?) commits the United States to protect Saudi Arabia from an overt Iranian military attack.
Yet the headline is true. The current U.S. government is essentially neutral between the two sides. Sort of like a headline from 1941 reading, "Interests of Nazi Germany and Britain Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Saudi Arabia isn't exactly like Britain under Winston Churchill but it is now on the front-line against the greatest threat of our time. U.S. policy already mishandled Iran in the 1970s and, more recently, the Obama Administration has watched Lebanon fall, Turkey's government change sides, and Egypt jump ship.
Already a headline would be accurate that read: "Interests of Palestinians and Israel Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Or how about: "Interests of Venezuela and Moderate Latin American States Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Or: "Interests of Russia and Central Europe Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."
Yes, with this administration being in the "middle" is the best-case analysis. At worst, it's on the wrong side altogether.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
