Common Dreams NewsCenter

Summer Reading

 
     
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
   
 
     
 

Discuss this story Discuss this story Print This Post Print This Post E-Mail This Article
 
 

The Royal Treatment: Saudi Involvement in Iraq Overlooked

by Dahr Jamail

Reporting on Iraqi benchmarks in mid-September, Bush and his team of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker sought to pin some of the blame on Iran. Eschewing diplomatic language during his testimony, Crocker boldly said, “Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq.” Gen. David Petraeus added that Iran is fighting a “proxy war” in Iraq by aiding Shiite extremists and providing weapons that are killing American troops.

Anyone doubting that Bush is not serious about taking on Tehran should note his words from last month: “We will confront this danger before it is too late.” On September 17 the Telegraph reported that the Pentagon has already drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 2,000 targets across Iran.

The great irony is that while of these accusations towards Tehran are supported by thin evidence, plenty of evidence does exist that another of Iraq’s neighbors, U.S.-ally Saudi Arabia, is supporting resistance groups in Iraq, and intends to continue to do so.

A Neighborly Mess: Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia

“Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene [in Iraq],” wrote Nawaf Obaid, neoconservative ally and a former security advisor to the Saudi government, in a shockingly frank editorial for a Washington Post last November. He warned the Bush administration, sinking ever deeper into the quagmire of Iraq: “America must not ignore the counsel of Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States. If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”

Obaid’s warning, in response to talk of a possible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, noted the current Saudi political stance “I am my brothers’ keeper” towards fellow Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Clearly the Saudis do not consider all Iraqis their brothers, particularly the Shia.

The editorial said, “As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world’s Sunni community, constituting 85 percent of all Muslims, Saudi options are to provide Sunni military leaders (primarily members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years or to help establish new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias.”

Obaid admitted that Saudi involvement in Iraq carried great risk and “…could spark a regional war but the consequences of inaction are far worse” and that his country “had pressed other members of the Gulf Co-operation Council…Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to give financial support to Sunnis in Iraq.”

Arming the Neighborhood

In August, the Bush administration announced new arms packages for Israel and seven Arab nations comprising military equipment worth $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, over $30 billion in military assistance to Israel, and $13 billion to Egypt.”

To some extent, the arms packages are an extension of the same policies that have been in place for years in the Middle East. For example since 1998, Saudi Arabia alone has received over $15 billion in U.S. weapons.

But these sales have had little impact in the region other than arming everyone to the teeth. In her article, The Saudi Arms Deal: Congressional Opposition Grows, Rachel Stohl points out that “The United States has had little success in the past using arms sales to buy leverage in the region. ”

From Washington’s viewpoint the sale has two objectives: bucking up the Saudi-dominated six-member Gulf Cooperation Council and countering Iran’s influence. But the sales will likely cause Iran to respond by boosting its arms caches.

A dangerous side effect of the sales is the addition of more arms into a region where each country has distinct objectives in the region and inside Iraq. The sales set the stage for Iraq to be the flashpoint for a potential proxy and/or regional war.

But most dangerously for Iraqis and U.S. troops, the sales reward a country that is providing an estimated 45% of all foreigners fighting U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces.

Destabilizing Iraq: The Saudi Role

A “clear” view of Iraq is now visible only through a blood-soaked kaleidoscope of contradictory and conflicting U.S. policies. While the Bush administration regularly lashes out at Syria and Iran for aiding militias and foreign fighters in Iraq, according to official U.S. military figures reported in the Los Angeles Times on July 15, about 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia. Fighters from the kingdom are believed to have carried out the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq.

Who is to blame for the influx of fighters though? Gen. Mansour Turki, a spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry, however, blames forces inside of Iraq for the flow of Saudi human bombs into Iraq. If he is to be believed, “Saudis are actually being misused. Someone is helping them come to Iraq. Someone is helping them inside Iraq. Someone is recruiting them to be suicide bombers. We have no idea who these people are. We aren’t getting any formal information from the Iraqi government.” But Iraqis are quick to point the finger across the border. Lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Askari accuses Saudi officials of following a deliberate policy of sowing chaos in Baghdad: “The fact is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on.”

Askari claims that imams at Saudi mosques regularly call for jihad against Iraq’s Shi’ites and that the Saudi government had funded groups to cause chaos and bloodshed in Iraq’s predominantly Shi’ite south.

But in large part this continues to be conveniently overlooked by the Bush administration so that massive arms packages can be sold to Saudi Arabia, access to the vast oil reserves continues unabated, and the Saudi royal family’s long-standing connections to the Bush family remain unmentioned in mainstream circles.

There are the odd rare days, however, when the boat does get rocked.

Just days before the $20 billion arms package was handed to the Saudi monarchy, Bush administration officials voiced their anger at the “counter productive” role of Saudi Arabia in Iraq. They accused Saudi Arabia of regarding Maliki as an Iranian agent and actively working to undermine his government and for offering financial backing to various Sunni groups inside Iraq.

Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and presently the U.S. ambassador to the UN, wrote in the New York Times recently, “Several of Iraq’s neighbors, not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States, are pursuing destabilizing policies there.”

But this is the exception rather than the rule. The cozy relationship between Washington and Riyadh continues, largely unscathed.

And Destabilizing They Are…

“Mosul is where the Saudis are the most active today because it is already primarily Sunni and there are a few Kurds,” says Sureya Sayadi, a 46-year-old Kurdish American woman who lives in the Bay Area of California. Sayadi, from Kirkuk, Iraq fled to the United States with her family when the U.S. left Kurds in the lurch after encouraging them to rebel against Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the 1991 war against Iraq.

A teacher and a medical doctor, Sayadi fills the rest of her time facilitating the work of an international NGO that assists Kurdish orphans and victims of honor killings. She is busier than ever as the number of both has escalated dramatically in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. She believes Bush administration policies “have empowered Islamist political parties whose clerics promote honor killings” and have “destroyed Iraq’s judicial system and altered its laws to justify the killings.” She adds, “One of our Kurdish employees has heard from the community that the Saudis are taking over parts of Kurdistan by promising people education.”

In recent conversations with her NGO colleagues, Sayadi has found that within the last two years, the Saudi government has financed the construction of at least 50 mosques in Erbil and Suleimaniya alone. They are also very active on the Turkish/Iraq border and in Kirkuk and Halabja. She explains, “They go to areas where there is the most poverty and suffering, stepping in to offer services that people are not getting from the government — health care, education, and sometimes employment — and in the process implant[ing] their fundamentalist ideology.”

Sayadi believes the Saudi monarchy is directly involved in funding “at least four new Islamic groups in Kurdistan. They are exploiting the fact that Kurds are mostly Sunni.”

During the summer of 2005, members of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sunna cells were among several extremists arrested in Erbil, and most of them were Kurds. Prior to this, Saudi mosque-building in the area during the 1990’s combined with the return of Kurdish militants who had fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is believed to have led to the emergence of groups like Ansar al-Sunna. The general perception was that these men aspired to radicalize the general population by replicating the Afghan model in Kurdistan. Reinforcing this trend around that time, Saudi Arabia established links with these Kurds to counter the power of Saddam Hussein. In 1992-93 Islamist Kurdish groups worked under the Saudi based International Islamic Relief Organization and other “charities,” which pumped $22 million a month into Kurdish areas. Today the Saudi names have been replaced with Kurdish names.

In the decade following the 1991 war, when Saudi “charities” constructed 1,832 new mosques, alarmed Kurdish officials instituted restrictions. Wahabi teachings followed in Saudi had been translated into Kurdish and imported into the region, accompanied by the Salafi strain, a puritanical, strict interpretation of the Koran adhered to by al-Qaeda.

In 2003, U.S. air-strikes had targeted bases of Ansar al-Islam on Iraq’s northeastern border with Iran. These same radical groups, thanks in large part to Saudi backing, are now alive and flourishing in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq.

“Islamists, from Saudi Arabia, are offering money to young Kurds, visiting their schools, marrying Kurdish girls and taking them back to the kingdom.” Sayadi tells me, “Kurds have always been quite secular, none of us practiced the hijab but now Kurdish women are being forced to do this. There is segregation of men and women. People in sheer desperation and hope for aid are turning more fundamentalist. The environment is ripe for fundamentalism, and Saudi influence is increasing rapidly. They are creating a hope-filled impression amongst the people that Islamic assertion is the way to resist the West.

Kurdish girls assisted by Sayadi’s NGO have revealed that Saudi Islamists are pressuring Kurdish women to adopt a fundamentalist ideology in exchange for free religious studies in Kurdish universities. From her experience with Kurdish refugees in southeastern Turkey she sees that, “In both Iraq and Turkey Islamists are operating in a similar fashion, leaving no stones unturned to convert people to fundamental Islam. They are buying poor Kurds desperate for survival and feeding them ideology.”

Sayadi’s 35-year-old unemployed nephew Mushtaq, with a Kurdish mother and a Shi’ite Arab father, used to drive a taxi between Beji and Baghdad. “A man with a Saudi dialect called his mother, my step-sister Gailas, and ordered her to raise $2,500 to free Mushtaq. They called from his cell phone and had him appeal to his mother to give them the money. She raised the money and brought it to a suburb in Baghdad where they had instructed her to go only to find her son’s burned taxi and his hacked body wrapped in his prayer rug. The men said they did it because he was Shia.”

Another disturbing incident in northern Iraq this April was the stoning to death of a 17-year-old Yezidi girl, Du’a Khalil Aswad, by men from the Saudi-funded mosques.

Amnesty International condemned the killing, calling it “a so-called honor crime” in which the girl “was killed by a group of eight or nine men and in the presence of a large crowd in the town of Bashika, near Mosul because she had engaged in a relationship with a Sunni Muslim boy and had been absent from her home for one night.”

Solutions?

The Middle East is floating in the violence and chaos bred by failed Bush administration policies. Generations are now being raised in occupations and/or war zones, which were caused and/or supported by Washington. Needless to say, anti-American sentiment in the region is quite likely higher than it has ever been in history.

The primary sword in the belly of the Middle East — that of the U.S. occupation of Iraq — must be immediately and unconditionally removed. The United States must simultaneously pay full compensation to every Iraqi who has lost a loved one or suffered damages as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.

Second to this, the massive weapons packages should be immediately canceled; there is no need to attempt to douse the raging fires in the Middle East with yet more sophisticated weaponry.

In addition, if Iran is to be sanctioned, is it not inherently hypocritical not to be sanctioning Saudi Arabia in the same way, since there is more than ample evidence indicating that fighters, funding, and most likely weapons, are pouring across its borders into Iraq?

The solution must, finally, include diplomacy and even-handed dealings amongst all of the countries in the Middle East, as opposed to the current model where countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia effectively have carte blanche to do what they may. Otherwise it is sure to fail.

Dahr Jamail has reported from inside Iraq and is a Middle East expert. He writes for Inter Press Service, The Asia Times, and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

© 2007 Foreign Policy In Focus

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Technorati
 

11 Comments so far

  1. dustinchicago September 19th, 2007 2:24 pm

    But won’t withdrawing from Iraqi and sanctioning Saudi Arabia slow down the process to pit all Sunnis against Shiites and engulf the region in permenant war- decreasing the American and European weapons makers profits and dividing the muslim population against itself rather than the U.S.?

  2. Future.me September 19th, 2007 4:21 pm

    The time has come. You know it, I know, the world knows it. Civil war will happen here, The revolution will be in our lifetime. And who side will we choose?

    These are the moments that our people will talk about in books after our bones have long been buried in the sands of time.

    These will be the moments in which we set ourselves apart from the sheep, and we stand. We stand for what is rightfully ours.

    The war has begun, the trumpets have been blown.

    We are brothers and sisters!!

    This is our fight. There is only, us and the enemey.

    There is no black, white, red, or yellow.

    There are only the freemen and freewomen.

    And then there are the oppressors.

    US and them. There lives and ours.

    We are one unit, we are one people. Feed your brother and your brother will feed you.

    Starve for your brother and he will do the same.

    Give drink to your brother, and he will quench your thirst.

    Fight not amongest ourselves, but let us unite in what will be the defining moments of our lives.

    There is no rich or poor. Only us and them.

    No strong men and weak men. Only us and them.

    Turn the other cheek for your brother but not for the enemy.

    Turn the other cheek for your sister but not for the enemy.

    I ask you not, as a leader of men, but as a brother in arms, a brother in spirit, a brother in pain. A brother in sacrifice and a brother to those that wish to remain free.

    I ask you in this time of our greatest need for cohesiveness and bonds built with one goal.

    And that goal is maintaining freedom.

    Providing Freedom for our brothers and sisters. Maintaining what was given to us by those that died.

    And what is being taken away from us by those that kill.

    We are blind, but only have to open our eyes to see what we have been missing.

    We are deaf and mute, but only need to focus our minds to hear the call, and open our mouths to speak the words that will save us from our selves.

    We are not going to take it any more.

    Say it to yourself, when you lay your head on your pillow.

    Say it to yourself when you wake.

    Say it to those you love.

    Say it to those you hate.

    For it is only us and them.

    Say that you will not let your brothers starve alone, say you will not let your brothers go with out drink alone.

    We are one people, we are one movement.

    We are the revolution.

    ~Future~

  3. Ramsay Mameesh September 19th, 2007 4:47 pm

    Dahr:
    Thank you for your many years of brave reporting and for your courageous smuggling of the truth out of Iraq.

    Saudia Arabia and Iran have been fighting a dirty war since Khomeini took power in Iran in 1979. They have fought their war all over the mid-east. Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, inside Saudia Arabia and Iran, and now of course in Iraq.

    The American people are ignorant. And their ignorance is literally killing them. Today, the United States Armed forces in Iraq, are standing between Iran and Saudia Arabia, and are being killed by both sides.

    The Iraq war was caused by Oil, Israel, and Rove. Rove got what he wanted, short-term at least, victories in domestic U.S. politics in 2002, 2004, but failed in 2006 and has moved on. The Israelis got partially what they wanted, the destruction of an Arab country and society, however the war turned into a mess and they moved on. They would like forward U.S. bases in the mid-east. But Oh, well, you can’t have everything. They (neo-cons) pretty much lost interest in Iraq and have moved on to war with Iran.

    Oil, got what they wanted, short-term at least, with an increase in oil prices and great profits. They would still like to get control of Iraqi oil, and are using U.S. soldiers ala the British Army of the East India Company, but oh well, the arctic is melting and their are great reserves there to be fought over. Oil may lose interest in Iraq soon.

    That leaves, Iran and Saudia Arabia, fighting for control of Iraq. And the United States in the middle. However, this war must end, the U.S. cannot economically or politcally support it any longer, I propose the following solution.

    1. Saudia Arabia and Iran declare a cease-fire.
    2. Egyptian and Syrian forces move into Iraq to replace American soldiers in urban areas, they bring with them the Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria and insure their security. U.S. forces move out to their desert bases.
    3. New elections. Jimmy Carter supervises.
    4. Oil sharing agreement. Three semi-autonomous regions are created (ala Biden), Oil revenues are split based on population, a percentage goes to central government to run defense, foreign affairs etc. Oil contract open to all bids (sorry exxon).
    5.After new elections, oil sharing agreement, U.S. forces leave in one year, Arab forces move out to desert bases while Iraq builds it’s military and police forces.
    6. America leaves with honor.
    7. I can get back to a normal life and concentrate on my business instead of the world’s.

    This is the quick outline of the plan, anyone who knows anything about mid-east politics, can see the beauty in this plan. i.e. Egyptian and Syrian forces are both Arab, counter balance each other, make Saudia Arabia, Iran and U.S. happy. U.S. casualties end etc. The details can be worked out by the parties at a secret summit or whatever. But it must start with Iran and Saudia Arabia. Now I must get back to work.

    Thanks again Dahr for all the risks you have taken to enlighten the rest of us.

    Ramsay

  4. White Rose September 19th, 2007 10:31 pm

    Mean while back at the crime scene, the the oil flows into tankers completely unmetered.

  5. whitewatersally September 19th, 2007 11:32 pm

    the royal elite of saudi arabia,great britain and america are all in cahoots.no country has more to gain from the quelling of iraq and iran,than saudi arabia.the bush agenda is not for the hedgemoney of imperial america,it is an agenda for the imperial eastern light of saudi arabia,the emirates and egypt.i suspect it is religion that binds this unholy trinity,but it is not christianity or even islam…..it is a much older religion,the egytian religion of going forth,as contained in the books of the dead and revered by freemasons.as with all pharoahs,mammon is their god,anybody as psycotically greedy as the bushes,can be bought.when(or maybe before) the british succeed in rebuilding solomons temple,its bye-bye america and israel and hello mecca.the world will be made over to have only a rich ruling class and a few million worshippers.

  6. militantliberal September 19th, 2007 11:53 pm

    Let’s see. If the U.S. withdraws, the resulting vacuum will draw Saudi Arabia money and men into Iraq in defense of the Sunni Arabs. So why is this a bad thing for us. If Bush’s buddies in Riyadh feel forced to spend their petrodollars fighting a proxy war in their backyard instead of funding proselytization in free countries, that’s all to the good. Staying means Americans are dying in the interests of a foreign king. Bring the troops home now and leave King Fahd in the lurch!

  7. Kernel September 19th, 2007 11:55 pm

    We should not worry about Bush arming the entire Middle East as it is a good thing. The NRA and the conservative religious right (wrong) have statistics that prove if everyone in our country has weapons (better if concealed), we will all be safer and crime will be no more. Just think, if the tasered student could have pulled his six shooter out and finished off some cops, how much less confusion. What ever works for individuals should also be great for nations, so Bush may have the solution after all. Besides that, the weapons manufacturers in the good old US of A will make enormous profits and it will be a win-win situation.

  8. Saila September 20th, 2007 5:22 am

    Ramsay Mameesh :

    Your plan calls for: “U.S. forces move out to their desert bases.”
    I hope you meant to Mojave or Arizona desert, not in someone else’s backyard.

    Mr Bush has a proclivity for making one policy mistake after another. After Afghanistan and Iraq, a strike on Iran would be perceived as a crusade against Islam itself, and nobody can predict the resulting inferno. The arms now supplied by us to these people may turn on us the next day.

  9. Gail September 20th, 2007 9:58 am

    “A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests.” - Barbara Tuchman

    Our military strength is becoming our national weakness. Get our troops out of their religious civil wars!

  10. WmC September 20th, 2007 10:16 am

    Ramsay Mameesh for US Secretary of State!

    A simple, obvious and totally rational solution to the problem, Ramsay, and therefore sure to be ignored by our War Criminals in Chief.

    I would refine your proposal, however, by incorporating local Iraqi sentiments into the proposition.

    For example: the Kurd areas seem to be doing just fine without US assistance and might need only UN peace keeping forces to protect their borders.

    If the Sunni areas would welcome the Saudi army “as liberators”, then we should welcome that as well.

    Likewise, if the Shia areas were to welcome Syrian and Iranian forces.

    Nothing really nothing new here, however; it’s probably pretty much what the Iraq Study Group envisioned, but what Junior referred to as a “flaming turd.” Which gives you an insight into the likelyhood of its adoption.

  11. kivals September 20th, 2007 11:43 am

    WmC,

    Ramsay has some reasonable points in relation to resolving the conflict consistent with the best interests of most of the people in the region, in the US, and in the world, as do many others who have commented here and elsewhere. But, as you imply, the fatal flaw is that the Bush administration hasn’t the slightest interest in any utilitarian goals. All problems to them are opportunities to increase their power or their financial position, or that of their close associates and cronies, by benefiting those who may provide the most quid pro quo in the future, mostly oil and defense companies.

    In the 21st Century it seems that the disconnect between the purported goals of the US government and the actual goals of those making and carrying out policy has become complete.

    The most powerful leaders in the world, Bush and Cheney, see the great majority of people on earth, including Americans, as prey.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

 
   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
 
 
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives

© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org