Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.
Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn’t meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn’t attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world’s Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.
On the upside, this would probably bring down the al-Sauds in the long term. But probably even then, it’s not worth it. One also wonders whether its publication (alongside with that leaked Hadley memo) isn’t meant to scare Maliki for his meeting with Bush.
Youch. And the passage that you quote doesn’t even include his concluding line: “…Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.”
Nice. Very nice.
His bio is here: http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_experts/task,view/id,78/
This is just bluster to prevent the administration from accepting the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and others who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq. Rest assured, however, that if the US did pull out, Saudi policy would have no choice but to look something like what Obaid describes above.
The Saudi embassy in D.C. should have to publish views like this in ad, instead of getting a column.
Clearly someone in the Bush administration told the Saudis that this was so not funny:
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=7208
Official Source refutes report of Nawaf Obaid in Washington Post
01/12/2006
Riyadh, SPA — An official source, in a statement to Saudi Press Agency, has said a report published in the American newspaper “Washington Post,” in its edition of Wednesday, November 29, 2006, attributing to writer Nawaf Obaid, “is absolutely not true.”
“This writer does not represent any official Saudi authority. What has been published (in the newspaper) represents only his own view. It also does not represent in any way the Kingdom’s policy and stand to support security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects and doctrines,” the official source said.
So who would the Saudis be supporting exactly? The former Baathists who nearly invade their country 15 years earlier and make up the backbone of the insurgency? Or the Al-Qaeda people that are busy trying to subvert the Saudi monarchy as we speak. I can’t hep but agree with the description of this man’s ravings as just “bluster”.
Obaid Fired for Op-Ed…
Interesting post-script to the Washington Post op-ed by Nawaf Obaid, a consultant to the Saudi government, suggesting the Saudis might fight a proxy war with Iran in Iraq: He’s fired.
(Blog reaction to the offending op-ed at Arabist, Abu Aardvark…