Saudi Arabia Paper: How America’s Conflict With Iran Will Begin
The indispensible site Watching America has a must-read translation of an article from the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Riyadh that warns of an impending American conflict with Iran..and outlines how it’ll begin. Some key excerpts 4 U:
It is our perception that America – which is up to its ears in Iraq – has come to realize its mistakes in dissolving the former Iraqi army and security forces, and enabling an individual community [the Shiites] to become its tool for ruling Iraq. This allowed Iran to work its way deep into Iraq, opening new fronts of confrontation with Sunnis and Baathists, who oppose the occupation and being government by other communities.The first open signs of an American collision with Iran will occur in Iraq, after the liquidation of the major [Shiite] militias and paramilitaries allied with them. This will expand the basis for animosity. But the scenarios that Bush’s team is painting are similar to those which led to the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait and eventually ended his rule. That war was not because Saddam expanded Iraq by a few more miles (by occupying Kuwait), but was due to the fear that Kuwaiti oil – added to Iraq’s already vast oil resources – would have made Iraq the central power in the most dangerous region in the world.
AND:
If Iran is permitted to control the vast oil resources of southern Iraq – which adds an economic and geographic dimension to this crisis – and in addition to this, Tehran’s possesses nuclear weapons, even on a limited scale, then the entire Gulf region will be under threat of becoming a great oil reservoir for Iran. Thus the nuclear issue makes the present situation far more dangerous than it has hitherto been….….And as we have already said, America’s interests rise above any partisan differences. For example, its unequivocal refusal to allow China to annex Taiwan is not because Taiwan constitutes an American military and strategic base; it is due rather to the fear of the “up and comingâ€? superpower [China] gaining Taiwan’s advanced technological and human capital. These fears are identical those that attended Saddam’s annexation of Kuwait, or Iran’s possible annexation of southern and middle areas of Iraq.
This means that a war against Iran could be imminent, and securing oil sources will be the major goal; not the sectarian or nationalistic goals that some might think, based on what is happening in the region right now. Even the issue of fighting terrorism is in synch with these goals.
Read the entire piece at Watching America…a site worth watching every day.
FOOTNOTE: Speculation about an impending conflict with Iran is rampant. And not just among the left. There is heightened questioning of adminsitration officials about Iran in the new Democratic-party controlled Congress. Cable talk shows routinely now feature talking heads predicting what’ll happen on Iran. Most say the “run up” to a presumed conflict is nearly a clone of how the stage was set by the administration before the Iraq war.
One key difference (if it happens) is that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan came right after 911. The U.S. invasion of Iraq did indeed go foward with bipartisan support, but many Democrats went along with it after a)arm twisting OR b)fearing they would be painted as unpatriotic by the GOP in upcoming elections OR c)deciding to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
Unless there’s a political shift, any invasion of Iran –even if the reasons are sound — would happen against the backdrop of an administration with quickly evaporating support. Few dispute Iran is highly dangerous; the adminsitration’s problem is its own credibility and its seeming rejection of the idea that Congress has the right to provide serious advise and consent.
But whatever correct concerns the administration may have about Tehran, any future conflict with Iran (no matter how small) will likely be undermined by the administration’s lack of credibility and by a growing perception in both parties that the administration considers Congress a bunch of bothersome political hacks, rather than another branch set up by the founding fathers to play a substantive role in national policies.
On the other hand, the Saudi paper is correct: in the end, there are broader national interests that trascend partisanship and jockeying for votes. If you had to rank the odds on some kind of military action against Iran (most likely this year) on a scale of one to 10 it’s starting to feel like an 8.
14 Responses to “Saudi Arabia Paper: How America’s Conflict With Iran Will Begin”
[...] Other Good Reads: The Moderate Voice (a “must read”); Hot Air; The Antagonist; First Draft [...]
The fantasy world of George W Bush, et alia, influences the world of reality (as I said in another post above) and, I think, is beginning to strongly color the thinking of even realistic people. A good many people are buying into the delusional thinking of the neocons even though they know they are delusional. It boggles my mind. Do we really, really want to throw nitroglycerin (not gasoline-it is too tame)
onto the fire by starting a war with Iran. Good Lord!!! I hope not. Please save us from ourselves.
Who are you referring to here, sootytern?
The Neocons are the only one with enough balls to fight for anything. The liberals just want to hide and hope it goes away. Or better yet trust France to run the world.
Hahahaha. I guess its come down to NEOCONS or LIBERAlS running the world. Who do you trust. Neocons want to fight and make the world safer for your children with their conspiratorial delusional puppet master Israel pulling the strings. OR……OR you can go with the LIBERALS who want to smoke dope, drink beer and Hope their kids turn out gay.
The argument is starting to repeat one I saw taking place in the 60′s.
I mean after all isnt this the only two choices we have.?
Huh?
Ah yes, the old “only two kinds of people in the world” idea…
*eyeroll*
“The Neocons are the only one with enough balls to fight for anything. The liberals just want to hide and hope it goes away. Or better yet trust France to run the world.”
Could you cite some sources on that? Or even better, maybe you should go post somewhere else. France jokes are so 2003.
It seems to me that sootytern and upinsmoke are both examples of black and white thinking (at opposite ends). Sootytern feels that neocons and GWB are evil warmongers, so he seems to feel that nothing that is consistent with neocon thought can be true or trusted. Upinsmoke, on the other hand, feels that there are real threats to US security that are not taken seriously by liberals, therefore we have to trust the neocons to deal with these things.
Fortunately there is a world of gray in between these two extremes.
CS The neocons wouldn’t be dismissed if Iraq was now a Western style democracy. Sh**, I would trumpet their policies if the ME was transformed. Tell me how ‘right on’ Kristol, Wolfie and Gafney were on this . An enormus success, oil will pay for the war, we will greeted as liberators, flowers and chocalate.
I guess the FTD man delivers from Tehran…..
Rudi,
I never said that we should trust the people who badly miscalculated on Iraq. But it’s the same old reflex that causes people to feel that we should look at someone whose policies have failed and do the opposite. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then imbecility is assuming that doing the opposite is the only way to get the desired results.
You guys!
You take everything so serious. This is why there can be no intellectual debate here. I said that with tongue so firmly planted in cheek that Im still trying to get it back in place and what is the response.
Oh yeah right your an idiot.
Why debate. X….believes X and he aint gonna change
Y….Believes Y and he aint gonna change.
I personally just use sarcasm because nothing anyone says is listened to, digested and thoughfully hashed out. Its jump up and start screaming.
I give up. You guys have no sense of humor and I guess my sense of humor is like a turd in a fish bowl over here.
Sarcasm doesn’t get debates going either upinsmoke, give us something meety that involves that grey matter above both your tongue and cheek.
Sarcasm doesn’t get debates going either upinsmoke, give us something meaty that involves that grey matter above both your tongue and cheek.
I don’t get it…what exactly is the threat from Iran? Exactly how does it damage the US?
And if you have answers to that, what makes you think a war will solve any of the issues?
They will cut of oil? Bug frickin’ deal. America can rise to the situation and make itself work. And the truth is, there is plenty of oil on the market to buy. So Iran is a danger to the citizens of the USA because…(they say silly outlandish threats?)
Is Iran prepared to take over Texas? Have they threatened the US any more then we have threatened them? When our leader says on international TV that the us will actively support regime change in their country, is that not a threat?
So the USA can threaten any country, invade any country, arrest and hold anyone with no charges, send missiles to kill anyone anywhere we decide, and Iran is the threat?
Are you frickin’ serious? The Iranians are after Topeka? Madison? They want to destroy Hill-billy-hollow?
What a paranoid, pathetic response to the difficulties of living in the world. George Washington warned us well, Stay our of foreign entanglements. And here we are thinking we need to run the world, while we can’t even run the schools in this country or provide medical insurance. But we can decide who to invade and kill because I guess, we just know best…kind of like father.
When Iran invades this country or lands ships in England, or tries to take down Germany, or sends a B1-Bomber to attack New York, then let’s talk war. But them taking an active interest (even if we don’t like it) in their next door neighbor country (which we cultivated to keep them in line…real smart huh?) and the majority of that population is tied to Iran, might you think there is no way to stop that? I would guess, and here I am out on crazy street again, that the countries closer to Iraq then 12,000 miles might be in a better spot to actually get involved there. One of the many dumb ass reasons not to invade countries 12,000 miles away….
Oil Pressure…
Saudis are behind an intentional effort to drive down oil prices with the intent of breaking the Iranian economy.
……