Page 2 of 2 Saudis, US grapple with Iran challenge
By M K Bhadrakumar
works to Iran's advantage. The Saudi king's invitation to Rafsanjani to visit
Riyadh is a grudging acknowledgement of this political reality. Washington has
been desperately keen to transfer the "Lebanon file" to the United Nations
Security Council next week. US deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams
said in Washington on Tuesday, "We are going to be unrolling a few things in
the course of the week, starting perhaps with the Security Council." But it is
unlikely the Saudis will want a showdown with Iran over Lebanon at New York at
this juncture.
The Saudis would assess that the mood in the Middle East region
will militate against Riyadh getting involved openly with the George W Bush
administration in disarming Hezbollah, whereas the focus ought to be on forging
national unity in Lebanon. Nor does Tehran actually seek any confrontation with
Riyadh. Time works in its favor. Therefore, we may expect some sort of
agreement being worked out involving the Lebanese parties under the auspices of
the current Arab League mediatory mission.
What is most extraordinary is that all this is playing out on the sidelines of
Bush's own visit to the region. As things stand, the Middle East is seething
with anger that the Bush administration has dumped the Israel-Palestine "peace
process", despite all the hullabaloo at the Annapolis conference in the US last
November. In addition, Bush's close identification with Israel profoundly
alienates Arab opinion. The Bush administration's overall credibility is also
very low, given the Iraq quagmire. Bush is being left in no doubt that the mood
in the Middle East is firmly against any US adventurism against Iran.
Curiously, Washington seems to anticipate the trust deficit in Riyadh and
Cairo, the key Arab capitals that are on Bush's itinerary.
No doubt, there is some symbolism in the fact that just ahead of Bush's tour,
the US warship USS Cole, which has been deployed in the Persian Gulf since
March, crossed the Suez Canal on Sunday en route to the Mediterranean. Again,
in a well-timed statement on Wednesday, even as Bush arrived in the Middle
East, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at two different forums in
Washington about the imperatives of the US engaging Iran. Gates virtually shut
the door on a military option against Iran, saying, "There is no doubt that ...
we would be very hard-pressed to fight another major conventional war right
now."
Gates said, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then
sit down and talk with them [Iran]. If there is going to be a discussion, then
they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the
demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." In yet
another venue on Wednesday, Gates amplified, "My personal view would be we
ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get
more of a flow of people back and forth ... We ought to increase the flow the
other way [of Americans visiting Iran]."
What it adds up to is that the Bush administration realizes that it is left
with hardly any choice other than resorting to "Track II" diplomacy with
Tehran. The Iranians are no more taking the lame-duck administration in
Washington seriously. They know the Bush administration stands widely
discredited in the Middle East. They know it is in any case necessary to deal
with the new administration in Washington next year. They are shrewd enough to
assess that any US exit strategy in Iraq that the incoming US administration
formulates, will be critically dependent on Iran's cooperation.
Meanwhile, the axis involving Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah remains intact.
Tehran knows it can afford to sit tight for the remaining period of the Bush
administration. Of course, it should not do anything rash in the meantime that
might provide an alibi to Washington to lash out. Most important, the Iranian
regime knows its policy enjoys strong popular support within the country.
Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the masses overwhelmingly supported Iran's
"fight against arrogant power ... You can find no one in Iran willing to give
up nuclear technology".
The Saudis have no answer to the challenge posed by Iran. Sadly, their response
is to build a wall to protect Saudi Arabia from subversion from Iraq as the US
winds down its troop levels. But the Saudis need to realize the futility of
warding off an existential challenge by building bunkers and concrete walls.
The most critical calculation behind Tehran's policy at the present juncture
would be that US-Saudi ties have come under unprecedented stress, which in
turn, incrementally, weakens Riyadh's leadership role and overall standing in
the region. In an insightful dispatch from Riyadh, Karen Elliott House, the
Pulitzer Prize-winning diplomatic correspondent and a former publisher of the
Wall Street Journal, wrote in the newspaper on Wednesday that the US and Saudi
Arabia are finding it "problematic" to steer their relationship, which is
already "fraying" at its edges. The core ingredients of the traditional
mutually beneficial relationship - a US security blanket in lieu of cheap Saudi
oil - are lacking even as the "neighborhood around Saudi Arabia has become much
more threatening".
House writes, "Nor can the US protect the [Saudi] regime from its own domestic
challenges ... In sum, the mutual needs of the US and Saudi Arabia remain as
great as at any time over the past 75 years, but the abilities of both parties
to make the partnership mutually productive are diminishing, perhaps
irretrievably so. It's difficult to see how this trend can be reversed,
regardless who occupies the White House a year from now."
Close to three decades after the Islamic revolution in Iran, Tehran will be
keenly watching for signs of Saudi acceptance of the need to accommodate its
rising profile as a regional power. But it is too early to tell. Things are in
great flux. Lebanon, as ever before, is only one turf where the epic struggle
in the region is being played out.
As the Tehran Times commented, "These incidents are not limited to Lebanon.
Indeed, a chain of events is unfolding from Gaza to Baghdad's Sadr City to
Beirut, with the United States and Israel clearly stirring up the violence.
Gaza and Beirut are strategically interconnected because the security of the
Zionist regime and the United States directly depends on these three places."
Riyadh is in two minds. The urbane Westernized Saudi foreign minister's
uncharacteristic threat to ostracize Shi'ite Iran in the Islamic world on
account of its regional policy in Lebanon harks to the past. The Saudi king's
native wisdom in inviting an Iranian cleric leader to visit Riyadh at the
present critical juncture beckons to the future. The House of Saud is
apparently being pulled in different directions.
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service
for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan
(1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
