Gandalf Grey wrote:

The New "Grand Bargain": America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia Take on the Sh'ia
and Syria

By Peter Lee
Created Dec 24 2006 - 8:39am

  During his current consultations on the new strategy for Iraq, President
Bush has told those advising him that he is not interested in any proposals
that do not involve "success." "Anyone who does not believe in victory
should leave the room right now," was how he began one consultation session.
Top National Security Council officials are describing the Iraq Study Group
as "discredited" and "dead and buried."
  -- Swoop [1]

One of the most disturbing elements of President Bush's attempt to avoid
unambiguous failure in Iraq is the notorious "double down" strategy:
postponing accountability redefining our effort a new, larger, open-ended
mission that hasn't failed--yet.

"Doubling down" in Iraq means going after Sadr in Iraq instead of the
insurgency.

The anti-Sadr strategy is part of a new reconceptualization of Bush's
strategy in the Middle East, born of a desperate unwillingness to admit
failure and Bush's addiction to the defiant masterstroke.

It goes like this: the new doctrine is combating "violent extremism" a.k.a.
Shi'a ascendancy a.k.a. Sadr in Iraq a.k.a. Iran--the new boogeymen.

[We just might have seen the beginning of this in yesterday's britt
1000 man assault on the Shiia police station in Basra.]

That means rolling back Hezbollah in Lebanon. In turn, that means attacking
Syria. Then, with Iran humbled and isolated, maybe that means taking out
Iran's nuclear facilities or maybe regime change.

Actually, this part of the strategy is old evil. The "Clean Break" strategy
was always first Iraq, then on to Damascus and Teheran.

Of course, the difference was that the "Clean Break" regionalization of war
was supposed to be a continuation of our triumphant remaking of the Middle
East as a safe, prosperous, Israel-loving, US-fearing and democratic region.

It wasn't supposed to be a desperate Hail Mary attempt to cope with failure
in Iraq, growing Iran ascendancy, and Israel's failed attack on Lebanon. The
idea of expanding the war to multiple fronts in order to cope with setbacks
on the main front--in Iraq--is scary to the point of irresponsibility.

But what's new and really scary is the appearance of a new enabler for
George Bush in the Middle East--Saudi Arabia.

Josh Landis' Syria Comment blog lays out the speculation [2].

With Tony Blair drifting away, America has been bereft of an ally willing to
assist and promote the Bush agenda. Now Saudi Arabia appears to be stepping
up.

Concerned with the rise of a powerful, nuclear Iran, elements of the Saudi
elite led by ex-ambassador Prince Bandar apparently have bought into a
strategy of working with the United States and Israel to roll back the
Shi'a.

The first overt element was the summoning of Dick Cheney to Riyadh to warn
that Saudi Arabia would arm the Sunni insurgency in Iraq if the U.S. went
through with the Shi'a tilt strategy as its last ditch attempt to stabilize
the country.

[Yes... a bit of a veiled threat to US efforts to proceed along the
present course. But there's one major obstacle to this; Iraqi
demographics. The Sunni's in Iraq are badly outnumbered by the Shiia.]

What also appears to have happened is that Saudi Arabia sweetened that
bitter pill with a new grand strategy for the Middle East.

In Iraq, the US would do a 180 and attack Sadr instead of the insurgency.

A dangerous thing to do... As I understand it, the Shiias have been
(comparatively) compliant since things have been moving in their way.
If the US directly challenges their consolidating power - bad things
could be expected in return.

A worst case scenario would have both the Shiias and the insurgents
fighting US forces.

I expect that Bandar also told Cheney that Riyadh could restrain and
domesticate the Sunni insurgency by controlling its funding by Saudi
millionaires, and bring it into the coalition government--if independent
Shi'a military power inside Iraq as represented by Sadr was checked.

In return, Saudi Arabia would reprise the whole Afghan mooj thing (against
the Russians, not the Taliban) and bankroll and administer a whole flock of
anti-Iranian/anti-Syrian covert ops in coordinatiion with Israel and the
U.S..

The neocons in Washington are blaming Israel for not attacking Syria during
the recent Lebanon fracas, a clear signal that that Tel Aviv is not expected
to make the same mistake twice--if and when the Lebanon crisis re-ignites in
summer 2007. (Read this striking interview with neocon leading light--and
wife of Dick Cheney's right-hand man David Wurmser-- Meyrav Wurmser on Syria
http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=129 [3]).

[Gaah.. How does Israel conduct an unprovoked attack on Syria - and get
away without universal condemnation?

They already tried very hard; bombing Syrian customs posts, overflying
Syrian territory, and bombing 1/3 of Lebanon. Unfortunately for them,
the Syrians did not escalate the matter.]

(Maybe fortunately too.. they couldn't even take out Hezbollah)

Syria is clearly the "I don't know how to quit you" situation for US
regime-change junkies--so small, so oil-free, so weak, so tempting that we
can't imagine walking away from our failed informatiion in the Middle East
with Assad still in power.

And destabilizing Syria offers the best--if somewhat forlorn--hope for some
kind of rollback of our dismal situation in the Middle East.

On Josh Landis' blog, there was also speculation that Saudi Arabia would
give a green light to an Israeli attack (using Saudi airspace) on Iran's
nuclear facility.

[That seems obvious.]

From Bush's point of view, the advantage of this approach is that it's terra
incognita.

You have scratch your head and say, well I guess it might work, and maybe
consider that the worst president in history should be given enough slack to
expand the conflict in Iraq to a regional war involving virtually every
major nation.

[hahahhaha]

Also, it's a surrogate war, using non-U.S. blood and money. Zero public
debate, zero oversight, zero accountability. No messy US troop issues beyond
the muscle needed inside Iraq to take on Sadr.

[False assumption here..
There are oodles of strategic resources in the area that the US might
wish to retain.
A regional conflict could easily undermine US plans for retaining
them.]

But as a realistic strategy, it's insane. Sufficient American power cannot
be brought to bear in any of these theaters--Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran
to ensure success even in one of them, but we're going to try to run the
table and take on all four at once?

And the Israelis and the Saudis are going to do our work for us?

This strategy is a recipe for failure--and a recipe for disaster for Saudi
Arabia, which will appear the stooges of Israel and the United States in
fighting fellow Muslims.

Probably that will turn those Saudi millionaires away from supporting the
Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and return them to their first love: al Qaeda.

Perhaps one of the regimes to fall in this grand strategy will be Saudi
Arabia, brought down by a reinvigorated al Qaeda.

In fact, the only country I can see reaping a clear benefit from this policy
is Israel.

Israel has been unable to make peace with its neighbors, or successfully
make war with them. The best it can hope for is to have its enemies fight
among themselves.

Indeed, that's what's happening in the Palestinian territories, with Fatah
and Hamas at each others' throats.

If the Saudis and the Iranians are ready to spend the next twenty years
fighting each other, that's a program that Israel will be happy to support,
and perhaps foment.

And if the deadline for accountability for Bush's disaster in the Middle
East can be stretched far beyond the end of his dismal term, well, that's a
victory in Bush's terms as well.

But if our effort against Sadr stalls--as I suspect it will--and Hezbollah,
Syria, and Iran prove capable of resisting the blows we and our allies
pepper at them, then we will have cause to regret this grand bargain.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles.  It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt.  But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson