[Marxism] How Saudi Arabia prepares for the US war with Iran

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following articles from the London-based Financial Times and the
Cairo-based Al-Ahram point to how the Saudi and other conservative Arab
states are adjusting to the failure of the US Iraq, and the US government
response to this failure which has been to step up the drive toward a
general assault on Iran which -- that is, not to give up the drive to
reshape the Middle East, but to escalate it on the grounds that this will
achieve the decisive stability in the Arab East and South Asia that the US
is aiming for.

The dependency of the Saudi regime on US support is historically explained
in a helpful way by Professor Mark Jensen of the Washington State-based
Snow-news list, one of my basic sources of wider information on the fight.

The Saudi rulers are preparing themselves, very nervously, to accept a US
attack on Iran.  They have now joined an attempt by Israel to create a broad
economic boycott, centering of course on Ahmadinejad's insane (from a
practical political standpoint -- he doesn't seem crazy at all to me)
Holocaust Conference, which of course failed both to win broader support for
Iran in the imperialist countries for Iran but also among quite firmly
Islamist Iranian workers and common people, many of whom wondered, "what are
you doing to us?" Very reasonably indeed.

In the Al-ahram article from Cairo, Ahmadinejad is coted as saying:

President Ahmadinejad said that Israel and the U.S. wouldn't dare attack his
country.  "They are aware of Iran's strength."

This reminds me of Saddam's boasting before the invasion of Iraq.  Iran has
real strengths but these can only be brought to bear quickly (which would be
the best outcome) if Iran is mobilized and prepared in advance on the
assumption that an attack is not impossible, but pretty likely, which I
think is the case.

Are Iran cities and towns being educated about how to respond to a
"tactical" nuclear attack on their areas? Are they building caves and
tunnels like those which the nuclear plants operate in? Are the
Revolutionary Guards, the Hezbollah, the Basij and worker, peasant, and
youth organizations that are willing to defend the country being prepared
for an attack?

The Cubans, who are HARDER, not easier, for the US to attack by Iran, take
very threat seriously and dismiss none.  Does it take a socialist revolution
to understand the elementary wisdom of this approach?
Fred Feldman





[In an interview published in a Kuwaiti newspaper, the king of Saudi Arabia
says that he has advised Iran "not to expose the region to dangers," the
*Financial Times* (UK) reported Sunday.[1]  --  

The 82-year-old Saudi monarch has been king since 2005, but has been the de
facto ruler of Saudi Arabia since 1995, when King Fahd had a major stroke.
 --  
Abdullah is the fifth son of the eighth (and favorite) wife of Ibn Saud, Ibn
Saud being the historic founder of modern Saudi Arabia and the man who
sealed its pact with the U.S. national security state in a secret
conversation with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy
in February 1945 on the way back from the Yalta Conference.  -- 

One year earlier, in February 1944, FDR had called the British ambassador in
Washington to the White House to explain the American view of Middle East
oil:  "Roosevelt showed the ambassador a rough sketch he had made of the
Middle East.  Persian oil, he told the ambassador, is yours.  We share the
oil of Iraq and Kuwait.  As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours" (Daniel
Yergin, *The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power* [NY: Simon and
Schuster, 1990], p. 401).  --  King Abdullah, the current Saudi king, was
about 20 years old at that time; he was about 55 when the Iranian Revolution
completely upset the strategic balance in the Middle East and began a
tumultous chain of events that continues to unfold dramatically. 
--  

Adbullah's photograph hand-in-hand with President George W. Bush appears on
the cover of Craig Unger's *House of Bush, House of Saud:  The Secret
Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties* (Scribner,
2004).  --  

Unger describes how on August 27, 2001, Abdullah provoked a crisis in
U.S.-Saudi relations by threatening to end the U.S.-Saudi relationship on
account of the U.S.'s embrace of Israel.  -- 

Within thirty-six hours, Bush had delivered a personal message stating in
writing American support for the right of Palestians to "their own state in
their own homeland" (Unger, p. 244).  --  

It is generally believed that the crackdown on al-Qaeda inside Saudi Arabia
after 9/11 represents the triumph of Abdullah over Interior Minister Prince
Nayef, one of the Sudairi Seven (Ibn Saud's sons by his sixth wife) who,
Unger says, leans toward militant clerics and who was the Saudi who traveled
to Tehran to reestablish relations with Iran in April 2001.  --  

>From the point of view of many Iranians, the House of Saud owes its tenure
to British support, is beholden to U.S. power, and is greatly lacking in
legitimacy, being chiefly an expression of Western imperialism.  --  

Both U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates have in the past ten days paid visits to the Saudi king.  --  

In a long analysis in the latest issue of *Al-Ahram* (Cairo), Galal Nassar
attempted an analysis of what is going on:  "Repeated visits by U.S.
officials to Saudi Arabia suggest that the Bush administration is trying to
extract a promise of support from the Saudis. . . . Riyadh may still be
undecided.  Prince Turki Al-Faysal, former Saudi ambassador to Washington
and former head of the Saudi intelligence services, has warned Washington of
intervention in Iran.  Prince Turki said Riyadh was facing two
possibilities, both bleak. 

"One is for Iran to obtain the bomb, and the other is for the U.S. to attack
Iran.  'In both cases . . . Saudi Arabia sees the consequences as being
tragic to say the least,' he said."[2]  --Mark]

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5639/

1.

World

Middle East & Africa

DO NOT ENDANGER THE REGION, SAUDI KING TELLS IRAN By Heba Saleh

Financial Times (UK)
January 28, 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/529420f8-aef1-11db-a446-0000779e2340.html

Saudi Arabia has warned Iran that it could endanger the whole Gulf region if
it does not resolve the problems in its "international relations," a
reference to Iran's increasingly tense standoff with the United States over
its nuclear program and its role in Iraq.

"We have advised them not to expose the region to dangers," said King
Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi monarch.  "We do not interfere in
anyone's affairs, [but] any state which resorts to unwise acts will have to
bear the responsibility in front of the other countries in the region."

The king's remarks, made in an interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper, *Al
Seyassah*, comes amidst increasingly vocal criticism of Iran by officials
and the press in the Arab world.

"We are extremely worried about the policies of Iran and the rhetoric coming
out of Iran which adds to the tensions in the region," said an Egyptian
diplomat.  "Their rhetoric confirms the worst fears of the west has about
Islam."

America's main allies in the Arab world -- Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia
-- are deeply concerned about the influence Iran has come to wield in Iraq,
Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

Iran, with its support for the Lebanese movement Hezbollah and the
Palestinian Hamas -- two uncompromising opponents of Israel -- is seen to be
propelling the region in a direction counter to that where America's allies
want to lead it.

Tehran's backing of Hamas is said by some to be frustrating Egypt's efforts
to mediate between the Palestinian factions to forge a national unity
government which would, in theory, be more receptive to negotiation with
Israel.  "Iran's intentions are very clear," wrote Osama Saraya, editor of
the government-owned daily *Al Ahram* on Friday.  "It is . . .
sowing corruption in every direction."

But even if the Arabs are alarmed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and its
policies in the region, they do not want a U.S. military strike against it.
Mr. Saraya says it would have "dire consequences" for the region.

"There is a kind of mobilization of Arab public opinion," said Abdul Moneim
Said, the head of the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
"But Arab governments are wise enough to realize that an attack against Iran
would be detrimental to them and would help their radical opponents."

2.

Opinion

In Focus

NOT EASY PREY
By Galal Nassar

** U.S.-Iranian tensions could escalate fast and bring catastrophe to the
region **

Al-Ahram (Cairo)
January 25-31, 2007

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/829/op5.htm

The Middle East is becoming a vast disaster zone.  The Americans, who are
still bogged down in Iraq, are turning their sights on Iran, bullying it to
placate Israel.  This policy, which has been designed by the neocons, may
end up wreaking havoc on the whole region.  The region has every right to
regard Iran with suspicion, mind you.  Under the mullahs, Tehran has
committed massacres in Iraq, especially in the south, and is currently bent
on acquiring nuclear weapons.  But a conflict between the U.S. and Iran is
the last thing the region needs.

The Middle East is teetering on the brink of disaster with little to look
forward to.  And the prospect of an alliance between Arab "moderates" and
the Americans is hardly reassuring.  The region is caught between a rock and
a hard place.  Iran has its own ambitions, and Israel is not letting up.

The recent tour of the U.S. secretary of state was clearly aimed at getting
moderate Arabs on the side of the Americans and the Israelis.  The secretary
used all her power of persuasion to tempt Arab leaders to join an
anti-Iranian alliance.  The U.S. and Israel want to bring Iran to its knees,
but they cannot accomplish that in the absence of at least a semblance of
Arab support.

The Americans, by the admission of the chief of the CIA, think that Iran is
10 years away from the bomb, and yet they're contemplating pre-emptive
action.  A strike against Iran is not simply a theoretical possibility. 
The maps and plans have been drawn, as U.S. officials keep reminding us. 
The U.S. president recently told the world that U.S. failure in Iraq would
"strengthen" Iran and threaten world security.  And Dick Cheney claimed that
Iran was "destabilizing" Iraq and must be stopped.  The U.S. national
security adviser has refused to rule out the possibility of U.S. forces
entering Iranian territories to capture "hostile" individuals.

In the speech delineating his new strategy in Iraq, President Bush portrayed
Iran as the number one enemy.  He promised that Washington would work with
other countries to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms and
"controlling" the Gulf region.  A second U.S. nuclear aircraft carrier is on
its way to the Gulf.  USS John C. Stennis and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower are
going to stay in the Gulf for a few months, the first such deployment since
2003.

According to Robert Gates, the new U.S. defense secretary, the U.S.
build-up in Iraq is a message to Iran.  There are people in Iraq who try to
kill Americans and who transport weapons used to kill Americans, and
confronting those people is a matter of military "necessity," he said.

When Admiral William Fallon was appointed chief of Central Command for the
Middle East, analysts were quick to see the implications.  The appointment
of a naval pilot to supervise military operations in the Gulf can only mean
one thing:  that the U.S. is getting ready to strike at Iranian nuclear
facilities.  Iran would most likely retaliate by striking oilrigs and
tankers and closing the Hormuz Straights.  The U.S. would call upon the navy
to respond, hence Fallon's appointment.

Tehran and Washington are already locking horns in Iraq.  U.S. forces in
Iraq in two separate raids have arrested Iranian individuals.  And the U.S.
president is said to have ordered U.S. troops to take action against
Iranians in Iraq.

Israel, everyone knows, wants the Americans to get involved in Iran.  In a
recent statement, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said the international
community should put a stop to Iran's "nuclear ambitions."  She claimed that
Iran was a threat to all countries in the Middle East, not just Israel.
Iran's aim, Livni said, was "not just to remove Israel from the map, but to
reshape the region."  The *Sunday Times* reported that Israel has made plans
to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.  The Israelis, however,
are unlikely to attack Iran unless the Americans give them a green light.
And once the conflict escalates, the Iranians are likely to retaliate, which
means the Americans will have to get involved sooner or later.

For now, moderate Arab leaders are trying to stay on the good side of the
Americans and the Israelis.  They seem in general more eager to placate
Washington than worried about Iran's role in fomenting sectarian strife in
the region.  Gulf countries and Jordan are not in a position to contradict
U.S. wishes.  And yet, the policies currently implemented by the Americans
are likely to boost Shia power in the region.  Jordanian King Abdullah has
already warned of a "Shia crescent" extending from Iran through Syria and
Iraq all the way to Lebanon.  The emergence of such crescent would have
dangerous political implications, he pointed out.

Before meeting Condoleezza Rice in Cairo a few days ago, President Hosni
Mubarak warned of Iran's link to sectarianism in the region.  Speaking to
Al-Osbou, the Egyptian president warned of Iran's acquisition of nuclear
arms.  "Egypt cannot stay silent while another regional power acquires
nuclear weapons.  The Arabs cannot live under a potential threat . . .
This is something I cannot tolerate.  I have a certain responsibility
towards my people, and we cannot allow our security to be jeopardized . .
. Egypt will not stand idly by.  We will not remain inactive."

Repeated visits by U.S. officials to Saudi Arabia suggest that the Bush
administration is trying to extract a promise of support from the Saudis. 
According to a Pentagon official, Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured
King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz that Iraq would act as a buffer against Iranian
expansion.  The Pentagon is convinced that the Saudis are beginning to agree
with its assessment of the situation in Iraq and the threat Iran is posing
to the region.  However, Riyadh may still be undecided.  Prince Turki
Al-Faysal, former Saudi ambassador to Washington and former head of the
Saudi intelligence services, has warned Washington of intervention in Iran.
Prince Turki said Riyadh was facing two possibilities, both bleak.  One is
for Iran to obtain the bomb, and the other is for the U.S. to attack Iran.
"In both cases . . . Saudi Arabia sees the consequences as being tragic to
say the least," he said.

Iran remains defiant.  In an interview with the Spanish newspaper *El
Mundo* during his visit to Nicaragua, President Ahmadinejad said that Israel
and the U.S. wouldn't dare attack his country.  "They are aware of Iran's
strength.  I believe they will not do such a stupid thing." 
Meanwhile, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov confirmed that his country
delivered short-range Tor-M1 missiles to Iran, adding that Moscow was
willing to give Tehran any defensive weapons if asked.  Russian military
officials say the missiles would help defend Iran against air attacks.
According to media reports, the Iranians tried and failed to acquire spare
parts for U.S. military systems through middlemen.

Should the Americans and the Israelis, with the help of Arab moderates,
succeed in bringing Iran to its knees, the consequences would be dire for
the entire region.  Kenneth Pollack, director of research at the Saban
Center of The Brookings Institution, has said that a U.S. campaign against
Tehran may backfire, for it would widen the scope of U.S. operations and
drag the Americans into an international armed conflict.  The Iranians, he
added, will try to prove that they're not easy prey.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism