Israel Matzav

Saudi Arabia's damage control in the New York Times

Chas Freeman tries to do some damage control for 'our friends the Saudis' in connection with the Wikileaks disclosures. After all, it must be very embarrassing for the Saudis to be seen publicly agreeing with Israel.

Israel, for its part, has been quick to assert that the leaks show that it and the Gulf Arab states have a common outlook regarding Iran. “More and more states, governments and leaders in the Middle East and the wider region and the world believe this is the fundamental threat,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when asked about the cables.

“No one will now be able to allege that Israel is acting irresponsibly,” wrote Aluf Benn, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz. “When the King of Saudi Arabia and the King of Jordan call for lopping off the head of the Iranian snake, no one will believe them when they denounce an Israeli operation.” But there is little to back up such claims. Israel has long wanted the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It has also strongly implied that if Washington refuses to do so, it will go ahead on its own — in a manner calculated to leave the United States no choice but to join it in war with Iran.

The Gulf Arabs want to forestall Iranian nuclear ambitions, but they are willing to defer to American judgment about how best to achieve that, and they certainly don’t want it to result in a war in their own neighborhood. Clearly, this is a very different position from the one held by Mr. Netanyahu.

The only difference between the Arab position and the Israeli position is that the Israelis may try to deal with Iran themselves, while the Arabs, despite billions of dollars in sales of military equipment from the United States, are in no position to do so. They don't know how to use what they bought.

Israel would rather that the United States dealt with Iran. The Arabs agree. If the United States will not deal with Iran, Israel may try to do so. The Arabs will cheer silently on the sidelines. That's the reality. If the US or Israel don't deal with Iran, the Arab countries have no option of doing so themselves. That's the only difference in their attitudes.

There are other ways in which the Arabs and Israelis are at odds on Iran policy. The leaks show that Gulf Arab rulers are concerned above all that a nuclear-armed Iran would have greater prestige in the region and ever-greater influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. The nuclear weapons themselves, they feel, are primarily a threat to Israel and American forces in the region.

Really? Then why are the Gulf Arab countries suddenly all so anxious to build nuclear plants? Isn't it because they feel totally exposed to and threatened by Iran? Isn't because they want to at least have some possibility of protecting themselves, even if they don't really know how to use it?

Yes, Israelis fear that Iran might gratuitously attempt another Holocaust by attacking them. But the leaked documents also show that one of the main worries Israel has about Iran’s nuclear ambitions is that it could lose its regional monopoly on nuclear weapons, limiting their leverage on a whole range of issues. One doubts the Gulf Arabs share that concern.

We don't even know for sure that Israel has nuclear weapons although everyone thinks that we do. But even if we have them, it's not the monopoly on them that we'd be afraid of losing. It's not a matter of prestige or bragging rights. It's the consequences of losing the monopoly namely the increased threats under which we'd live. There's no other country in the world whose very existence gives rise to resentment.

'Our friends the Saudis' should be honest with their own people. Now their true colors have been shown and what we're seeing is an effort to cover them up again. Chas Freeman is their best foot soldier in the United States. At least he isn't part of the national intelligence apparatus.

Labels: Chas Freeman, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Wikileaks

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:25 AM