Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Saudis wanted Arab force to invade Lebanon

During the Hezbullah siege of Beirut in 2008, 'our friends the Saudis' proposed creating a pan-Arab force to invade Lebanon and destroy Hezbullah with US and NATO air and sea power backing them up.
The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan.

It would have marked a return of US forces to Lebanon almost three decades after they fled in the wake of the 1983 suicide attack on US marine barracks in Beirut that killed 299 American and French military personnel.

Faisal, in a US cable marked secret, emphasised the need for what he referred to as a "security response" to the military challenge to the Lebanon government from Hezbollah, the Shia militia backed by Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria.

The cable says: "Specifically, Saud argued for an 'Arab force' to create and maintain order in and around Beirut.

"The US and Nato would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as 'naval and air cover'. Saud said that a Hezbollah victory in Beirut would mean the end of the Siniora government and the 'Iranian takeover' of Lebanon."

The discussion came just days after Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon laid siege to Beirut, threatening the pro-western government of Fouad Siniora, after 17 months of street demonstrations.

Siniora survived, though only after making enormous concessions to Hezbollah. He was replaced by another pro-western leader, Saad Hariri, but Hezbollah remains a force in Lebanon, lionised by many Arabs after defeating Israel in the 2006 war along the Lebanese border.

According to the cable Saud argued that a Hezbollah victory against the Siniora government "combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front would be a disaster for the US and the entire region". Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was "entirely military" and the solution must be military as well. The situation called for an "Arab force drawn from Arab 'periphery' states to deploy to Beirut under the 'cover of the UN'."

Saud said Siniora strongly backed the idea but the only Arab countries aware of it were Egypt and Jordan, along with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding: "What would be the use?"
And J.E. Dyer has to feel vindicated by the news.
The question is what they plan to do with all these aircraft. During the Saddam Hussein years, the threat of land attack against Saudi Arabia was obvious. Today, it’s not. The Saudis are buying for a major armed conflict on land, but nothing indicates that Iran presents a threat of that kind. Iran isn’t prepared militarily to invade the Arabian Peninsula, either by land or sea, nor is it making the effort to be. Iran is building up its navy, missile forces, and nuclear options; its regional “power projection” effort on land is accomplished through sponsoring terrorism. But the counterinsurgency warfare model (e.g., the U.S.’s in Iraq) is inapplicable in this case: population numbers and terrain inhibit the rise on the Arabian Peninsula of insurgencies with the profile of Hezbollah or the Taliban. The number of modern systems the Saudis propose to purchase outstrips such a requirement considerably.

They can’t be contemplating the invasion of Iran, even as a counter to an Iranian attack. Numbers and terrain are decisively arrayed against that as well. Riyadh is buying an unusually large number of weapons with which to project power and fight a land campaign at a greater range than ever before – but the weapons are a mismatch for the likely dimensions of a confrontation with Iran.

Perhaps the Saudis see a potential need to fight Iran on Iraqi or Kuwaiti territory in the future. It would certainly have to be a distant future, given the substantial U.S. military presence in those countries. This expeditionary concept would also be highly uncharacteristic in Saudi strategic thinking.

But Riyadh may be arming as a regional rival to Iran – not for the defense of its own territory but as the leader of an Arab coalition, formed to gain ascendancy over Iran as the power broker in the Levant. Western analysts tend to miss the fact that Iran’s moves against Israel constitute a plan to effectively occupy territory that the Arab nations consider theirs to fight for. The concerns on both sides are more than ethnic and historical: they involve competing eschatological ideas.
Hmmm.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Israel sought to block military sales to Saudi Arabia

We were told that Israel would not seek to block that $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia because there was no point to trying. Now, thanks to Wikileaks, we know that we were told wrong (Hat Tip: Martin Kramer). This cable that summarizes a meeting that took place on November 17, 2009 at which Israel did try to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It was something called the Executive Session of the 40th Joint Political Military Group (JPMG) and the discussion was about maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge (QME).
4. (S) The GOI continued to express concern over the F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia. U.S. participants noted that the USG is unable to provide more detailed information about the sale until Saudi Arabia officially sends a Letter of Request (LOR). The GOI expressed additional concerns about stationing these new aircraft at Tabuk airfield in the northwest corner of Saudi Arabia -- close to the Israeli border. U.S. participants stated the USG understanding that this should not be an issue, as the Saudis are considering stationing new Typhoon aircraft at Tabuk. The GOI also raised AMRAAM sales to Jordan; U.S. participants explained that the new C-7 AMRAAM is an export version with capabilities similar to the C-5 version -- and therefore provides little to no increase in capabilities.
Hmmm.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The return of bipartisanship?

Here's some encouraging news from the US House of Representatives. A bipartisan group of 198 representatives has signed a letter raising concerns about the $60 billion arms package to the Saudis.
In a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, 198 representatives voiced a range of complaints about Saudi policies, and said they “would like to know how these sales will affect Israel’s qualitative military edge.”

House members aren’t likely to block the deal, officials said, but would like conditions applied to the sales to try to prevent the weaponry from potentially being used against Israel, US or allied forces.

Lawmakers noted, for example, that the administration could require modifications in aircraft guidance systems and other electronics to make it harder for the weapons to be used against Israeli targets. The US also could require that the aircraft be based in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia, to provide Israel time to prepare for defense in the event of an attack, lawmakers said.

The letter was primarily the work of House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., and ranking minority committee member US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif. [pictured with tefillin. CiJ], who signed the letter, said he was optimistic that the administration will be able to meet the lawmakers’ requests because of the leverage provided by the deal.

“This giant weapons sale is obviously critical to Saudi national security,” he said.

...

The group of lawmakers raising questions included both liberal and conservative members, and the letter faulted several Saudi policies. They complained that Riyadh has not moved to normalize relations with Israel, has lagged on financial support to the Palestinian Authority and has not done enough to try to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons program.
It would be nice if support for Israel went back to being bipartisan. Unfortunately, the White House still has to get with the program.

Labels: , ,

Google