Sunni Shia relations 020907

Most relevant news, translated from Arabic

The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, and King Abdullah II, met in Jeddah yesterday, and spoke about the developments in the Middle East and ways to reactivate the peace process and solve the situation in Iraq, in addition to relations between the two countries. (Al Hayat)

Crown Prince, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was also attending the meeting as well as Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdel Elah al-Khatib who explained that there is a crucial dimension of the Saudi role, especially at this stage of the joint Arab action, through the Saudi leadership of the Arab summit.

His Majesty King Abdullah II and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz also showed support for the Palestinian position, and called on Israel to discuss the final status issues about refugees and borders in order to ensure the success of any efforts and arrangements aimed at finding a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian issue ( Al Ghad).

Saudis less trusting of America these days

Despite concerns, security of Saudi Arabia will continue to be a U.S. priority

By Lt. Col. Rick Francona

Aug. 31, 2007

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is increasing its oilfield security forces from 5,000 to 35,000. This dramatic increase in security, at considerable expense, is a response to changes in the geopolitical landscape brought about by the events of 2001 and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi Arabia no longer perceives the United States as the ultimate guarantor of its security as it did back in the 1990s.

When Saudi Arabia appeared to be the target of Saddam Hussein’s armies in August 1990, the United States deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to defend Saudi Arabia, Operation Desert Shield, and only later was the liberation of Kuwait, Operation Desert Storm, considered. The initial concern was the defense of the kingdom and of course, its vast oil facilities and the world’s largest proved reserves.

What has changed since then to make the Saudis wary of their American allies? The Saudis only have to look north and see the turmoil in Iraq and the toll it has taken on American public opinion about the presence of American forces in the region. It is a two-edged sword for Riyadh. Not only do the Saudis believe the seemingly endless war in Iraq will result in the decline of American influence in the Persian Gulf region, they further believe it is ushering in the rise of Iranian power.

Over the years, Saudi Arabia has had ambivalent relations with Iran at best, and almost a war-like footing at worst. The two have always been at odds over who should be the power broker in the Persian Gulf. Note that only the Iranians call it the Persian Gulf and the Arabs refer to it as the Arab Gulf. Most of our politically-correct maps these days call it “The Gulf.”

Shifting American interests

American policy prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran was to engage both Iran and Saudi Arabia, the “twin pillars” strategy. Of course, after the fall of the Shah, our policy changed to ensuring the security of the Saudi monarchy-theocracy, despite its lack of democratic procedures and a poor human rights record. During the "twin pillars" days, the United States could press for reforms in the kingdom. That ability, however, was removed with the Shah. Stability in Saudi Arabia became even more vital to American foreign policy interests. Our policy focus became the free flow of oil from the Gulf, rather than democratic reforms in the kingdom.

America's continued mishandling of the war in Iraq provides a real opportunity for Iran to make a play to become the key power in the Gulf region, and Tehran has taken full advantage. Iranian special forces teams are operating in Iraq supporting and arming Shia militias, including that of Muqtada al-Sadr. It continues to expand its military and develop additional capabilities, including longer-range missile systems, and has embarked on what almost every rational thinker believes is a nuclear weapons program.

The rulers of Saudi Arabia, the House of Sa’ud, are increasingly concerned that the United States may not be willing to play a stabilizing role in the region, especially if a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq hands Iran a victory and breeds a new isolationist attitude in the minds of most Americans. The Saudis likely assess that in the not too distant future, it will be forced to defend itself from threats foreign and domestic. Who can blame them?

Understanding Saudi Arabia's al-Qaida connection

Saudi Arabia, incubator of many of the world’s most infamous terrorists, now also finds itself in the crosshairs of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden openly declared war on the royal family, which was off limits for the group for many years. Although the royal family had been despised by bin Laden since the late King Fahd invited American troops to the holy ground, the continuous flow of money from wealthy Saudis to al-Qaida was critical for the group’s survival. When Saudi authorities responded to American demands that they choke off the funds, al-Qaida reacted.

Bin Laden has publicly called for attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. In February 2006 there was a failed attack on the huge Abqaiq oil processing compound, an attack that awakened the Saudis to the vulnerability of their oil facilities. It also indicated al-Qaida’s intent to damage the oil infrastructure as an attack on both the Kingdom and the West.

The Saudis believe they have threats from two fronts, al-Qaida and Iran. They also are wary of American resolve to ensure their security. Is that assessment valid? Perhaps it should be of concern to them but the bottom line is that the security of Saudi Arabia was, is, and will be, a vital interest of the United States for some time to come. While there are questions about our policy in Iraq, there are none about the importance of the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.

Source : MSNBC

Gulf Arabs accept Iran offer for talks on free trade pact

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AFP) — Pro-Western Gulf Arab monarchies have agreed to an Iranian offer to launch talks on a possible free trade pact, the secretary general of their oil-rich bloc said on Saturday.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers in the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah discussed a letter from their Iranian counterpart "regarding Iran's readiness to reach a free trade agreement with GCC member states," Abdurrahman al-Attiyah told reporters after their meeting.

Attiyah said that in light of the letter from Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki, "it was agreed to express the readiness of GCC states to engage in negotiations to conclude an agreement to set up a free trade zone" with the Islamic republic.

He said the issue would be referred to the financial and economic cooperation committee of the GCC, which groups Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Attiyah's remarks at a news conference after the ministerial meeting were aired on the Saudi news channel Al-Ikhbariya.

A statement issued after the meeting called for a peaceful resolution of Iran's standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear programme, and urged Tehran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Source: AFP

Bush Is Said to Approve More Aid to Iraqi Sunnis Battling Extremist Groups

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — President Bush, marshaling his arguments to maintain current troop levels in Iraq, has approved the acceleration of a new program to intensify economic assistance directly to Sunni Arab regions where former insurgents have joined American forces in fighting extremist Sunni groups, senior American officials say.

The move, which has been gathering momentum for several months, was discussed at length on Friday at a Pentagon session attended by Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior American commanders in Iraq, the officials said.

The shift is focused on Anbar Province, once a hotbed of attacks on American forces, where local Sunni militias have now turned against the homegrown insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and its allies and are increasingly receiving support, within informal “neighborhood watch” groups, directly from American troops.

During Mr. Bush’s visit to the Pentagon on Friday, he also heard a presentation by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, that appeared to preview much of what he will tell Congress when he gives his Iraq progress report scheduled in nine days.

But that discussion quickly focused on an issue Mr. Bush and his aides are accused of mishandling after the invasion: making sure that Sunnis are empowered and that they receive a share of the funds that flow from Baghdad, where Shiite leaders have seen their moment for revenge against their former oppressors under Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Mr. Bush and his commanders weighed whether to reward the Sunnis with early provincial elections, restoring a degree of political power to them. But calling elections is no longer within the power of the United States, and the Shiite-dominated national government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has long opposed empowering the Sunnis.

They also discussed ways to pressure Mr. Maliki’s government to provide millions of dollars in Iraqi funds — much of it oil money — to reconstruction of Anbar’s schools and health care centers and the reopening of state-run factories.

“This is all about finding ways to circumvent Maliki,” said one senior official who is involved in preparing Mr. Bush’s presentation of a new strategy, which will probably come in an address to the country after General Petraeus and the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, have presented their report to Congress starting on Sept. 10. “We can’t go to the Hill again and say Maliki will perform if we just give him the space. He won’t. So you find other means to accomplish the goal.”

But circumventing a central government that the United States itself set up is unlikely to prove easy. In the end, it is the new Iraqi government that has control of the country’s treasury, and determining when to hold elections around the country is a subject the Iraqi Parliament has not been able to agree upon.

“There is an effort to accelerate the bottom-up reconciliation,” said one Defense Department official who declined to speak on the record. “The idea is to capitalize on the unexpected progress made at the provincial level through the Sunni awakening and efforts to work with former insurgents. We are increasing Iraqi and American money being invested in the provinces.”

The money would come, the official said, by spending State Department funds through provincial reconstruction teams, which are finally being deployed in significant numbers. Some would come from American military commanders, who have emergency funds at their disposal, and some from a Department of Defense program to generate jobs by revitalizing state-owned industries — a reversal of the privatization effort begun by American forces four years ago.

The reduction in attacks on Americans in Anbar, according to current and recently departed officials, has fueled a new optimism in the White House that Republican defections from Mr. Bush’s overall Iraq policy will be limited, and that Democrats will once again find themselves unable to assemble the votes to cut off financing or force an early withdrawal of troops.

But Mr. Bush’s argument that Anbar is a locus of progress has drawn fire from Democrats and critics of his war strategy, who say that he is picking out a single tactical accomplishment and ignoring broader strategic failures that have been documented by the intelligence community, the Government Accountability Office and an independent commission examining the Iraqi military and police.

The president is expected to argue that what has happened in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in Diyala Province and other places, and that to pull back now — and fail to reward the Sunnis in Anbar — would halt the first significant gains that American forces had made against the insurgency in four years.

Officials were cautious about discussing Friday’s Pentagon meeting. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were said to have used it to hear a variety of viewpoints, officials said, including lengthy descriptions from the Joint Chiefs about how the increase in forces is unsustainable beyond spring without extending the tours of forces already in Iraq. Several aides to Mr. Bush have said in recent weeks that such extensions are so politically unpalatable that they are not under consideration unless an emergency breaks out requiring the use of American forces elsewhere in the world.

But Mr. Bush, they said, is also unlikely to wait until April to begin the drawdown. If he does so, he would have to pull troops out at the same pace at which he sent them this year, about a brigade a month, the officials said.

By beginning a drawdown slightly earlier, the officials say, Mr. Bush would both maximize his flexibility and avoid having to stick to a strict timeline for withdrawal, which the president has said in the past would signal to enemy forces exactly when and how quickly American forces would begin to leave.

Source : NYT