In interviews last week, current and former intelligence and military officials portrayed the growing instability of the Saudi regime—and the vulnerability of its oil reserves to terrorist attack—as the most immediate threat to American economic and political interests in the Middle East. The officials also said that the Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, is refusing to confront this reality, even in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Well ... exactly what should they do to confront this reality?
Mind, it's rather more urgent that Saudi Arabia confront it than that we do. With an increasingly fundamentalist and startlingly young population, if they don't do something (other than hiding from the US, that is), the royal family will be overthrown, and we'll not do a thing to help them. (I daresay we may have learned something from the fall of the Shah of Iran. To the House of Saud's detriment.)
And purely as a side note ... it will be fascinating to see how Saudi Arabia reacts not only to publication of interpretation of these intercepts, but the intercepts themselves. Of course, they have to have known, or at least suspected, that the US was monitoring their communications; you don't have that much influence over Great Powers without being a Great Powers and not expect them to watch you closely. (Which is to say, they're probably being monitored by Europe, and possibly Russia, as well.) But most governments can't tolerate such monitoring becoming known, certainly not in this kind of detail.
Another interesting side note: Saudi Arabia as a financial backer of the opposition in Afghanistan in the 80s. Much the position they find themselves in now, in fact. They have to be hoping that the go-between people get themselves killed pretty soon, I'd think.
According to someone who saw the report, it concluded that with only a small amount of explosives terrorists could take the oil fields off line for two years.
Well, DUH. I'm sorry: what thinking person did not know this? How long did it take Kuwait to come back together after the Iraqis deliberately destroyed many of its oil wells? An object lesson isn't enough any more?
Frankly, I can't see how the current regime can possibly "make a transition" of any sort, or how we could help. We don't want the people who would likely take over, and the House of Saud would likely not tolerate becoming a purely symbolic monarchy -- with the restriction in influence and funds that such a transition would imply. A democratic monarchy of some sort would be nice, yes, but a functioning democracy requires education of the general populace at a level that doesn't exist there.
Basically, all current positions for both the US and the House of Saud are thoroughly untenable. It's not likely that the people who would take over the government would destroy the oil fields -- although they are likely to drive the foreigners out. After all, what good does it do to take over the country and then cripple it economically and ecologically? How long would you last, especially if the military is as weak and indolent as it might appear?
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!