Battle for the soul of al-Maliki, etc.

I guess by the time I get up Thursday, here in Virginia, we’ll know whether Bush was finally able to persuade Maliki to meet him at least once.
This, while of course his own political allies back home, the Sadrists, have pulled their people out of the government already just for the mere fact that he has gone to Jordan with the apparent intention of meeting Bush…
I feel quite sorry for this Kerensky-like figure (Maliki). After all, remember that back during the political battles waged by Khalilzad during the long early months of this year, Maliki ended up being “the Americans’ choice” as PM. They anointed him. Then there were six months of terrible additional US stumblings and escalations inside Iraq.
And now Bush wants to meet Maliki face-to-face to put some direct pressure on him??
I think the best comment on the Hadley memo that was leaked today was the one Dan Froomkin wrote in mid-morning:

    The memo describes a guy who talks a good game, but is ultimately clueless and incompetent — and who has been lulled into believing that his rhetoric is true by a small circle of like-minded advisers.
    That’s Maliki.

(Of course, it could also have been Bush…)
On a different note, some folks have urged me to comment on this piece of blustering “opinion” written by Saudi royal adviser Nawaf Obeid in today’s WaPo. In the article Obeid is begging the US not to undertake any troop withdrawal from Iraq any time soon, and warns that if it does so then the internal pressure inside Saudi Arabia might force the government to launch its own “massive intervention” inside Iraq.
Some US commentators who don’t know the regional realities very well have been interpreting that as a threat of military intervention. It isn’t. Obeid knows very well that any such threat would be completely risible. He explains that what the “massive intervention” would consist of would be that the Kingdom would provide more support to support to former Baathists and other allied Sunni insurgents inside Iraq while perhaps also “flooding” the international oil market with huge new Saudi production in an attempt to drive prices down to the extent that the much-feared Iranians (whose armed forces are approximately 6 or 7 times the size of Saudi Arabia’s) would finally cry “Uncle.”
And Obeid thinks that that is any kind of a credible “threat”?
Well, I guess the poor old rulers of Saudi Arabia must feel they have to do do (or at least say) something. Their population is by all accounts simply seething with anger over the present situations in Iraq and Palestine. But something Obeid only very indirectly alludes to in his piece is that, by all the accounts that I’ve heard, most of that anger seems to be directed against the US government.
Badger also makes this point well, in this quick survey on his blog of coverage in a couple of important Saudi newspapers today (Wednesday).
His bottom line there is that, according to these newspapers,

    [T]the underlying problem has a name, and the name is Bush.
    Which in turn suggests that the Saudi intelligensia (can I use that word?) perhaps sees itself more in the role of a critical observer, than in the role of the half-crazed partisan which is so often assigned to them.

Good summary.
Tomorrow will be an interesting day. Which way will Maliki finally end up bending– toward Bush or toward the Sadrists and, probably, most of his own political instincts? (And does his decision on this make any difference at this point, anyway? Actually, yes, I believe it does, a little– but it affects mainly the speed of the ongoing collapse of the US position in Iraq, not its direction.)
And talking of timelines, we now finally have one for the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s report… which is to be one week from today, December 6. There have been a number of indications that the report will recommend that the administration open talks on Iraq, within some format, with both Syria and Iran.
Because I think the risk of a military attack on Iran is much greater before the ISG makes its report public than it will be after their recommendations become the main item on the US agenda, I think we all need to be very careful indeed over the next seven days.
For now, though, bed-time. Gotta be ready to see what happens tomorrow.

10 thoughts on “Battle for the soul of al-Maliki, etc.”

  1. most of that anger seems to be directed against the US government.
    Helena, what’s wrong with that?
    Is it US game or not? US should take all the blame for what they did in the region there are no excuses whatsoever no to say it US made chaos.

  2. What to make of the putative threat raised by Obeid of using the “oil weapon” to drive down oil prices and pressure Iran? They deny it, but there are good reasons to suspect that the Saudis are currently producing at close to full capacity. In particular, it’s strong suspected that their largest (and the world’s largest) field, Ghawar, is now in decline. If they really are such swing producers, why haven’t they already intervened? In all likelihood, because they can’t, at least not on a sustained basis.

  3. Helena
    Despite your pessimism, I am not seeing any of the signs that precede major military action.
    These normally include press comments in the direction that all options have been exhausted.
    Despite the comments outlined here there are still 7000 Brits within Artillery range of the Iranians and they would be warned to dig in and pray.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TIHOO1BQWSG45QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk30.xml
    A good question to ask is where the USS Enterprise is. USS Eisenhower took over from her in 5th Fleet on 1 November.
    The lack of enthusiasm from the NATO allies for providing troops for Afghanistan indicates that upsetting a neighbouring country and making things worse would not be a sensible move.
    Of course logic and reason may not be the drivers in Washington, so I might be wrong.

  6. Salah, I’m not saying there’s anything “wrong” with the fact that many or most Arabs are angry with the US government. I’m extremely angry with the US government myself, and can quite understand the anger of Arabs.
    What i should perhaps have spelled out in what I wrote is that this fact runs counter to the narrative that smany militarists and neocons in this country have been trying to spin– namely that many/most Arabs are angry primarily with Iran. There has after all been a very systematic attempt by the Olmert government and its followers inside the US to try to stir up huge distrust, tension, and enmity between the Arab countries and Iran. (As we saw, for example, in ceommentaries and statement issued during the 33-day war in Lebanon.)
    That makes the on-the-ground reporting of people from Saudi Arabia (and also Jordan) that no, in fact most of the people in those countries are angry primarily with the US, that much more significant.
    Frank, thanks for your points there. I think I’m starting to ramp down my personal “threat level” somewhat, but am still gathering evidence…

  8. Helena,
    Thanks for your clarification, although I agree with what saying but I am honestly not supporting and against any war with Iran or nay nation that having problem to live with their neighbours peacefully.
    What I try to say is the Gulf States they have their right to fear from Iran moreover they had their experiences from the pasts with Iran
    1- Khomeini first thing he tried exporting his revolution to neighbours countries despite his speeches of wiping Israeli from the map.
    2- Iran invaded and occupied three Islands from Bahrain in 1975 during Shah regime, and till now the Mullahs insisting on holding it forever even most the Gulf States and Saudis made many efforts for solving the differences in a diplomatic ways and peaceful means in addition the Gulf States tried to take the case to the International Tribunal but Iran warring them and threaten them.
    from all above and due to internal Iranian penetrations into the Gulf societies which cause another worry in the gulf area these Arabs feeling stressed and worried from Iran because Iran never showing friendly attitude toward the Arabs.
    For US its very easy to win their support and using them to support their goals in the region which part of any power players for the domination in the region, like what we saw when the Gulf stand behind Saddam in his war with Iran in 1980 for 8yeras and supported him despite non of these regimes in the Gulf love him.
    Kuwaiti Emir Urges U.S. to Stay in Iraq

  9. Helena;
    Can I weigh in with you and Salah?
    It would be a mistake to think the spin is isolated to militarist and neo-con in America, to spin the threat of Iran in Arab streets.
    The Salafi Ulema of Saudi, themselves are spinning the Arab/ Persian divide, as well as the Sunni/Shiite divide and downplay the King’s logistical support of America to wage war in Iraq in the early stages and in general. After the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon, the Salafi Ulema essential delivered fatwas against Hizbullah, essentially saying to Sunnis it is forbidden to support them, but reverse themselves a little after seeing the grass-root support in the Arab streets.
    Salafism is obsessed not with infidels but with what they see as misguided Muslim, making the Shiites very easy targets, giving the Sufis a break for a minute anyway. The Shia and their growing influence is a perceived as a big threat for the Salafis
    The Kingdom and U.S appears to acting in unison on this issue, which explains the President and VP recent trips to the Middle East trying to court the Sunnis Countries and even the administration talking to Iraqi Sunni insurgents to undermine Shia-ism, Iran and their influence in Iraq and Lebanon for that matter.

  10. Pat Lang shares your apprehensions, Helena. In a recent short blog post he said the American military command needs to secure the troops and embassy staff in the Green Zone — NOW! (in red letters, caps and exclamation point) It raised a lot of speculation among his readership but, uncharacteristically, he didn’t come back to the thread to answer the many questions put to him.

Comments are closed.