Sibel, the Saudis and the future of Iraq

I'm a little ashamed to admit that I have neglected to recommend Sibel Edmonds' important new piece, "The Hijacking of a Nation" -- the first of two parts. She addresses the undue influence wielded by foreign nations as they lobby congressfolk and others.

Much of her discussion focuses on Saudi Arabia. The excellent documentary 911: Press for Truth (see ad on the right) implies that Pakistan was the nation censored from the 911 commission report. Edmonds, however, confirms our original suspicion that Senator Bob Graham was referring to Saudi Arabia in his cryptic pronouncements.

Of course, the Saudis have used Pakistan as a stalking horse in the past, especially in the development of nuclear technology:

Further, there are indications of Saudi’s active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

Why are we willing to initiate World War III over Iran's nuclear program, when we know that it was the Saudis who funded Pakistan's Islamic bomb and helped set up theA.Q. Kahn network?

We've heard many times that factions within the Saudi government have helped the terror network. How can we square this effort with the known fact that Osama has pledged to overthrow the Saudi dynasty?

If one has any talent for reading between the lines, one can tell that Bob Woodward used Saudi Prince Bandar as a key source for State of Denial. Although Michael Moore's conveyed the impression of eternal Bush/Bandar chumminess, Prince Bandar actually seems to view Dubya with no small measure of personal contempt -- a contempt, based, in part, on W's tendency to brag about his inglorious military service. More importantly, the Prince appears to have become angered by Dubya's coddling of Israeli aggression. Yet it seems clear that Israel supports the continuation of the Saudi dynasty as preferable to any likely alternatives.

Few have noticed that Saudi Arabia is now making noises about becoming directly involved with the Iraqi quagmire:

[Saudi advisor Nawaf] Obaid described widespread interference by Iranian security forces within Iraq. He urged Saudi Arabia, which is building a 560-mile wall on its border with Iraq, to warn Iran "that if these activities are not checked,” Saudi Arabia "will be forced to consider a similar overt and covert program of its own."

In Damascus, a Syrian analyst close to the Assad government warned that other countries would intervene if Iraq descended into full-scale civil war. “Iran will get involved, Turkey will get involved, Saudi Arabia, Syria,” said the analyst, who spoke on condition he not be identified further.

Many argue that the best solution would be a break-up of Iraq into constituent components -- indeed, that's what seems to be happening whether we like it or no. Yet any attempt to divide the nation seems destined to set off not just a civil war (with the India-Pakistan division providing a grim template) but also a region-wide conflict, as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia try to snatch various pieces of the Iraqi pie.

An American pull-out may ignite the largest war the Middle East has ever seen. Keeping our soldiers in place may have the same unhappy effect.

What to do?