More thoughts on Prince Turki al-Faisal and the Iraq war

After a day of reading and listening and pondering, I've come up with a few more observations on the Great Turki Scoot. First, three points:

1. Many articles portray Prince Turki al-Faisal as cooler toward W than was his predecessor, Prince "Bandar Bush." But Bandar himself had become alienated from our current president, primarily in response to Israel's ghastly treatment of the Palestinians. One does not have to read very closely between the lines of Bob Woodward's State of Denial to see that Bandar was the source for some of the most humiliating anti-Shrub anecdotes.

If Bush managed to annoy "Bandar Bush," imagine how Turki al-Faisal must feel. Imagine how everyone in Saudi Arabia must feel.

2. Never forget that line from Network: "The Arabs have taken billions from this country and they must put it back." Our economy depends on Saudi Arabia -- not just on their oil, but also on their re-invested dollars.

At the same time that Turki abruptly decided to "spend time with his family," the Saudis put in a $2 billion order for new jetliners. The gig went to European aerospace firms, not to Boeing. A foretaste of things to come...?

3. The Saudis are not happy about the prospect of impending American withdrawal from Iraq. As Sadrist Shi'ites gain ever-increasing power in Iraq, the Saudis have no choice but to defend Iraqi Sunnis.

Some Dems who opposed the war have begun to think twice about the ramifications of sudden disengagement. They may be worried about Saudi reaction. Like it or not, the Saudis control a large chunk of our economy.

One key indicator of the Prince's thinking -- and of his standing in his homeland -- occurred on November 29, when his advisor Nawaf Obaid published an important opinion piece in the Washington Post.

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there.

The implication is clear. If American soldiers vacate, Iraq turns into the staging area for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And what would happen then?

Interestingly, one result might be lower oil prices. If Saudi Arabia forced a price reduction, Tehran would feel a lot more pain than would Riyadh.

From the American point of view, this option may sound pretty good: Cheap gas and the return of our boys. Heck, the Republicans may even be able to swing a McCain victory in 2008.

However, the rulers of Saudi Arabia fired Obaid shortly after he published that piece. And now his boss, Prince Turki, has left his post with frightening speed. We cannot presume that Turki himself made this decision.

That reaction makes one thing clear: The rulers of Saudi Arabia do not want war -- proxy war or the other kind -- with Iran. The Saudis don't want the bloodshed and they don't want the low oil prices. Most of all, they don't want the instability. Their rule is already shaky, and they've seen how an unpopular war affected W's hold on power.

That scenario sounds pretty bad -- but believe it or not, worse things can happen. What if the Americans don't withdraw? What if they choose sides in the Iraqi civil war?

What if the Administration backs the Shi'ites? This was "Option 2" in the leaked Hadley memo.

Word has it that Dick Cheney favors this option. No doubt, he discussed it at some length during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia. If you feel, as I feel, that Dick Cheney still makes American foreign policy, then growing evidence of a Saudi-U.S. rift takes on very ominous overtones.

Why? Because if we favor conquest by Iraq's Shi'ites, then Saudi Arabia would feel obligated to protect Iraq's Sunnis. Objectively speaking, Saudi Arabia would be at war with the United States.

We might not be fighting Saudi troops directly. But the rulers of Saudi Arabia possess two very formidable weapons which they could use against us: High oil prices and an avoidance of all American investment.

That kind of warfare could destroy the American economy.

I think the Saudis would prefer for American troops to stay in Iraq and somehow engineer a just peace between the warring parties. That won't happen. The first option -- quick American withdrawal, a bloody civil war in Iraq, proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran -- would be a disaster. That course of action could well destabilize the entire region in favor of the jihadists.

But Option 2 is even worse.

Watch oil prices. That indicator will tell you how this narrative will play out. So far, signs look bad.