Leaving it at a mess, that old US tradition
Robert Fisk, a multiple award-winning journalist on the Middle East and currently based in Beirut, in a recent piece for The Independent wrote, “So after the grotesquerie of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide killers of 9/11, meet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.” (Published June 12, 2014) Whoa! No punches held here. He states further, “The story of Iraq and the story of Syria are the same – politically, militarily and journalistically: two leaders, one Shia, the other Alawite, fighting for the existence of their regimes against the power of a growing Sunni Muslim international army. While the Americans support the wretched Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his elected Shia government in Iraq, the same Americans still demand the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his regime, even though both leaders are now brothers-in-arms against the victors of Mosul and Tikrit.”
Interestingly, it was as early as January 2007 that the Saudis had told Zalmay Khalilzad, the American Envoy at that time, that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, was not to be trusted. Documents to prove the same were submitted. Zalmay Khalilzad was quick to launch a protest with the King of Saudi Arabia that the documents were forged. The Bush administration was far from happy at Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, which was offering financial cushion to Maliki’s opposing forces and framing the Iraqi prime minister as being an Iranian front person. Further, roughly half of the foreign fighters entering Iraq on a monthly basis hailed from Saudi Arabia. Their number ranges between 30 and 40. Inspite of this the US has not confronted Saudi Arabia, an ally to US on many global issues, openly.
In a piece in The New York Times, “The Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Saudi Arabia months ago made a pitch to enlist other Persian Gulf countries to take a direct role in supporting Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, said one former American ambassador with close ties to officials in the Middle East. The former ambassador, Edward W Gnehm, who has served in Kuwait and Jordan, said that during a recent trip to the region he was told that Saudi Arabia had pressed other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — which includes Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to give financial support to Sunnis in Iraq.” (July 2007)
The ISIS fighting successfully today in Iraq reportedly has the backing of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. There is an opinion that ISIS may have been a part of the covert operations in Syria of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States. The fact that John Kerry travelled to Saudi Arabia on July 27, 2014, to discuss the situation in Iraq and the threat posed by ISIS both in Iraq and Syria, lends credibility to the claim.
Maliki, on France 24 television channel late on Saturday, March 8, 2014, accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of openly funding the Sunni Muslim insurgents in western Anbar province: “I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them. I accuse them of leading an open war against the Iraqi government. I accuse them of openly hosting leaders of al Qaeda and Takfirists (extremists).”
Saudi Arabia may have a number of reasons for their involvement in Iraq. One, a Shi’ite government in Iraq coupled with American invasion may lead to closer relations with Iran, more especially under the present changing political relationship, wary, but nonetheless changing, between Iran and the US. Two, Shia and Sunni warfare has engulfed many countries in their proxy games. Iraq is one of the playgrounds. Three, the Saudis never accepted a Shi’ite government in a predominant Sunni Iraq.
A report by the Associated Press in 2006 said that wealthy Saudis have contributed millions of dollars to Iraq’s Sunni insurgents mostly to buy state of the art weapons. Saudi government has denied the report. However, the report states, “But the US Iraq Study Group report said Saudis were a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by the Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.”
Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, told the AP that most of the Saudi money came from private donations, called zakat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.” (Published December 8, 2006) In another report by CBS News (Published May 26, 2008), the Iraqi military exposed teenagers who were being trained for suicide bombing by a Saudi militant, the threat held over their heads was of the rape of their mothers and sisters should they refuse to fall in line.
Fast forwarding to present, ISIS’s takeover of Mosul brought with it a goldmine (literally) to the ISIS in the form of assets of the Mosul Central Bank, large enough not to be sneezed at – $500 million and a large heist of gold. Further, ISIS already has under its control the 310,000 barrel-a-day Baiji refinery, Iraq’s largest refinery. This windfall makes ISIS independent of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, at least financially. Sectarian violence has bloomed.
Iraqi state television announced that the Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki turned down international appeals to accommodate Sunni insurgents in governing Iraq. In light of what I’ve written, I’m not very surprised. He is open though to starting a debate in Parliament within a specified timeframe to work out modalities to form a national government. In my last week’s op-ed I had dwelled upon the desire of the US to form a government on the three main Iraqi communities: Shi’ites, Kurds and the Sunnis. According to a report, the US believes Iran is flying drones in Iraqi airspace to collect intelligence on the ISIS. Another report states that the Syrian Army had sent their warplanes bombing the predominantly Sunni settlements on the western Iraq side. This is a serious involvement by Syria in Iraq.
So even if, and I mean a big IF, Maliki crumbles under international pressure and agrees to take Sunnis and Kurds on board, how long will it last? A diplomatic solution to the present malaise seems difficult. The day this op-ed is published is the deadline given by a leading Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani for a new prime minister to be chosen by Iraqi leaders. Iraqi army, reportedly trained at the cost of roughly $25 billion (local news report), was unable to handle insurgency on ground in the north once Mosul fell and the insurgency gained momentum.
Tailpiece: The US must learn from history if it will, to quote from Terrell E Arnold’s paper, “A US promised democracy has become Iraqi against Iraqi.” Award winning journalist Dave Lindorff, in his piece (06/19/2014) states, “Whatever one’s opinion of Maliki — and the truth is he has been a fairly typical Middle East strongman, brutally suppressing the Sunni minority on behalf of his Shia backers, and also playing hardball even against those Shia politicians who would be his rivals, including having them arrested — betrayal of allies noble and vile has of course been a long tradition in Washington.”
Invading a country is admittance of failure in dealing with a situation by more favourable means. Can the United Nations help without parroting US suggestions? Middle East is ready to blow up. Is the world ready for it?