After reading two great diaries, Volvo Liberal's "Shocker: Most Foreign Militants in Iraq are from SAUDI ARABIA"" and deepsouthdoug's "Cheney--Winning Debate on War With Iran" I'll piggyback with info accumulated for awhile.
While the Bush administration contorts itself around the evidence of failure in Iraq (or stands stiffly in the face of it), what is becoming clear is that "our" purposes are not just "ours" at all. In fact, we remain in Iraq not only for the oil, but we remain there because the House of Saud has ordered us to stay until the Iraqi Sunni minority regains power. It is also a fact, that Saudi Arabia demands we not engage diplomatically with Iran. Being good Saudi apologists and friends, the Cheney/Bush White House is more than happy to comply.
Flip~~
The Bush Family (Cheney and Rumsfeld schmoozefest)-House of Saud relationship is well documented. The Bush clan has been closely aligned with the Saudi Royalty for roughly 30 years, and the link features a great article for those who want to brush up.
A short primer on Saudi-Iran relations before the jist:
In modern times, since Shiite militias took control of Iran in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution, Saudi Arabia and Iran have both desired to be the central power of the Islamic world. This shared goal is the benchmark in which to view Middle East political maneuverings. Traditionally, Arab states have been the power brokers in the region, typically with high Sunni majorities. In the past few years Iran, a solid Shiite majority, has created several alliances--with Syria, Hamas, Hezbbollah, and various factions in Iraq--to shift the power structure away from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. (These aren't necessarily "Shiite" alliances, as Syria and the Hamas organizations are both predominantly Sunni.) Thus, Iran is considered to be a formidable threat to Arab influence and domination, particularly in those countries with a high Shiite population.
Back in October of last year, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, commented to CNN that
"Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."
Shortly thereafter Vice President Dick Cheney’s visited Riyadh, and Saudi leaders reiterated their concerns. The Saudi position is that weakening the government in Iraq removed the only obstacle in the way of Iran to reach supremacy in the region, and that U.S. participation, while it lasts, is the force preventing Iran from taking over Iraq.
In December, 2006:
"Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats."
This is due to fears that the Sunni minority would be massacred by Shiite insurgents from Iran:
Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite."It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure," one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, "If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war."
The concern for Saudi Arabia is the loss of power and influence in Iraq with the loss of Sunni dominance. Therefore, it has put the pressure on the United States to not engage in diplomatic talks with Iran.
This concern has grown even more pressing since the publication of the Iraq Study Group's report that suggested that Washington should engage Iran and Syria in building a new, more stable regional order based on the stabilization of Iraq.
(above link).
Additionally, diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran would serve to reward Iran by establishing it in the eyes of the world as a key player in the region.
Iran's main tactic for power is to
weaken U.S. influence in the Middle East; this strategy requires eroding Saudi Arabia's regional power since Riyadh is Washington's key regional ally.
(same article).
March 5, 2007: Enter slippery Ahmadinejad, who seizes and builds upon a precarious situation when the opportunity presents itself. This (an Economist story) of course claims that we want Iran neutralized because of its nuclear threat, but the interesting angle is that Iran engaged Saudi Arabia in diplomatic dialogue--and Saudia Arabia accepted! Clearly not a move that instilled security and warm fuzzies within Saudi-US relations.
For the Saudi king to host Mr Ahmadinejad would seem, then, to represent a snub to American policy. That impression might be reinforced by the note of understanding signalled by the two leaders. According to the Saudi version, they agreed that the "greatest danger" facing Muslims is "the attempt to spread strife" between Sunnis and Shias, and that efforts should be made to close ranks. The blunter Iranian version said they had agreed to find ways to foil "the enemy's conspiracies" aimed at setting Muslims against each other.
(Italics mine).
Hmmm. What to make of this? Two enemies now united against one enemy--the US? Or a diplomatic shot across the bow from Saudi Arabia (you'd better not fucking leave until Sunni's are protected and back in power)? Or just another wacky stunt by Ahmadinejad?
Although official statements appear to be oriented toward positive relations, the geopolitical and ideological struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a reality inside the Middle East...Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is searching for a new, more incisive strategy to counter the Iranian challenge. As Iran continues to pursue increased power in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia will continue its attempts to subvert that power. The clash of power and interests between these two states will likely grow in the coming future."
Link here.
The plot thickens~~
ps: have to run out for awhile, but will get back to comments later--I'm on the west coast.