What it boils down to

[desrt]

For those who are keeping track at home:

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the Sunni and Shiite superpowers in the region. A lot of what goes on in these other countries is a proxy war.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/kerry-courts-saudis-what-might-they-do-n142091




As Kerry Courts Saudis, What Might They Do?


How important is Saudi Arabia to the United States as chaos erupts in Iraq? At least two straight days of meetings could give some insight.

Secretary of State John Kerry is in Jeddah on Friday for talks with King Abdullah on the crises around the region, especially the rampaging threat in Iraq from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

It will be the second meeting in as many days with representatives from the kingdom. Kerry also met on Thursday with Saudi Arabia's foreign minister in France.

Both countries have touted the need for cooperation, but little real progress appears to have been made as Iraq continues to descend into chaos.

Here is a rundown on what to expect out of one of our closest, and most enigmatic, partners in the region.


Why is Saudi Arabia so important in this conflict?

Saudi Arabia plays a pivotal role in the Iraq crisis. ISIS fills its ranks and coffers with the help from individual Saudis who share their Sunni heritage, even though ISIS is no fan of Riyadh’s cozy relationship with the U.S.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government last week pointed the finger squarely at Saudi Arabia for "supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that — which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide,” but the reality is more nuanced.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called the accusations “ludicrous.” But while it is highly unlikely that the Saudi government is supporting ISIS in any official way, it is very likely that individual wealthy Saudis are.


According to an analysis this week from the Washington Institute, Saudi donors are encouraged to funnel their money to ISIS through Kuwait.

Saudi Arabia, which already has outsized pull in the region, is also a majority Sunni state. That connection with the ISIS militants could give Riyadh more diplomatic leverage should the militant group ever opt for dialogue over terror and violence.


How could they help fight ISIS?

Turning off all avenues of support coming from their country, whether it’s Saudi nationals joining the group or terror funding, would be a good start.

But some say ISIS doesn’t need any more Saudi money.

They’ve already looted millions of dollars from Iraqi cities, along with ancient artifacts and, more importantly, heavy military equipment captured when Iraqi security forces abandoned their posts.

And earlier this week, U.S. officials told NBC News that while ISIS gets some money from foreign donors, that amount "pales to what they get from extortion, robbery, kidnapping."


What does the U.S./Kerry want from them?

On Thursday in Paris, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Faisal, Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh.

After the meeting, a senior State Department official said they were asking those countries for help with ISIS in Iraq “as a general matter, although it didn’t come up in these particularly meetings — in our general interactions with these countries, we talk about things like shutting down (ISIS) facilitation networks, funding sources — although we don’t believe that any of these governments at the government level is providing any funding to groups like (ISIS)."


What are the Saudis actually likely to do?

Saudi Arabia has the luxury of not necessarily needing to act swiftly, as it’s highly unlikely that ISIS will soon threaten its borders. Moreover, rising global oil prices as a result of the chaos means the conflict isn't financially hurting the state, and there is little love in Riyadh for the Shiite-dominated Maliki administration.

“Irrespective fears of a likely ISIS threat, Saudi Arabia shows little interest in supporting the Maliki government,” said Veryan Khan, with the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium. “King Abdullah has repeatedly refused to meet with Maliki, as he views the Iraqi president as a puppet in the hands of Iran and Hezbollah.”

“When it looks to the north, it is unclear what the Saudi government sees,” wrote analyst Patrick Skinner from the Soufan Group in an intelligence brief this week. “In the near-term, it is difficult to overstate the deep animosity that Riyadh has towards Tehran. Saudi Arabia likely doesn't want instability on its borders but it might tolerate it for a while if it weakens Iranian influence over Iraq.”

The Saudis are also adding pressure on Iraq to form a new government made up more equally of Shiites and Sunnis.

The State Department official said the ministers at the Paris meeting had “concerns about the lack of inclusivity of the current Iraqi leadership.”

There’s no guarantee, however, that an upheaval in the Iraqi leadership now would lead to anything but more chaos.


What do Saudis have to lose if the conflict gets out of hand?

The Saudis, and all other countries in the region, fear that the conflict could spread like a virus: Radicalized nationals going to the front lines, getting training in terror tactics, then coming home to practice what they learned.

“No doubt they’re cheering the recent Sunni insurgency because they see it as a blow to Iranian ambitions. But the danger is that groups like (ISIS) are also very anti-Saudi,” said Alireza Nader, Senior Policy Analyst with the Rand Corporation.

“There were leaflets passed out in Riyadh (on car doors and windshields) promoting ISIS last month,” added Khan. “The leaflets warned against Muslims with 'fake beards' but are really the enemy,” said Khan. “ISIS sees the House of Saud as corrupt who promotes Islamic rule at home but have close ties to the U.S."

[mikesimon]

Zakaria:

U.S. position on Iraq incoherent

CNN speaks with Fareed about the prospects for a unity government in Iraq, the roles of Iran and Syria, and what the United States can and should do.

With the U.S. saying we're not going get involved with air strikes right now, that our response is going to be very, very limited, does that create a vacuum where Syria and Iran were bound to get involved?

Well, I think that they were bound to get involved anyway and they’ve been involved for the last several years. The thing we’ve got to remember is that we think of the Middle East in terms of borders that are real and hard. And we think of it in terms of dictators and democrats. What's really happening in that part of the world is a sectarian war between the Shias and the Sunnis.

This crosses all borders, so that ISIS is battling the Shia government in Baghdad. It's battling what it regards as essentially a Shia government in Syria. It's an Alawite regime, but it's basically considered a heretical regime. So they’ve got the same enemy. The Iranians, the Syrians and the Iraqi government all see ISIS as their enemy. We are the ones who come in with the complication. We say, well, we sort of like the Iraqi government because it's sort of democratic, but we don't like the Syrian government because it's a dictatorship, and we don't like the Iranians.

But our position is incoherent. And I don't mean this about the Obama administration. I mean it about U.S. policy, because we’re trying to overlay this idea that we bring to the party, which is, there’s going to be democracy and pluralism.

That's not what's going on there. This is a Shia-Sunni fight. And if you get involved, you're picking a side.

So you could say Syria, Iran, all this extra complication could be an argument just for saying it’s such a mess, another reason we shouldn't be there.

Look, one very realpolitik way to look at this would be to say, a lot of bad guys are killing each other, that this isn’t entirely bad for the United States.

Hezbollah, for example – a terrorist group that we really don't like – is busy trying to support the Syrian government and perhaps even helping the Iraqi governments. The Iranians' Revolutionary Guard is in there. All these guys are being distracted from doing all the bad stuff we worry about because they're helping their friends. You know, at the very least, let some of this sort itself out before we jump in there, as I say, with our very different notions.

And yes, if we’re going to have 600,000 troops and impose order, maybe we can remake this region. But otherwise, let's just watch for a little while.

Let's talk about one group that the United States would like to see acting more – the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who did deliver that speech where he essentially said, no, I'm not going to form a unity government here. I know you want it, United States, but no thanks, I don't think I will right now. What does that say right now about the U.S. influence on that government?

Look, we tried to get him to do this when we had 150,000 troops in Iraq. The United States, Washington pressed him, and al-Maliki was pretty unyielding at that point.

What we’ve got to remember, again, this is really democracy in action in the sense that al-Maliki wins by appealing to the Shiites. And his worry, and the reason he gave that speech, is he needs Shiite allies. And he's worried about his right. He's got a Tea Party – it's called Muqtada al-Sadr. And that guy isn't going to support him if he makes nice to the Sunnis. So he's trying to figure out how he can cobble together a stable majority in parliament.

And al-Maliki is to blame for all this. I'm not justifying, but I'm explaining to you, even in Iraq, there’s a real sectarian war even in the ballot box.

Have President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry given al-Maliki a condition that he will never meet or can never meet?

He could meet it. I think the realistic scenario would have been if a long time ago the Bush administration hadn't chosen al-Maliki and these hard-line Shia parties. But we are where we are. At this point, it would be tough for al-Maliki – it would go against his nature. You are asking him…for 25 years, this guy has been a hard-line Shiite sectarian politician.

People forget, when he was in exile from Saddam Hussein's regime, he lived in Iran. He lived in Damascus. He was funded by the Iranians. So now to say to him become an inclusive, pluralistic democrat – that's not who he is.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/26/zakaria-u-s-position-on-iraq-incoherent/?hpt=hp_bn2

[mikesimon]

Thanks for the insight.