As more and more diplomatic cables become available, and as real analysts review them, it will become increasingly [...]]]>
As more and more diplomatic cables become available, and as real analysts review them, it will become increasingly apparent that many of the early reports on the perspectives of a handful of hawkish Arab leaders are without critical context.
Iran hawks have been gloating that the quotes from a few Arab leaders in the initial cable release vindicate their analysis and discredit skeptics of military action against Iran. It doesn’t. [U.S. Defense Secretary Robert] Gates’ comment about the Saudis needing to “get into the game” came almost two years after [Saudi] King Abdullah’s now-famous “cut off the head of the snake” comment. And another cable from January 2008 shows Abdullah telling [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy that Saudi Arabia “does not want to inflame the situation,” recommends “continued international engagement” with Iran and “is not yet ready to take any action besides diplomacy.” Maybe, just maybe, those private remarks weren’t actually a very reliable guide to what the Saudis will really do in public?
The way the Iran hawks have been leaping at a few juicy quotes while ignoring the entire well-known context only shows the ongoing poverty of their analysis. I would expect better from the serious analysts on the hawkish side, but, well, there you are.
In this post, Lynch expands upon points he made the day before on the media’s emphasis of the hawkish views of regional leaders:
]]>The point here is not to say that the cautious views matter and the hawkish ones don’t. Nor does it say that Arab leaders haven’t been calling for tough measures against Iran, since they have been doing just that for years. It’s to say that Arab leaders are divided and uncertain about how to deal with Iran, and fearful of taking a strong position in public. In other words, it would be a mistake to “make too much of the private remarks of selected Arab regime figures, without considering whether those remarks reflect an internal consensus within their regimes or whether they will be repeated in public in a moment of political crisis.” That’s pretty much still where we are today.
Wikileaks have caused an international sensation. Regarding Iran, the leaks have confirmed what many have already known: Iran poses a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. Leaders of the Arab World are downright frightened by the reality that Iran will cross the nuclear threshold, if left unchecked.
According to the leaks:
- Bahrain’s King Hamad told U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, “That program must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”
- King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia went even further, calling for America to, “cut off the head of the snake.” The leaks reveal what Middle East leaders are saying to the U.S. about Iran. Yet, we don’t need the leaks to know what Iran has been saying about the U.S: Iran’s leaders openly call for the demise of America. Learn more about the history, ideology and dangers of the Iranian nuclear threat, in the upcoming documentary Iranium, scheduled for release on February 8, 2011.
Clarion is taking some liberties by suggesting that supposed comments from Bahrain’s King Hamad and Saudi Arabia’s King Abudullah prove that a nuclear Iran will threaten regional stability. A more nuanced analysis of the Arab statements on Iran was made by the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman in an interview with Ali Gharib. Ali was working on an IPS article he published with Jim Lobe, but was kind enough to share his notes with me.
Freeman told him:
]]>But I think it’s easy to misread these expressions. If you say ‘cut off the head of the snake,’ or if you say ‘not dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue is more dangerous than dealing with it,’ what you’re saying, in my experience with rulers in the Gulf, is that you look to the U.S. to solve problems that you have no idea how to deal with but which bother you. Does that mean that you’re endorsing military strikes? Despite the vivid language, I’d say it doesn’t. What it says is there’s a problem and we look to you (as a superpower) to handle it.