-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Marc Lynch
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 8:10 AM
Share
The Saudis always want to "fight the Iranians to the last American" and it is "time for them to get in the game," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tells the French foreign minister in a newly released cable from February 2010. This captures perfectly the point I made yesterday about how to read the reporting in these cables about the private hawkishness of Arab leaders. The question of Arabs and Iran was never an information problem -- it's an analysis problem. The antipathy which many of these leaders feel for Iran has long been well known. But so has their reluctance to do anything about it. And so have the internal divisions within Arab governments and Gulf ruling families, and their deep fears of either Iranian retaliation or popular upheaval, and their bottomless hunger for U.S. weapons systems, and their hopes that the U.S. would magically solve their problems for them, and the disconnect between the palaces and the public.
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. Gates' comment about the Saudis needing to "get into the game" came almost two years after King Abdullah's now-famous "cut off the head of the snake" comment. And another cable from January 2008 shows Abdullah telling 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.
(Note: updated to include the Sarkozy-Abdullah cable)
If only the world press and the world leaders handled the regime in Iran as if it was an alien army that came from another country. That is how the people of Iran see them. So why can't Marc Lynch.
Giving the Ayatollahs the respect that belongs to Iranians is wrong. In fact the Ayatollahs will tell you they do not like Iran. They want an Islamic state of their own. So build one for them in the Shiite area of Iraq. Once they all go there, all our problems will be over. Simple.
Mr. Lynch, I'm writing as a long-time reader who is not interested in point-scoring or 'gotchas'.
I am unsure why you seem to believe that acceptance that certain Arab regimes (not Arab public) have encouraged military actions against Iran indicates a hawkish position on this issue. Believe it or not, it should be possible for you to admit that your previous position - that Arab leaders 'generally strongly oppose military action' - is at best problematic, while still maintaining an excellent argument against intervention.
After all, the fact that some Arab leaders would support military strikes on Iran is probably one of the least persuasive arguments in favor of such strikes.
Conmel, you are right. The simple fact is that Marc can't admit he was wrong, and keeps throwing up these strawmen.
I generally don't see the hawks saying this vindicates their hawkish position on Iran, except to say that, yeah, Iran is a dangerous regime and a few more people think so. I don't think this adds much to their case, it is pretty much accepted that the Iranian leadership is dangerous. At issue is how best to deal with them, and just because a few middle eastern autocrats want to bomb them doesn't mitigate the unpredictable and dangerous situation that would be created if this happened.
What I do see a lot is crowing about how this discredits these so-called "experts" and calls into question their analysis. For instance, it does discredit the notion, pushed by Marc and his ilk, that the I-P conflict must be solved first to get the Arabs to get onboard with Iran. And yes, I see Marc and the "realists" like Steve Walt and Andrew Sullivan trying to shift the debate now - it's the Arab publics that count and that we need to get on our side...that of course the leaders want us to act for them. I contend that this is also an agenda driven and/or naive carrot they are dangling. I don't see any feasible scenario that would get the Arab public on our side...and this includes a hypothetical scenario where we abandon Israel entirely.
Marc, You are normaly a good analyst. going to war with iran was a bad idea before wikileaks, and it is still a bad idea now. but why are you insisting that you got the arab regimes position right? it is clear to anyone who has been reading your blog that you thought the arab regimes were against war with iran. now it is clear that they are not. they may not want to say it in public, but that does not mean they will not support the war. just as they quitetly supported israel in 2006, they will quitely support the US now. I hope it never comes to that, but good analysis needs to take that into consideration and a good analyst needs to be self critical. why is it so difficult to say, "I was wrong. But for such and such reasons, war with Iran is still a bad idea."
Oh Samson, you little naif. If you believe what one Ambassador maybe said to a State Dept person about the Saudi King's statements, you shouldn't bother to read Mr. Lynch. In the meantime, there are several cables, and probably more to come, that detail the belief that the Saudis are the biggest financiers of Al Quaeda. Now, please explain the conundrum here.
Suggestion for you, go join the bucket brigade to fight the very non-extensial fire blazing in Israel, and worry less about those "existential" threats.
I am not sure i understand your comment. First, i am not sure what Saudi support for al-qaeda has to do with their support for war with Iran. It seems that they support both. There is not contridiction or "conundrum" in that. I happen to disagree with them on both accounts, but that does not make them less true. Second, you must not be following the Wikileaks debates, because it was much much more than one ambassador.
Finally, what does a fire in israel have to do with any of this?
Samson, get your nose out of the Hasbara Handbook, whose techniques are "Selective discussion of issues" and "Framing the issue and setting the terminology used." This is exactly what you are doing.
Mr. Lynch has never said that some Arab rulers are not against the idea of containing Iran. These regimes exist to a great extent because the US supports them, in most cases their populations do not, and look towards Iran for several reasons. There are enough cables to indicate that NO Arab state will attack Iran, nor do they want a destabilyzing war with Iran. Further, these same Arab states have proposed various kinds of peace plans to Israel, which Israel studiously ignores. And, underlying everything else is also the idea of courtesy, that you tell your listener what he wants to hear.
Suggest you read Mr. Lynch's "What the Wikileaks cables really say about Arabs and Israelis".
And why mention the fires? Again, think in context and don't frame the issue. Israel has spent billions upon billions to arm itself against some self-framed "existential" threat. At the same time it failed to buy even ONE airplane to fight forest fires, a real, non-existential threat. Instead, it was forced to appeal to the international community, including TURKEY to pull its chestnuts out of the fire.
Ponder upon this and do not blindly follow the Hasbara Hanbook's instructions to "selectively discuss the issue".
KASSANDRA, I am not sure why you think my views on Israel have anything to do with this, but if you must know, I think you are right that it is crazy that israel has not accepted the Saudi Peace plan. Its a good plan. And I support the creation of a palestinian state on the 67 lines even if it has to be done against the wishes and protests of the Israel government. further i think that israel settlements are completely immoral and unexcuseable. finally, i am against a war with iran, whether launched by the US, Israel or any one else. So, please stop trying to change the issue by assuming that i am some likudnik-neocon out to defend israel at all cost.
But again, i am not sure what any of this has to do with the what we were discussing. Mr. Lynch, stated that Arab leaders, "strongly oppose military action". here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/striking-iran-is-unwarranted-and-it-would-mean-disaster/61886/
The wikileaks have shown that he is wrong. The Arab leader (not thier populations) were pushing the US to deal with Iran militarily. I just don't understand why it is so hard for mr. lynch, or you to admit that he got this wrong.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE