The Saudis go to the Russians for 'protection' from the US?
All the Iran gossip today centers around either the Hersh/WaPo stories that attacks are being planned, speculations about what might happen(no one ever mentions a possible coup in nuclear Pakistan), or this interesting Bill Arkin blurb.
But as I was knocking around getting ready for dinner, I came across this.
We've driven the region's superpower to China and Russia. Not only that, but it happened in the person of Bandar "Bush," the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US who was so tight with the Bush family.
Did he approach the US administration first and was rebuffed?
Prince Bandar is the guy that allegedly guaranteed the lowering of oil prices before the 2004 election to help Bush, the guy who had the private meeting with Bush on the White House balcony shortly after 9-11, the guy who arranged the "special flights" to get Saudis out of the US after 9-11 when nothing else was allowed to fly. He was also involved in setting up some of the bank accounts for Iran Contra and was briefed on the Iraq invasion plan months before it happened and two days before then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
And he felt that he had to go to the Russians and Chinese instead of to the Bush family with whom he has "vacationed" at Crawford and Kinnebunkport on multiple occasions?
I'm not sure what's going on here, but I think it may be significant. I see one of three things. Either there's been a completely unpublicized falling out or he's using this simply as an opportunity to strengthen ties to Russia and China, or, the worst case, he talked to the US and got the answer that we're going to bomb them no matter what.
I don't like this development at all.
But as I was knocking around getting ready for dinner, I came across this.
RIYADH - Saudi Arabia, fearing that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday....
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former longtime ambassador to the United States who is often tasked with delicate missions, met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on April 4.....
Bandar earlier visited China, another permanent UN Security Council member with veto power, a trip diplomats in Riyadh believe was also linked to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear activities.
We've driven the region's superpower to China and Russia. Not only that, but it happened in the person of Bandar "Bush," the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US who was so tight with the Bush family.
Did he approach the US administration first and was rebuffed?
Prince Bandar is the guy that allegedly guaranteed the lowering of oil prices before the 2004 election to help Bush, the guy who had the private meeting with Bush on the White House balcony shortly after 9-11, the guy who arranged the "special flights" to get Saudis out of the US after 9-11 when nothing else was allowed to fly. He was also involved in setting up some of the bank accounts for Iran Contra and was briefed on the Iraq invasion plan months before it happened and two days before then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
And he felt that he had to go to the Russians and Chinese instead of to the Bush family with whom he has "vacationed" at Crawford and Kinnebunkport on multiple occasions?
I'm not sure what's going on here, but I think it may be significant. I see one of three things. Either there's been a completely unpublicized falling out or he's using this simply as an opportunity to strengthen ties to Russia and China, or, the worst case, he talked to the US and got the answer that we're going to bomb them no matter what.
I don't like this development at all.
posted by mikevotes at
6:00 PM
4 Comments:
I expect Bush's recent visit to the Indian Sub-continent negated any potential problem there for now. By giving India the thumbs up on nuclear development and refusing Pakistan, without any consequent fireworks, says a lot. The US still pul the strings in Pakistan and sent a clear signal to any potential usurpers. Though for the US it would be far worse if someone like Imran Khan won an election with his anti US rhetoric. (Imran is a former world class cricketer and all round toff)
I'm not really convinced that the Saudis would be doing more than protecting their commercial interests. That seems to be the priority for that regime. It is not too far fetched to believe the Prince is actually field sales work for Bush, which would be a real worry.
Whatever the implications of it all, there sure seems to be a lot of positioning going on, albeit with a bit more finesse than last time.
BTW, I thought your pool on the date highly relevant, even if a little sensitive.
By
Cartledge, at 7:31 PM
On the pool, that's kinda what I thought, morally questionable but it made me think.
And, you see the exclusion of Pakistan from an India type nuclear deal with no following big violence as proof that the non-Musharraf parties are in control? I'd buy that to some degree, but I do think that it weakens Musharraf's position.
Honestly, I'm not Pakistan expert and it does seem like generally after the three assassination attempts, Musharraf cooled his US cooperation and regained some control, but there was that bombing today. I'm certainly willing to concede to someone with ebtter Pakistan knowledge.
Thinking about the Saudi move a little more, I'm thinking it may be part of a larger effort to devalue the US relationship towards broader international relations under the new King. China will be their biggest customer before too long.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:56 PM
Good catch, Mike, and I share your concerns.
Regarding the date pool, I like it very much because of the thinking that goes behind a choice. I've been querying people about it and have found the comments both amusing (in a dark way) and enlightening.
By
Motherlode, at 10:51 AM
That's exactly what I'm getting. People are finding it a good thought excercise.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home