What could possibly go wrong?
BY JONATHAN SCHANZER
Saudi
Arabia's King Abdullah scolded Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last week for
failing to coordinate with Arab states before vetoing a United Nations
resolution demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down.
Emboldened by the lack of international action, Assad's forces are now
slaughtering civilians in the streets at an even greater rate. Referring to the
bloodshed, the king ominously warned Medvedev that Saudi Arabia "will
never abandon its religious and moral obligations towards what's
happening."
The
last time the Saudis decided they had a moral obligation to scuttle Russian
policies, they gave birth to a generation of jihadi fighters in Afghanistan who
are still wreaking havoc three decades later.
According
to news reports confirmed by a member of the Syrian opposition, Riyadh
currently sends weapons on an ad hoc basis to the Syrian opposition by way of
Sunni tribal allies in Iraq and Lebanon. But in light of recent developments,
more weapons are almost certainly on their way. After his delegation withdrew
in frustration from last week's Friends of Syria meeting in Tunisia, Prince
Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said that humanitarian aid to Syria
was "not enough" and that arming the Syrian rebels was an
"excellent idea." Soon afterward, an unnamed official commented in
the state-controlled Saudi press that Riyadh sought to provide the Syrian
opposition with the "means to achieve stability and peace and to allow it
the right to choose its own representatives." Meanwhile, Saudi clerics are
now openly calling for jihad in Syria and scorning those who wait for Western
intervention. One prominent unsanctioned cleric, Aidh al-Qarni, openly calls
for Assad's death.
Other
Sunni Gulf states, principally Qatar, may be contributing weapons. On Monday,
Feb. 27, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said, "We should
do whatever necessary to help [the Syrian opposition], including giving them
weapons to defend themselves." The positions of other regional actors are
less clear. But whether or not they supply weapons to the Free Syrian Army --
the armed opposition composed of defectors and local militia -- all these Sunni
states now want the Assad regime to crumble because it is an ally and proxy of
their sworn Shiite enemy, Iran, which destabilizes the region with terrorism
and nuclear threats.
For
the Saudis, depriving the Russians of a Middle Eastern toehold is an added
bonus. The two countries share a long-standing animus. In the 1970s, the Saudis
used their enormous oil wealth to inflict pain on the Soviets wherever they
could. The Saudis fought communist governments and political movements with
more than $7.5 billion in foreign and military aid to countries like Egypt,
North Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan. Saudi funding was particularly instrumental
in supporting anti-Soviet (and anti-Libyan) operations and alliances in Angola,
Chad, Eritrea, and Somalia.
But
the Saudis didn't simply counter communism. They fueled a generation of zealous
Islamist fighters who later caused bigger problems elsewhere. These Islamists
were instrumental to the Saudis after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in
December 1979. Inspired by the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam and armed
with Saudi funds and weapons, Arab mujahideen poured into Afghanistan. (An
estimated 175,000 to 250,000 fought there at any given time during the war,
according to terrorism analyst Peter Bergen.) After a decade of guerrilla war
during which the Soviets sustained heavy losses, the Red Army withdrew, and
their puppet government in Kabul fell soon thereafter.
A
lot, of course, has changed. The Saudis no longer need to fight communism. The
new Russians have no ideology and are driven purely by political interests.
Additionally, the Kremlin is now allergic to putting boots on the ground in the
Middle East or South Asia. Russia's new strategy in the region is to make money
and gain influence by selling arms, military hardware, and technology to Iran
and Syria.
Although
arming rogue regimes may seem reckless, it's Russia's last opportunity to exert
leverage in a region where, since the Cold War's end, almost every other
country has turned to Washington for arms.
Tartus,
the second-largest port in Syria, has been the cornerstone of Russian-Syrian
naval cooperation since the 1970s. In the past decade, the Russians have
doubled down with improvements and investments in what is their primary
Mediterranean toehold. In recent months, Russian and Iranian warships have
docked in Tartus to show support for the Assad regime. Through it, they have
reportedly provided untold amounts of weaponry with which Assad's army
continues to attack anti-regime protesters.
The
Saudis know that if Syria falls, Tartus falls with it. That's one more reasons
to send arms to the opposition.
U.S.
President Barack Obama's administration continues to express deep misgivings
about sending weapons, claiming that the Syrian opposition is too much of a
black box. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently expressed concerns that
the weapons could flow to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or Hamas. But the
Saudis have run out of patience. They now unabashedly advocate for arming the
Free Syrian Army.
This
is not an empty threat. The Saudis know how to procure and move weapons, and
they have no shortage of cash. If Riyadh wants to arm the opposition, armed it
shall be. And those who receive the weapons will likely be at least amenable to
the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam that has spawned dangerous Islamist
movements worldwide.
Of
course, a Saudi-led insurgency would not be in the cards if the Obama
administration were not so opposed to empowering the opposition. But the longer
Obama waits and the deeper the humanitarian crisis worsens, the more likely it
becomes that other actors will tip the balance in Syria. Using history as a
guide, none would be more dangerous than Saudi Arabia.
The
Iranians and Russians may yet pay a price for propping up Assad in Syria. But
if the Saudis have their way, the world may pay a price too.
-This commentary was published in Foreign Policy on 27/02/2012
-Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
-Jonathan Schanzer, a former intelligence analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
No comments:
Post a Comment