Posted on 12/12/2006 9:20:33 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.
The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.
A senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that part of the administration’s review of Iraq policy involved the question of how to harness a coalition of moderate Iraqi Sunnis with centrist Shiites to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.
“It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure,” one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, “If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oil is a global commodity. We are not insulated from the impact of an interruption of the flow of oil from the Middle East, which supplies more than half of the globe's exportable supply. The price of oil would go through the roof plunging the world economy into a recession and depending on how long the supplies were interrupted, into a depression.
If gas goes to $10/gal, I think the United States could and would cut consumption in half through change in habits, and we produce that much oil. I don't think the rest of the world has that margin of discretionary use.
The US imports about 60% of its daily oil requirements or about 11 million bbls of imported oil a day. $10 a gallon gas would not alleviate the consumption requirements for those who need to go to work or the trucks that carry most of the nations domestic cargo. Our economy would tumble from any such price increase for gasoline. What you may deem as "discretionary" is essential to others to keep their businesses operating and their prices competitive.
I'm not claiming there wouldn't be pain, but there is pain now. If a great deal of pain is to be had, best to have it on our terms and to some purpose.
Well, ain't that special. How many troops did the Saudi's contribute to the Iraq war effort? Time and again, our "allies" are content to let us do the heavy lifting and the dirty work, serving their interests, all the while kicking us in the teeth (check out Saudi funding of little terrorist schools around the world - the Madrassas), but when it looks like we want to pull out - OHHHH - HO- HO-Ho...THEN the little self-centered s-bags come out crying about what it's going to do their little pampered butts.
F' the House of Saud. I hope they all swing from oil rigs in short order.
Our dependence on imported oil will only get worse before it gets better. If you think we have "pain" now, imagine if the oil supply from the ME was interrupted for any significant amount of time. It is going to take decades before we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We are not prepared for the kind of "pain" you are advocating. We are not going to get it on our terms.
In less than 50 years, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will cause the population of the United States to increase from its present 300 million to more than 400 million. Since the US consumes about 25% of today's global oil supply, imagine what it is going to be like with that increase of 100 million more Americans who will also be competing with the growing economies of China and India for energy sources.
No one is ever prepared for pain, or it wouldn't be called pain. Having it on our terms does not mean without pain. It means that if the pain cannot be avoided, at least get a better result for it.
For example if the SoH is going to get shut down, I would rather it be initiated by the West to cease Iran's nuclear ambitions, than by Iran to cement their nuclear ambitions (followed by subsequent closings to come).
Who says it can't be avoided?
For example if the SoH is going to get shut down, I would rather it be initiated by the West to cease Iran's nuclear ambitions, than by Iran to cement their nuclear ambitions (followed by subsequent closings to come).
The Strait of Hormuz will not be shut down. The US Navy will see that it remains open. The problem is that insurance rates on shipping will rise making the cost of oil very high. A greater danger is if the Islamic fundamentalists destroy major oil fields by blowing up pipelines and the oil wells themselves. I toured the burning oil fields in Kuwait on the ground and via helicopter. It was a sight to behold. It took years to get production back up. Thankfully, the Saudis used their excess capacity [above OPEC limits] to mitigate the damage to the global economy. If the Saudi oil fields and facilities in the Eastern Province are destroyed, it would be a catastrophe for the global economy.
I do. The US Navy cannot prevent the straights from being closed. They can only begin a roll back that will take at least 2 months to complete.
The Iranians have a great surplus of ASCMs and mines that can both be deployed from shore. They also have thousands of suicide boats. Ultimately, only holding that shoreline would provide open transit.
But what do you propose. I'm all ears.
The straits can be kept open using minesweepers and other anti-mine technology. I don't know where you came up with the two months estimate, but the global economy would have a hard time surviving if that were the case.
The Iranians have a great surplus of ASCMs and mines that can both be deployed from shore. They also have thousands of suicide boats. Ultimately, only holding that shoreline would provide open transit.
If Iran were to employ what you say, it would be an act of war, and for the current regime, an act of suicide. I don't think that current regime wants to give us the pretext to destroy them. I say that advisedly having served in Iran during the fall of the Shah and the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini and the mullahs. They are interested in remaining in power.
But what do you propose. I'm all ears.
We stay in Iraq and achieve our objectives of a stable democracy and an ally in the WOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.