The Huge Saudi Arms Deal

I have mixed feelings about the proposed major arm deal with Saudi Arabia. On the one hand Saudi Arabia does function as a U.S. ally in the region, and as such we would prefer it to be a strong ally, with significant military capability.

A senior Defense Department official said the administration is prepared to authorize the sale of as many as 84 F-15 fighter jets and three types of helicopters: 70 upgraded F-15s, 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds to the Saudis. ... Another deal, the senior Pentagon official said, could include selling the Saudis naval and ballistic missile-defense weapons systems that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.

If those reports are correct, that's a huge arms purchase. But despite our alliance with Saudi Arabia, I'm not thrilled with the sort of reasoning excerpted below.

Defense industry analysts said the sale of the aircraft is a key to U.S. efforts to boost support from Arab allies against Iran.

"The U.S. is trying to create the strongest effort to deter and contain Iran," said Anthony Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If you look at all of these sales, the U.S. is working to create a Saudi Air Force that is far more capable than Iran. These sales help give Saudi Arabia the capability to convince Iran that it can't use missiles or air power against Saudi Arabia or its neighbors."

I'm all for containing Iran, but I think Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are weak reeds to rely on. And we already have a far stronger ally in the Middle East. It's called Israel, a country with proven advanced military capabilities. I see Saudi Arabia as a hollow shell, with a high-tech force that has little staying power. And there is another factor as well.

Saudi Arabia, and most of our other Arab allies are one Islamic revolution away from turning into enemies. If we are prepared to make this sort of strategic investment in Saudi Arabia, we also need to be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain the House of Saud in power. What that means is committing the U.S. to propping up an autocratic regime, and acting to assist it in the event that it faces a popular revolution. I have no confidence that the U.S. government is willing to do that. It is much more likely that we would do what we did with Iran, where we abandoned our ally the Shah to his fate, and let Iran turn into an enemy. The more advanced U.S. weaponry Saudi Arabia has if & when that happens, the worse it will be.

Saudi Arabia Does Something Right

Saudi Arabia is infamous for imposing vicious punishments on people for such horrific crimes as being a rape victim. But today it actually executed people for real crimes, instead of ones based on religion and misogyny.

Saudi Arabia executed two murderers including a Yemeni whose body was nailed to a cross after he was convicted of killing a fellow countryman and his daughter

Both were beheaded. No doubt the Saudis will get quite a bit of criticism from those calling these executions barbaric, especially since one included the desecration of a body after death. But here's what that individual did.

Shaaban al-Nasheri was beheaded for shooting dead Dhayeh al-Manbahi after barging into his family home ... Nasheri was also found guilty of raping and killing Manbahi's daughter before shooting and wounding her sister.

This guy invaded someone's home, killed a man, raped and killed his daughter, and shot another girl. Cutting his head off and nailing his headless body to a cross sounds like just punishment to me.

Something Left & Right Can Agree On

There aren't many things the left & right agree on. But I think we all agree that the Saudis can take their greedy demands and drop dead.

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

That's right. If countries switch to alternative energy sources and move away from oil to combat climate change, Saudi Arabia thinks we should pay them for their lost revenue. Seriously. They've spent decades squandering their oil wealth supporting a lavish lifestyle, and financing the spread of radical Islam, and now they have the nerve to demand that we pay them if we use less oil. This is one situation where diplomats listening to such insanity should refuse to be diplomatic, and greet Saudi demands with the derisive laughter they richly deserve.

Human Rights Watch Undermining Counterterrorism Efforts - Again

Is there any anti-terrorism measure that Human Rights Watch doesn't have a problem with? This time they are attacking the Saudis over their terrorist rehabilitation program. Are they concerned about its effectiveness? Oh no, they don't care about that. They don't like it because people are held without charge. Nevermind that the people in question have been identified as terrorists. Here is their statement:  

"Except as part of a sentence imposed after conviction for a crime, international human rights law does not permit the detention of persons to undergo a reeducation program," the report says. Such programs "cannot be forced upon persons whose guilt has not been established."

This is complete and obvious nonsense. First of all, there is no such thing as "international human rights law." Countries have their own laws and human rights of any kind are in short supply in places like Saudi Arabia. And clearly programs can be forced on persons, since that's exactly what is happening. 

Given the situation in Saudia Arabia, and the fact that they bear significant responsibility for spreading Islamism, any efforts by that country against Al Qaeda should be encouraged, not nitpicked based on idiotic legalism and mythical notions of international human rights.  Saudi Arabian law is backward and barbaric by western standards. Women are second-class citizens, and Saudi notions of human rights are primitive at best. It's a fertile field for any human rights organization. But putting the focus on their treatment of terrorists is not only misguided, but counterproductive. Unfortunately this is just another example of Human Rights Watch serving as a useful idiot for those that should be their worst enemies.

More Talk of an Israeli Attack on Iran

There are various articles about a possible Israeli strike on Iran in news sources today. Most mention two significant developments. First, the Israelis supposedly have received overflight approval from Saudi Arabia, which means they would not have to violate U.S.-controlled Iraqi airspace. And second, Vice President Joe Biden said,

“We cannot dictate to a sovereign nation what it can and cannot do,” Mr. Biden said. Pressed further, he added: “Israel has the right to determine what is in its best interests.”

Naturally there's no way to know if the report about the Saudis is true. And it's always dangerous to read too much into the words of Joe "Loose Cannon" Biden.

I'm on record opposing an Israeli strike at this time, although it they are going to do it, overflying Saudi Arabia would be preferable to crossing Iraqi airspace from the U.S. standpoint. According to a report from back in 2007 in the The Sunday Times, the Israelis have trained to use low-yield nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.  I find it difficult to believe that Israel would actually carry out a first strike with nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones. But if they are going to attack, that's exactly what they should do. There is little point in launching a strike that merely delays Iran's nuclear program, while incurring all the possible consequences. I do not think an Israeli attack is a good idea from the U.S. perspective. But if they do it anyway, I hope they use sufficient force to inflict massive damage, cripple Iran's nuclear program, and kill as many people at those facilities as possible. Skilled technicians and scientists will be at least as hard to replace as the equipment. 

But overall I continue to believe that the U.S. and Israel should work behind the scenes to sabotage & delay Iran's nuclear program, while at the same time doing everything possible to destabilize the regime. An attack, even if successful in wrecking Iran's nuclear facilities -- unlikely unless Israel really does use nuclear weapons-- may produce an Iran more united behind the clerical regime in a desire for vengeance. I may be wrong, but I don't think Iran will simply sit back and accept the destruction of its prized installations without major retaliation. 

Thanks But No Thanks

Former Saudi Ambassador to the the U.S., Turki al-Faisal, has a column in today's Washington Post entitled, "Peace for the Mideast:  How Our Plan Could Aid Barack Obama's Efforts."  What is this plan the Saudi's are urging President-elect Obama to adopt?  Here it is in a nutshell:  

The United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations must embrace the Arab initiatives and pressure Israel to do the same.

Bascially the Saudi "plan" involves blaming Israel for the problems in the Middle East, and forcing it to make a bunch of concessions, including withdrawal from East Jerusalem.  What are the Palestinians going to do to help achieve peace?  Apparently nothing.  That's what passes for a peace plan in Saudi Arabia.