A Riyadh-Jerusalem Entente. By Walter Russell Mead.
A Riyadh-Jerusalem Entente. By Walter Russell Mead. Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2013.
Mead:
Could
the Saudis and Israelis be cooking up a little diplomatic revolution of their
own to offset the shift in American policy toward Iran?
The
temporary nuclear agreement between Iran and the world’s major powers has this
pair of America’s oldest and closest Middle East allies deeply worried. With
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a bevy of Saudi officials
attacking the deal, Jerusalem and Riyadh are torn between rage and fear.
The
question is whether this matters. The U.S. is the world’s only superpower, and
its security guarantees have been the pillar of Israeli and Saudi defense
thinking for a very long time. As long as U.S. domestic politics give President
Obama the leeway he needs in the Middle East, U.S. officials and commentators
appear to believe that the Saudis and Israelis will have to live with whatever
Washington does.
Perhaps.
The Saudis and Israelis are status-quo, stability-seeking powers. Maybe they
will stand by and watch while a U.S. president they neither trust nor respect
remakes the region.
But
maybe not. The two countries could instead forge an entente, informal or
formal. Just as Saudi support for the coup in Egypt thwarted two years of
painstaking if farcical American efforts to promote “a transition to democracy”
in the land of the Nile, so the Saudis and Israelis could throw some serious
wrenches in the Obama administration’s Iran strategy.
Riyadh
and Jerusalem have common interests that are not limited to preventing Tehran
from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Saudis believe Iran is leading Shiites in a
religious conflict with Sunnis now engulfing the Fertile Crescent. They fear
that the Islamic Republic, nuclear or not, poses an existential threat to their
security as the Shiite tide rises.
Israel
is less concerned about the Sunni-Shiite war, but the prospect of a
Hezbollah-Tehran-Syria axis along its northern frontier is more than troubling.
Both countries think that a naive Mr. Obama’s unicorn hunt for nuclear
disarmament is leading him to sacrifice vital geopolitical interests in the
hope of what will turn out to be a very bad nuclear deal with Iran.
Riyadh
and Jerusalem also want Hamas crushed. They worry about Turkey’s increasingly
unhinged and unpredictable diplomacy as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
follows his wandering star. They rejoice that the Muslim Brotherhood was driven
from power in Egypt, and they want Egypt’s army to succeed as it tries to
pacify the country and stabilize the Sinai. They want to protect the status quo
in Jordan and Iranian power contested in Iraq.
One
suspects that both the Israelis and the Saudis are also looking at Kurdish
aspirations with more favorable eyes. Playing the Kurdish card against Shiites
in Baghdad and Tehran is looking more interesting every day.
Arguably,
the two countries now have more in common with each other than either has with
the Obama administration. The question is whether this common interest is
enough to make both countries swallow their visceral dislike of one another and
work together. Most commentators seem to think not; the champion of Wahhabi
Islam cannot stand with the Jewish state.
Yet
necessity has made stranger diplomatic bedfellows. From the Saudi point of
view, times are grim. The Sunni Arab world is in a fight for survival against
the Shiites, but without Israeli help the weak and divided Sunnis may not
stand.
There
has already been some discussion, public and private, about a relatively weak
form of Saudi-Israeli collaboration against Iran. In this scenario, Israeli
jets would overfly Saudi territory as part of an Israeli attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities. Saudi sources hint that the Israeli air force would
encounter no Saudi resistance. The obstacles against a successful attack on
Iran may be too great even using Saudi airspace. But an agreement that let
Israel use Saudi bases for takeoff and refueling could tip the military balance
enough to make a difference.
This
could not be kept secret, but the Saudis could contain the consequences.
Islamic history, including the life of the Prophet Muhammad, offers many
examples of unlikely truces and temporary alliances. Saudi Arabia is as rich in
Islamic legal scholars as it is in oil, and no doubt there are precedents that
could legitimize such an arrangement.
Paradoxically,
Mr. Netanyahu might pay a higher price in settlement restrictions in the West
Bank and commitments about the long-term status of the Muslim holy places in
Jerusalem to the Saudis than he would to Secretary of State John Kerry. If the
Saudis offer concrete assistance in handling what Israel sees as its gravest
security threat since 1967, Mr. Netanyahu could justify his concessions as the
price of national safety. One suspects that if enough Iranian nuclear
facilities went up in smoke, most of the settler lobby would give him a pass.
For the
Saudis, getting a better deal for the Palestinians, even a temporary one, than
the U.S. has ever managed to get would do much to repair any reputational
damage from temporary cooperation with the Jewish state against Iran. The
Saudis are not the only Sunnis watching in fear and horror as the Shiites march
from victory to victory across the Middle East.
Meanwhile,
the two temporary allies could settle a few other scores. They could work
jointly against Hezbollah and Hamas, perhaps with Egyptian help returning Fatah
to power in Gaza. From Syria to Iran, the Kurds might suddenly find they’ve got
more money and that their relations with their Sunni Arab neighbors might
improve.
Those
who think the Israelis and Saudis will have to accept whatever treatment the
Americans dish out may be right. But if access to Saudi facilities changes the
calculations about what Israeli strikes against Iran can accomplish, the two
countries have some careful thinking to do. It would be an error for American
policy makers to assume that allies who feel jilted will sit quietly.
No comments:
Post a Comment