WHAT'S WRONG WITH PRINCE BANDAR BIN SULTAN?

Open Letter to the Saudi Ambassador From an Aged and Tired Arab Nationalist.

By Zein al-Urban (Pseudonym)

Editor's Note: SPC received this Open Letter some time in late April 2004. Its author continued for weeks afterwards to change it--and hasn't yet fully completed it!

Dear Prince Bandar:

Congratulations: You are now an American politician, de facto.

Your television appearances, if they continue, will put you on the path taken by Anwar al-Sadat. When young, my friends and I used to wait for Sadat to appear on television, so we could laugh and cry. Among the ranks of Arab nationalists, he was a clown, a buffoon, an Uncle Tom, a pothead--someone who sold for a few bucks what little was left of Arab honor and made a mockery of his predecessor's legacy.

Worse, by withdrawing Egypt from the ranks of the Arabs, he motivated the civil war in Lebanon. His actions caused nearly all the misery that subsequently befell our Arab nation. So we cried.

You've started on this course. Please stop. Unlike Sadat, you're not the darling of a Jewish community who saw a man of peace in that Egyptian president. You have no such constituency; yours (and the Kingdom's) is made up of the House of Bush, and of some in the business community who flatter and fawn their way in and out of the Kingdom. This is hardly sufficient to give you a sympathetic television audience. Not after September 11, anyway.

It's not fully your fault. I don't think any Saudi--or any Arab--can say enough to please an American audience. In a very basic way, Osama bin Laden and the American-engineered breakup of the Arab Iraq (and its later invasion and occupation) have driven a terrific wedge between Arabs and Americans. The American losses in Iraq and the unavoidable mistakes that an occupying power will commit (note: Abu Ghraib and the massacres to come) will only widen this gap and alienate these nations.

So, I beseech you: Do not appear on national television. Nothing will help. And please get yourself a spokesperson that will say the following: "I'm not at freedom to discuss the ambassador's affairs." Neither the Bushes nor anyone associated with the Carlysle Group (those Republicans and Democrats, former Prime Ministers and Department Secretaries) can help. Out of September 11 has grown a national security bureaucracy that none of the Kingdom's money-minded "friends" can restrain. It's huge, it's powerful, and it distrusts you--the Kingdom, and the kingdom's "friends"--immensely. If that bureaucracy senses any reluctance by the Kingdom to fully serve its purposes, it will leak innuendos to the press, (as it had done in the recent past), which will beget a popular backlash against the kingdom and any politician who intervenes on its behalf. Silence is golden.

Sadly, neither this bureaucracy nor the intelligence mandarins you've trusted in the past understand our world. And yet, you and so many in Arab governments cater to these dangerous and self-styled experts and their native informants and WOGs in academia. Enough, please. I have concluded many years ago that these mandarins are incapable of thinking objectively. They are limited intellectually. They haven't understood that the era of oppressing the Arabs and wreaking havoc in their societies has passed.

If you can't fight the urge to speak, I beseech you to leak, instead. Henry Kissinger can teach you that art, and he's available, I believe. And avoid bragging to Bob Woodward at any cost. Avoid television. You're in trouble when Mark Russell, the brainy comedian, takes you on about what you say on national television, and adds a sad commentary about you and Saudi Arabia.

The American left is hardly one of your fans, either. For you've placed all your eggs in the Reagan-Bush basket, and no one at your embassy seems to make any serious and sincere outreach to the grassroots Democratic community--or to the sane Senator McCain and the old guard Republicans. In its campaign to contain the skewing of the democratic process by some corporations that are close to President Bush and to Vice-President Cheney, the left has seen in the Kingdom a corrupting element. As if the Arabs invented corruption! One recent book about the Kingdom talks about one million dollars left decades ago for a Republican presidential campaigner by a Saudi messenger. That started corruption in the United States, the author would have us believe. That author is all over the map in talks to left-leaning audiences.

The grassroots left community (that which does not hate Arabs) is genuinely concerned about democracy and the preservation of Congress' proper role in that democracy. With this in mind, many in that community haven't forgotten how you helped the Reagan administration circumvent Congress, when you accepted the proposition by then National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane for the Kingdom to finance the Contras in exchange for a shipment of Stinger missiles to Saudi Arabia. (Bob Woodward, Veil, at 351-55). And Arabs an ocean away weren't enamored by your scheming with then CIA Director William J. Casey to have Sheikh Muhammad Fadlallah, then of Hezbollah, assassinated. You and the Kingdom's intelligence services put your faith in some ruthless and ugly British mercenary to coordinate with some Lebanese (the same ones who so blindly destroyed Lebanon) to explode a car bomb in Beirut. Eighty civilians were reported killed and 200 were wounded. (Veil, at 396-397) As if that country needed any more misery!

I understand that your acceptance to help Casey was on orders by the Kingdom's government (or, more likely, its American-pleasing intelligence services.) One learns from these tragedies, and I would hope that the lessons then should've been that first, you cannot trust an American administration which intends on circumventing Congress' constitutional mandate; and second, you should seek advice from people who are close to Congress and would not compromise that branch's constitutional role in this democracy. Should the powers-that-be in the Kingdom refuse to listen to your advice, there's always available the option of resigning from the post. (I trust, unlike us mortal beings, you do not need a job for survival.)

* * * *

That Saudi Arabia helped the United States in its war on Iraq, as reported by Bob Woodward in his most recent book, is of little help to you and the Kingdom. As Mark Russell put it: Saudis attack the United States; we invade Iraq. Democratic forces in this country--many with substantial influence in Congress--are disgusted; and these forces will soon be joined by (to use the editor's description) the mothers of American children who unnecessarily died and are still to die in Iraq. The fact that the Kingdom has helped by pumping more oil and by providing access to our armed forces to invade Iraq from the Kingdom's territory can hardly impress the left and democratic forces. If anything, these forces (which may very well take over the White House) would have been more impressed by leaks from you of concern about an unnecessary war--and by recommendations from you to Crown Prince Abdullah to resist American pressure, a la Turkey.

By necessity you represent more than just Saudi Arabia. You represent Arabs, especially those who are geographically close to the misery of the Palestinians and the Iraqis. The fringe civilian elements that have taken over the Pentagon and launched a campaign to break up the Kingdom have infuriated all the Arabs along with you. We have witnessed the United States, relying on egregiously biased advise, preside over the breakup of an Arab country: Iraq. It was an imperfect state, but hardly one that needed to be smashed to pieces and laid prostate before Iran. Even those among us who didn't think much of Saddam Hussein couldn't accept the invasion by Israelis or Americans of an Arab country. How could we? How could any Arab? How could you?

These Arabs see you as catering so much to right-wing Americans (a version of whom had propagated the scheme to break apart the Kingdom) that they have no hope that you are able to represent even the smallest of their concerns. I commend your recent opening to the Palestinians. (By this, I'm referring to an event where your name was included, in the presence of a very able Hanan Ashrawi.) I assure you the American left and Democratic forces will respect this course, and I would hope you'd continue on with it. You are after all an Arab ambassador, not an extension of the sophomoric and dangerous schemes of egregiously biased right-wing lunatics.

(I agree that the American left should've given Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative for Palestinian-Israeli peace more attention; it was a worthwhile effort that the Bush administration chose to ignore at the peak of its delusion about the limitless application of American military power, and the usefulness of a war to the re-election of a President. That initiative would've possibly had a chance in this country had you and the Kingdom made it a priority and not fallen into silence about it so not to disturb President Bush's misery-laden agenda for the Middle East and for the mothers of America's children.)

Bob Woodward tells us that you gave assurances to President Bush that no one in the Arab world would rise as a result of
the invasion of Iraq. Remember the first Gulf War? How about telling the President that even the Kingdom would feel the impact of his unwise attack plan? Don't you think that the very fact that Jihadists have support in the Kingdom has something to do with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East (and, by extension, the Kingdom's at times uncritical alignment with that foreign policy)? Could it be that Colin Powell is more Arab than some Saudi and Arab politicians? Frankly, I think Powell should be your only ally in this Administration; if you need more allies, and you are more comfortable with Republicans, you should then seek out Senator McCain (try getting an invitation to one of the Arab-American events in his state) and the old guard of the Republican Party; at all cost, I would avoid those in that Party who represent Arab-hating self-declared Christian Ayatollahs, and those politicians who believe in reviving crusades.

We have no illusions about most Arab leaders. But, in the name of the many Arabs like me who place some importance on appearances, I'm asking for little: that you save what honor we have left. Heed this minute example of the King of Jordan: here is a king who needs the United States much more than any other Arab leader, and has relations with Israel--yet he reacts appropriately to a White House whose behavior threatens the very stability of his kingdom and is insulting to Arabs. King Abdallah in May snubbed the American President when the latter went along with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's plan to dispossess our Palestinian brothers and sisters for the umpteenth time in less than 60 years. I'm aware that the Jordanian King probably made sure his gesture in no way signaled a total break with the Bush administration, and that a good number of his people are at various levels of "asset" to our sublime intelligence services. His gesture, nonetheless, assured some level of dignity to us Arabs. Can't the Kingdom develop a network similar to that of Jordan's in the foreign policy bureaucracy of this country? Can't it call on Jordan to integrate it into that network?

And what does it take to be a tad more cautious? I'm aware of how business is done in the Arab world and am reluctant to condemn my people's ways, since I find that the American ways are no better, what with revolving doors and corporations who have robbed the American public and their own employees of so much of their wealth and security. It would help to have less sophomoric public relations firms around your embassy and more lawyers, accountants, and adept political consultants. The Washington Post has covered thoroughly the controversy of the FBI investigation of your and the embassy's bank transactions, and it has found nothing that smacks of support for terror.

But little prepares one for the description provided by Riggs Bank in an April 8 (2004) article in the Post about a December 2003 financial transaction. To me, it read "Business as Done in Arab Countries." To Americans, though, it raised eyebrows.

* * * *

A new era is upon the Arab World, one where the United States has opted to balance Iranian power. This is such an odd formulation, since the United States is widely and supremely hated by a swelling Arab public for its uncritical support of Israel's war on the Palestinian brothers and sisters, its financing of the annexation of their lands, and for America's starving and later destruction of an Arab country. Iraq (as Saudi Arabia) was and continues to be so dear to our hearts; and it'll take a lot for the United States to make up for what it has done in the eyes of the Arab public. That public would fight to death to avoid the breakup of the Kingdom. Couldn't you have done this public a small favor and criticized the invasion, and resigned your post in protest against the Kingdom's acquiescence?

It's not too late. Iraq's unity consumes each and everyone in the Arab nation; please take steps to do your share to assure this unity, and to save the mothers of American and Iraqi children some of the tragedy and tears that are certain to come.

ARTICLE: AMERICAN ILLUSIONS AND IRAQI REALITIES (written July 2003)

To belittle Sunni armed resistance to U.S. occupation, the Pentagon tacticians assert that this resistance is the work of "Saddam loyalists" or "Baathist fighters." There's a distinct possibility, however, that this resistance has the unmitigated support of the greater majority of Iraqi Sunnis. As one Iraqi traveler in Jordan recently protested to this author, "They talk about the Baath; don't they know over half of the Iraqis were members of that party?" Baath or no Baath, the Sunnis believe that the Americans intend to marginalize their role in the future fate of their country. In addition, the Sunnis blame the United States for the secession of the northern Kurdish region and the break-up of Iraq.

The Pentagon tacticians have adopted a macro approach for the Middle East, aware that one crisis feeds on another. They have labored for a tentative resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war. By so doing, they are hoping to defuse a sensitive issue that causes tremendous Arab anger, and to give the American occupation of Iraq legitimacy among the Iraqi Sunnis. As if to compete, and to mobilize the Iraqi public, the Sunnis have portrayed the American invasion of their country as the work of pro-Israeli right wing elements in the United States, who dispatched U.S. troops to subdue an Israeli foe.

The Pentagon tacticians' macro approach will not work. The Arab public sees the current disentanglement in Israel/Palestine as a blunting by the United States of a natural course of resistance to Israeli occupation and settlements. The Arab public sees Abu Mazin, the Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority, as an American agent, until he proves himself otherwise. He will have to deliver back to the Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem--land and water. The Arab public strongly believes that the United States is a dishonest broker in the Palestinian and Syrian conflict with Israel--that Israel in fact wouldn't have set up colonial settlements but for the financial and military support it receives from the United States. The Pentagon tacticians therefore will not see armed resistance abating in Iraq thanks to the (precarious) diffusion of tension in Israel/Palestine. If anything, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq will increasingly perceive themselves, in their resistance to occupation, as the defenders of Arab and Muslim honor. Their perception will likely be shared by all Arabs.

Moreover, the Iraqi Sunnis suspect that the Shiite religious leadership is backing the United States in order to eliminate Sunni resistance. Only then would that leadership unleash its own armed rebellion against American occupation. The Sunni interpretation could very well be correct. The Shiite religious leadership, historically conservative and therefore averse to impulsive political action, is not beyond wanting to see the Sunni resistance wiped out before it pushes for total American withdrawal from the country. Additionally, the Shiite leadership is aware that the United States can help Iraq shed its estimated $100 billion in debt and another $200 billion in compensation (war penalties) for the Kuwait wars. In short, the Shiite religious leadership wants control of an Iraq that is free of debt and of Sunni power.

The Sunni view of the Shiite leadership's agenda is not farfetched. But the Sunnis (and the Pentagon tacticians) would be wrong to think that the Shiites will stray far from Arab solidarity. Like their brethren in Lebanon, the Iraqi Shiites are going through political maturation, and should take on with success the burden of reuniting Iraq. Their Lebanese brethren have shown us that they would welcome death to liberate their country and will defend it against any foe or occupier. Moreover, like their Lebanese brethren, they are unlikely to stray far from Arab solidarity. But unlike the Lebanese, the Iraqi Shiites belong to a country that has precious and coveted oil reserves. In managing these, one can reasonably conclude that they have learned lessons from the paranoid regime that preceded the American occupation. I therefore don't see them squandering their country's resources on imperial ambitions, nor do I see them falling for the manipulations of the greedy West. In other words: they will not be duped. Their country is wealthy; their numbers are large; their fighting ability, now that their native oppressor is gone, is unlimited. They have flocks to feed, and that should keep them preoccupied.

Shiite power is so great and secure that the Shiites should be able to reunite the country with little vindictiveness towards their Sunni and Kurdish compatriots. Accordingly, they will compromise with the Sunnis on symbolic issues such as Iraq's stance on Israel. As a consequence, the Pentagon tacticians and their self-serving Iraqi agents will see their illusion about Iraq's relations with Israel shattered. In other words, the new Iraq will seek any political consensus that will reunite its three major ethnic/religious groups. Solidarity with the Palestinians and Syrians (about the Golan) is likely to be a pillar of that consensus. In short, as with the Arab public at large, the new Iraq will get its cue on how to perceive Israel from the Palestinians and the Syrians. This is certainly not what the Pentagon tacticians are playing for.

In this process of rebuilding the new Shiite-led Iraq, the United States can either get in the way, or get out. Let's see the Pentagon tacticians call this one. Knowing so much about them from the press, I would bet they would expose the children of American mothers to unnecessary martyrdom.

* * *

There have occurred at least two armed attacks against British and U.S. troops is parts of Iraq that are predominantly Shiite. In reaction, Muhammad Baqer Hakim, once President of the pro-Iranian Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, announced in his Friday sermon on June 27, 2003, his preference for peaceful means to liberate the country. He said that he preferred negotiations and peaceful demonstrations. He obviously meant this statement as assurance to the United States that the operations against the British and the Americans were passing matters. Other major Shiite political forces and personalities, including the Islamic Da'wa Party and Muqtadha Sadr, are still in the camp of peaceful resistance against, and limited cooperation with, the Americans.


Reassuring statements aside, these operations should have been an early and clear signal to the Pentagon tacticians that the resistance to occupation will spread. Note one important aspect of Shiite politics: Shiite leaders are for peaceful resistance against U.S. occupation, not for peaceful co-existence with that occupation or its agents. Baqer Hakim in his statement seemed as if he was defending a losing proposition: that the Shiites should not launch guerrilla attacks against the occupiers. There will come a time, he knows, when he will no longer be able to hold them back.

In that vein, the Pentagon tacticians should stop seeing Iran and Syria as the enablers of Sunni resistance. If they are, their role is marginal. All indications are that Iran and Syria will avoid instigating the United States. I'm not naive: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Syrian intelligence are unavoidably coordinating against the "American bully" and his junior Israeli partner. But they are too realistic to want the United States to cause damage to their countries' military infrastructure. Instead, they can let the Sunni resistance do its work without tainting it with their assistance.

Baqer Hakim's above statement should be seen from this Iranian vantage point. For now, Iran's priority is to acquire nuclear weapons to balance Israel's arsenal. This is basic balance of terror: if one country introduces nuclear weapons, others in the region are bound to follow. Accordingly, Iran is not interested in making life difficult for the United States in Iraq. Not before it secures its Bomb. But should the Pentagon tacticians increase U.S. pressure on Iran, to a point where this pressure threatens the survival of that country's system of government, Iran should be expected to lend support to the Sunni resistance in Iraq. It would also lend support to those Shiites in Iraq who are eager to ignite a Shiite armed rebellion against the occupation to compete with the Sunnis. (Iran can certainly make life difficult for the United States in Iraq. For one, Iran seems to have the run of that country. For instance, on June 19 of this year, an Iranian opposition figure who ran an opposition radio station from Baghdad was kidnapped. His Iraqi wife has accused the Iranian government for his kidnapping.)


Regardless of Iranian self-restraint, the Iraqi Shiite leadership can ill-afford to wait before it joins the armed resistance to the American occupation. Why? If that leadership fails to act, it'll be out-maneuvered by a new leadership that is willing to get the job done. For Iran should not be seen as carrying more clout with the Iraqi Shiites than it does in actual fact. After all, Iraqi Shiite nationalism is distinct from the Persian, as the Iraqi Shiites trace their origins to Arab tribes, not to Persia. With Iran's help or without, that nationalism cannot stand idle while the Sunni leadership under the banner of Islam gains popularity among the Shiite youth for its daring armed resistance. If the Shiite leadership doesn't join the armed resistance, it'll risk seeing Shiite youth leave its ranks in droves; they will either join the Sunni leadership or accept a new Shiite leadership that is willing to fight.

*******

The Pentagon tacticians should shed any dreams of control of Iraqi oil and of using an Iraqi puppet regime as a means to bust OPEC. (Note the statement on April 27, 2003, by Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi oil minister and current advisor to the U.S. government, that Iraq may have to quit OPEC, to allow it to pump more oil.) Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis will allow for lower oil prices. An Iraqi woman bears on average six children. This is a prescription for population explosion. That population will need every resource of that country to live and thrive. Additionally, the tacticians' attempts to bust OPEC would get the Saudi government in trouble. For a population explosion is afoot in that country as well. Worse, the Saudi government is in debt to the tune--some think--of over 250 billion dollars. Any diminished income for the Saudi, Iraqi, and Iranian governments would spell trouble in the region. At a minimum, it would hasten the armed rebellion by the Shiites against the American occupation, and place U.S. troops in Iraq in more danger.

Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that the United States will be able to thwart opposition to lower oil prices by spreading duty-free zones and most-favored-nation status in the Middle East--promises recently made by the United States at an economic conference in Jordan. (I had lunch in Jordan with an astute observer of that country's scene. He pondered how the Jordanian working class is getting by; he told me so many are making 90 Jordanian Dinars per month, the equivalent of around $150, while supporting five or six children. Many make even less. This is a time bomb, he said. It hasn't fully exploded (it had in Maan), he speculated, because the King has been able to obtain hundreds of millions of U.S. aid and oil at discounted prices from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, not because of the new economic ties to Israel or the liberal access to the American market.) Economic intervention might work, but only if the United States injects uncounted billions into the pockets of Arabs, Iraqis in particular. Still, the results will not be assured. Unlike wretched Egypt and Jordan, Iraq has wealth and cannot be bought cheaply. And wealth buttresses Iraqi nationalism. In other words, the Iraqis are not some desperate cargo cult that believes in ships bringing back the ancestors and a cargo of goods from the United States. Their nationalism is real: Arab or Islamic, secular or religious. At any rate, the very middle class the cargo will create--if it ever does, if Congress allows the cargo to materialize--in the context of Iraqi pluralism, will end up pitting one sectarian middle class against another. And a civil war will erupt, especially if Iran is living a state of tension and possible explosion. Some tacticians might see the civil war as an excuse to keep American troops in Iraq. These tacticians should beware of what they wish for, especially if the price is paid by the children of American mothers.

Evidence suggests that the United States isn't willing or able to spend the countless billions needed to turn the Iraqis into a cargo cult. In fact, some press reports have revealed that the United States is unwilling to spend more than $2.5 billion this year on the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure. This is not sufficient to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, starved by years of wars followed by years of sanctions.

*******

The winds of armed Shiite rebellion against the United States could blow from an unpredictable direction, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, or somewhere else. The least likely scenarios could spark Iraqi Shiite nationalism into that certain rebellion. Consider for example the increased activism of the Saudi Shiites, native to the Eastern Province, where most of the Saudi oil is found. Encouraged by America's talk of a new age of democracy in the Arab world and sensing the throbbing power of their brethren in Iraq, the activists within that community are voicing their grievances about their second class treatment in their own country. Note for instance the petition, signed by 450 Saudi Shiite personalities, titled "Partners in the Nation," which was presented to Crown Prince Abdallah in late May, 2003. The Petition outlined Shiite grievances and called for equality with the Sunnis. Crown Prince Abdallah has been doing his best to appease all concerned. But he is besieged by jealousies, succession problems, incompetence all around him, competition from his half-brothers Nayef at Interior and Sultan at Defense who have created states within the state, American pressure to rein in the religious establishment and right wing threats to break up the kingdom, and deteriorating economic conditions.

In short, Saudi Shiite activism could not come at a worse time for the Saudi government. That government is bankrupt and may not be able to meet Shiite demands with the largesse it once knew. Force could replace largesse. Should the Saudi state overreact to demonstrations in the Eastern Province, and kill Saudi Shiites, we should expect the Iraqi Shiites to rebel against the United States, which is perceived as the main protector of the Sunni Saudi government.

AMERICAN ILLUSIONS AND IRAQI REALITIES: BACKGROUND

The following article was written sometime in late June-early July of last year. It was motivated by the editor's concern that the Iraq Oil Grand Imperial Grab Project (heretofore, "the Imperial Grab Project") was mired in illusions and should prove costly in American lives. The editor sent this article to friends of this newsletter, i.e. those who had called or written and given real names and email addresses (not emails by "Anonymous.")

At the heart of this nasty adventure lies the need and competition for the precious oil resource, and these are the main reasons behind this Imperial Grab Project. The press is awash of accounts by thoughtful writers about our need for oil and about competition from China and Japan for oil resources. In short, the need for oil has grown dramatically, and the sources have not. (See, e.g., Paul Roberts, "The Undeclared Oil War," The Washington Post, Monday, June 28, 2004, at A21); See also Lee Jofu, "The Relation [Between] the Gulf Countries and China...Progresses Speedily," Al-Khaleej (Online) (Arabic), Sunday, February 5, 2004.) This is not to mention the imperial bureaucracy's agenda to influence China by controlling oil resources that supply the Asian giant.

What has confused the nature of the Imperial Grab Project was all the propaganda about democracy and "good for Israel" propositions, which were strewn about in an attempt to justify such a grand-scale adventure and gain desperately needed votes in Florida. (How soon we forget! So many "good for Israel" liberals lent their support to this project; they had lost sight of the fact that the closest Israel and the Palestinians had come to peaceful co-existence was when Bill Clinton lent the weight of his presidency in support of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and treated Palestinians like people who mattered. This was the same Bill Clinton who avoided this nasty adventure. On the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio, former President Clinton recently said that Paul Wolfowitz tried to sell him the Iraq invasion. Mr. Clinton knew better.) In short, politicians with close relations to oil interests (and those mandarins with close relations to the right-wing Israeli Likud, and Christian evangelist propagandists-crusaders) all joined hands in this sick Project that has resulted in the loss of over 900 American lives and the maiming of countless others. This doesn't even begin to approach the misery it has visited on the Iraqis. The liberal press had cheered the war, then apologized after American soldiers began to die at the rate of two per day. At the heart of their apology is not so much that no weapons of mass destruction were found or that their reporters relied so heavily on con-artists (which were their stated reasons.) At a deeper level, the liberal press has sensed that the Imperial Grab Project has gone bad, that it didn't seem to be so good for Israel, and that the mothers of those who died and those who were maimed will never forgive them their rush to, and excitement about, an unnecessary and misguided war.

Back to resources. It seems possible that OPEC has been for a good while producing oil at near maximum capacity; and yet oil prices have remained high. Could it be that oil production has hit a wall? In other words, could it be that the future need for oil, expected to increase at a significant pace, is an issue that is visiting us this very moment?

Unquestionably, the slide in the dollar's value had motivated OPEC countries initially to restrict production to raise prices (paid in dollars) to preserve their purchasing power. Still, there's enough smoke to suspect a possibly large fire: Capacity is seriously limited, and the ready ability to increase production seems to have hit a wall.

Saudi Arabia, for long the swing producer, may just be producing at its highest capacity--around 10.5 million barrels per day--which means that it may very well have lost its enviable swing position, at least for now. (I have no hard evidence of this; I'm suspecting it based on a survey of sources.) What motivates Saudi Arabia to produce at maximum capacity and lose as a consequence its position as swing producer within OPEC? The answer may lie in the Saudi government's need for income. Increased revenue for the state can be used to appease opposition at home, at a time when the public is calling for reform and the Saudi government is unable to deliver in a time frame that satisfies that opposition. (The government has promised partial municipal elections; the government has announced that these will take place in stages, starting in November.) The failure of the royal family to galvanize a consensus for public political participation among its estimated 20,000 princes and five kings (so to speak; these are Abdullah, Sultan, Nayef, Salman, and Abdul-Aziz bin Fahd)has hindered its ability to deal with an urgent need for reform and the demands by various sectors of the Saudi population for a voice in the political process. For now, money buys time, and it seems that money is flowing to the Kingdom thanks to what looks like maximum production of oil at a time when its price hovers at a $40-a-barrel high.

We're left with Iraq and its potential as a great producer of the precious resource. The nationalist resistance seems to understand that its country is a pawn in a worldwide competition for oil; hence its focus (when it can) on attacking oil installations and pipelines. (This is not to mention that these attacks would be expected to raise the price tag on the American taxpayer.) Any extra capacity therefore which the dreamed-of modernization of Iraq's oil infrastructure could increase is running against a war of resistance by Iraqi nationalists. Foreign fighters are eminently insignificant and would not be able to operate but for the acceptance by and support of the mostly Sunni Arab public and those Shia who follow Muqtadha as-Sadr; these, I suspect, probably are seeking training from some of these foreign fighters after performing miserably against American troops in their last Tet-like offensive. Arab Sunni and as-Sadr shi'a (and, increasingly, all others) as SPC has repeatedly indicated, now are clamoring towards Islamism, as this ideology assures a crossover to a wider populace--from Sunni Arab to Sunni Kurdish to Shi'a Arab, and so on. The hope is an Islamist Iraq, united to defeat America's Iraq Grand Oil Imperial Grab Project.

Meanwhile, in Washington, there are those who believe that the United States can gain better control of Iraq by subduing Iran. The latest withdrawal of American dependents from Bahrain should be seen as an American threat to Iran that the United States is ready to attack some of its strategic sites (such as the Abu Shehr nuclear reactor) while robbing it of the opportunity to retaliate against Americans in that majority-Shi'a Kingdom. In short, there's so much confusion in Washington on how to deal with Iran. Some want war; some want diplomacy.

SPC is currently working on advancing a proposal on how best to deal with Iran while avoiding bloodshed and how best to leave Iraq without losing it. Suffice it to say, for now, that those who want to attack Iran and change its regime should know that the moderates in Iran will behave the same way as the extremists. Both share and will continue to share the same strategic perspective of Iraq and of America's intervention there. Besides, no one really believes that the United States can attack any other far-away country in any serious fashion. Its troops are stretched thin and the American media is rife with stories about the malaise on the part of those who had witnessed their period of military service extended for a war that was misguided and eminently unnecessary.