TEMPEST-IN -TEA-CUP: ON THE STALEMATE IN THE CRATER-MIDDLE-EAST

“There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.” George Bernard Shaw

This is a second draft. Little change in substance. !

SHAYKH HAMAD’S ULCER AND MIGRAINE HEADACHES

The upcoming Arab summit in Doha, Qatar, likely is giving Shaykh Hamad an ulcer and a series of headaches. The Egyptian ruling elite still is deluding itself about the regional power Egypt isn’t. So it isn’t talking to Qatar. Instead of Mubarak or his foreign minister, it may dispatch the Foreign Ministry’s doorman, Abu Ahmad Mahmoud al-Hamadain al-Saadawi. (Yes!) (Aren’t you glad SUNY gave me a Ph.D.? Such public service it has provided the nation.) Egypt’s rulers (Egypt’s people love Qatar) perceive Qatar as Islamist and allied to Iran. (Qatar, to the Pentagon, should be the new model of presence among he Arab nation, allowing for Arab nationalism with the Islamic flavor; You bring in the Diaspora nationalists and their right-wing allies, and even the CIA-once-the-meltdown-is-over-if-ever -- depending on who resides in the White House -- and it’ll be a coup against Shaykh Hamad. Because, you see, the harmful idiots will mis-calculate when they decide on war with Iran, or else they wouldn't be idiots or harmful, would they? The Pentagon people will have to stop them, unless the Pentagon is taken over yet again by Diaspora nationalists.)

Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren’t at all enamored with the idea of the Iranian President (who King Abdallah had held by the hand as he would a grandson, only a couple of years ago, if that long) attending the Arab summit as observer.

QATAR v. JORDAN: THOSE HASHEMITES ON THE CIA PAYROLL

Then you have al-Jazeera (Shaykh Hamad’s enforcer) air an interview with Mohammad Hassanein (not only one Hasan but two!) Haykal, the aged Egyptian journalist, once adviser to the late and super-handsome (and I mean this in the way that I don’t mean it about the UAE’s Foreign Minister and Kuwait’s Emir) Jamal Abdel-Nasser.

In that interview Mr. Haykal talked about the Hashemite ruling family of Jordan historically having such cozy relations with Israel, and about the late King Hussein being on the CIA payroll. Why did al-Jazeera do that? Perhaps to put pressure on Jordan to not attend the Doha Summit -- since Qatar may know already that Jordan isn't anyway. Jordan likely finds it easier to be in the Saudi camp. If only because it’s sensing a possible huge bite-in-the-ass by the Netanyahu-Lieberman planned cabinet. ( “Transfer” anyone?) Jordan would hope that Egypt (and not only the CIA which wouldn;t dare anger the Diaspora nationalists) would retaliate against Israel by, for one, opening its border in full with Gaza -- without pre-conditions -- should the new Israeli cabinet dare raise the banner of “transfer.”

It befuddled the hell out of me why the Jordanian government establishment became so angry about al-Jazeera and Haykal’s revelations. (Haykal likely needed to make a buck.) Damn it: ever since a child in Lebanon we knew the Hashemites to be on the CIA payroll and Jordan a CIA station. And we knew that the Hashemites were in cahoots with the Israelis. What’s the fuss all about? As a child, I remember so many of my Christian relatives posting portraits of the late King Hussein and of President Kennedy in their businesses and at their homes. As a cargo cult of the West, the Christians (who should all end up here once our society-of-the-tax-base-and-accumulated-capital decides we need to expand the base of the tax-paying pyramid by importing one hundred million immigrants) of that one town were proud that the late King was on the CIA payroll. So, what’s wrong with the Jordanian government establishment? Are they ashamed? What’s there to be ashamed about? Even the Islamists of Jordan allow for CIA payments to their government. They’re not stupid. They know the King and his CIA are Jordan’s only hope for money and aid. Can Arab Qatar assure them of aid to the tune of what the U.S. provides? Doubtful. Highly. (Payments to Kings and Presidents and Prime Ministers and army generals are easy. But hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to feed a hungry Jordanian population is not. Right?)

ONCE WE HAD INFLUENCE: BUT OUR ALLIES THE HARMFUL IDIOTS -- ESPECIALLY CRUSADER, BALD SAMSON AND THE DIASPORA BOYS -- HAVE SAPPED US, SCREWED US, REALLY

Would Saudi Arabia and Egypt allow for Turkey’s attendance as observer at the Arab summit? Would they Indonesia? Likely they would. but not Iran!

Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are aching for the yesteryears: Saudi financial power and Egyptian once-military power, and later as a tag-along to Saudi Arabia’s financial power. Oh dear. These days are over. True, the Saudi ruling elite may be able to extend somewhat its ability to buy up influence and have other armies fight for it. The recent phone call by President Obama to the King may have deluded that elite quite a bit: please do not cut oil production, and don’t let OPEC do it, until we’re out of the financial hole Crusader and Mr. Greenspan had put us in. Will you keep the troops in Iraq longer? Yes; I’ll try my best, I tell myself. But to you, I say: absolutely. A quid pro quo of sorts. But is the Saudi ruling elite really betting on this? Qatar should be their model. Playing-for-time shouldn't. It’s fraught with danger. But if we change course, the Israelis will bomb us. Ha! You will never have as much legitimacy among the Arab nation and among your own people as when the Israelis and/or their harmful idiots bomb you. If I were an Arab leader, I’d be begging for that.


RUNNING-IN-PLACE: SUCH IS THE FATE OF THE SAUDI RULING ELITE

Remember the “political battlefield pole” I talked about a couple of posts ago, and had contrasted it to the “Saudi Option pole” ? (See: “The Saudi Option Isn’t”) Here: consider this statement by Saud al-Faisal in the aftermath of Mottaki’s visit with the Saudi King:

“ Although we appreciate Iranian support for Arab causes, we nonetheless deem that this support should go through the door of the Arab Legitimacy (he means governments, but not Syria’s or Qatar’s) and [that this support] be in harmony with the goals and [political] position of [the Arab Legitimacy] and that [this Iranian support] would express its solidarity with [the Arab Legitimacy] and not try to be an alternative to [the Arab Legitimacy.]” (My translation; if there’s confusion, it’s likely because the statement was so convoluted as only Mr. Faisal’s people can create.)

What’s he talking about? By way of answer I'll refer to the rhetorical questions asked by an Arab journalist: does Mr. Faisal really expect Iran to go through the Saudi proxies in Lebanon (the Seniora government) to pass weapons on to Hezbollah? Or to go through the harmful idiots’ where’s-my-paycheck-to-build-my-villa puppets in Ramallah to pass weapons on to Hamas? Is he really expecting Iran to shed its defenses once-and-for all and lie prostrate before U.S. and Israeli planes? Iran and Syria , where the middle classes are involved in their armies, will never subscribe to the Saudi model of government-scared-of-raising-an-army-and-forever-seeking-outside-protection.

More to the point about the statement is that it betrays paralysis in Saudi decision-making. Faisal cannot say it: but the stodgy succession process A.K.A. extended-family-with-thousands-upon-thousands-of-princes-politicking -about robs the Saudi government of much needed flexibility and ability to maneuver. In short: Saudi Arabia isn’t able to adopt the “political battlefield” model even though, clearly, that model would buttress not only its regional role and its status in Washington, D.C. (where it has to beg the Diaspora nationalists, who have taken over U.S. foreign policy towards the Arab nation, in full, and have fused idiots-reluctant foreign policy instituions whith those of Israel, for each and every favor) but, too, the future role of the royal family – minus a few thousand princes (if only there was flexibility) who likely drain the hell out of the budget when oil prices are low.



Editor’s comment: I really, really, had nothing to say this morning, yet I came up with the above blah, blah, blah. The joke is on you. Or is it on me?