SAUDIS RISK INCITING RELIGIOUS WAR

SAUDIS RISK
INCITING RELIGIOUS WAR

Propping up a Sunni dictator was not the main reason the Saudis sent tanks into neighboring Bahrain. Their real aim was to strike at Iran by suppressing the majority Shite population in Bahrain. They also wanted to send a message to Saudi Shiites that if they protest, they will do so at their peril.
The House of Saud, a close ally of Washington and Israel, has been the most divisive Arab nation in decades, spreading Wahabbism, the most militant form of Islam, through the Middle East and Asia. One of the tenets of Wahabbism is that Sunnis are heretics, very much on a par with Christians. Saudi riches created the Madrasah schools from which many of Al Qaeda’s fighters emerged and the oil rich Kingdom was the home to the majority of the 9/11 hijackers.
The movement of Saudi forces into Bahrain marked the first time an Arab nation sent troops and tanks into a neighboring Persian Gulf country. The response from nations like Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, which have majority Shiite populations, was outrage. They believe Tel Aviv and Washington encouraged the Saudis to prop up the dictatorship in Bahrain because they did not want to see another Shiite-run state in the region. The White House claimed the president was not consulted by the Saudis but that was met with derision in Iraq and Iran. Any military movements across borders in the Middle East cannot happen without the Israelis and the Pentagon knowing about them. There is so much surveillance from air, land and sea military columns leaving Saudi territory would have popped up on a computer screen in the U.S. 5th Fleet H.Q. in Bahrain. The Fleet, which is stationed there with the express purpose of spying on Iran, would have been alerted once Saudi tanks and armored personnel carriers headed for the border with Bahrain.
Some Saudi news outlets conveniently reported Washington had not been informed, insisting Saudi King Abdullah made the decision after talks with the al-Khalifa royals in Bahrain. Behind the scenes, Washington would have had every reason to support a Saudi decision to providing military backing for its neighbor. After unrest in Tunisia spread to Egypt it quickly became clear Obama was happy to support protest movements in those nations, and military action in Libya, but Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen were off-limits. Protesters in those nations would get no support from Washing even if they were beaten, rounded up, tortured and shot in the streets. From Obama’s perspective, those three “friendly” dictatorships were important to his foreign policy. Saudi Arabia was the biggest oil producer and Bahrain was home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. As for Yemen it was not important if its forces were gunning down protesters as long as it continued to back America’s counter insurgency war in the Arabian Gulf.
Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who rarely makes public pronouncements joined Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, in warning the Saudis they were in danger of provoking sectarian strife throughout the region. Perhaps that is exactly what the Saudis are hoping for in the months ahead. Their goal may be to draw Iran into retaliating or supplying the Shiite opposition in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia with weapons. That would make it easier for the Saudis and the Bahrain royals to use excessive force against Shiites in their own countries. Such a policy would suit Israel’s strategy of fomenting divisions and thereby weakening its neighbors. Nevertheless, like the Israelis, the Bahraini and Saudi royals see Iran as the source of all ills in the region and have been waiting for an opportunity to strike out at the Shiites in their midst. Their suppression of Shiites in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain could, however, generate a rising tide of sectarianism, which might destabilize the entire region and result in Sunnis and Shiites slaughtering each other from Lebanon to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.
One of the glaring ironies of the ongoing strife in the Middle East is how the region is awash with weapons supplied by the world’s major arms dealers, including the ones who agreed to bomb Libya, namely the U.S., France and Britain. The weapons Gaddafi has used against his own people were bought from the U.S., France, Britain, Israel, China and Russian. The weapons provided to his opponents, via the Saudis, will have been bought by the Saudis on the international market. They will be reimbursed by Britain, France and the U.S. No matter which regime falls or rises, the global arms industry benefits. It supports both sides and is always looking for new customers. Whoever replaces Gaddafi will be encouraged to spend oil revenues on military hardware while ordinary people remain trapped in poverty.