PDA

View Full Version : Will the US save the Saudis or just grab the oilfields?




skunk
May 30, 2004, 07:59 AM
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/05/30/rtr1389365.html

TIM RIPLEY, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE AT BRITISH-BASED CENTRE OF DEFENCE AND INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES:

"This is a culmination of over 18 months of incidents that have been getting more and more serious. The blatant nature of the attack and the seeming inability of the Saudi security services to deal with it and even prevent it and contain it, will be sending real shock waves through the region.

"That part of Saudi Arabia is the most strategic in terms of oil reserves in the world and the seeming inability of the Saudis to control it will be making lots of people very nervous.

"The credibility of the Saudi statements about having the situation under control are looking very, very weak at the moment. The whole confidence in their security apparatus is getting lower and lower as we speak.

"This is not somebody planting a bomb and running off. This is large numbers of armed men running amok in a very large city, which is unprecedented.

"The U.S. was very keen for the Saudis to increase production to keep the price of oil down. This is not going to do anything to help the price of oil."

FERHAD IBRAHIM, MIDDLE EAST SPECIALIST, BERLIN'S FREE UNIVERSITY:

"The U.S. has always expected since September 11 that Saudi Arabia would become unstable. It was no coincidence that many of those participating in the attacks were from Saudi Arabia...The system there is being destabilised from within. That's what is dangerous. If things are destabilised from within then a collapse is likely. But in the short-term it would be stupid to expect a collapse.

"For its own security, the U.S. will do everything in its power to make sure Saudi Arabia stays as it is especially regarding who is in the oil-producing areas. Europe and the U.S. will do everything to keep this state in place.

"Because of this crisis, Saudi Arabia, in the short term, is being distracted from its efforts to keep oil prices moderate with increased production...I think an energy crisis would be unavoidable if Saudi output should drop below 5 million barrels per day. The Americans wouldn't be able to compensate for such a fall, they haven't reached their output goals in Iraq."

DIAA RASHWAN, RESEARCHER AT CAIRO'S AL-AHRAM CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC STUDIES:

"We risk seeing more complications in the oil market and this could affect the American elections.

"The Americans will be more supportive of the Saudis because they are sure that they are in the same corner. The links between the United States and the Saudi regime became more and more close after the Riyadh attacks (last year) and the Saudi campaign against al Qaeda. Before the Riyadh attacks, there was doubt about the Saudi will to fight al Qaeda but now the Americans trust the Saudis. But it is not just trust, there is also the question of capability.

"The roots of this are the occupation of Iraq, Palestine and the U.S. attempt to press the rate of change in a traditional society. If these factors continue, I don't think any countries in the region will be spared."

Would they be foolish enough to commit further troops to defend Riyadh? Do they care if Mecca and Medina are in the hands of another theocratic regime? Now they've relocated to Iraq, the US could simply throw a cordon around the oilfields ("for the world", of course) and leave the House of Saud to its fate. They could even lay on a "reverse airlift" to bring back the Sauds whom they whisked out of the US just after 9/11.



wrldwzrd89
May 30, 2004, 08:25 AM
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/05/30/rtr1389365.html

[/indent]
Would they be foolish enough to commit further troops to defend Riyadh? Do they care if Mecca and Medina are in the hands of another theocratic regime? Now they've relocated to Iraq, the US could simply throw a cordon around the oilfields ("for the world", of course) and leave the House of Saud to its fate. They could even lay on a "reverse airlift" to bring back the Sauds whom they whisked out of the US just after 9/11.
An unstable Saudi Arabia is bad news for just about everyone - especially those countries that use the oil produced there. I don't think that the US knows what to do, or even what its best options are for dealing with this situation at this point - they're too focused on Iraq. (This is my first post in the Political forum)

skunk
May 30, 2004, 08:28 AM
They're too focused on Iraq
Focused is an interesting word to use...:rolleyes:

(This is my first post in the Political forum)
Welcome to the world of quick-witted repartee and incisive observation! :D

miloblithe
May 30, 2004, 09:29 AM
It just gets more and more disturbing doesn't it? It's also telling that the US is the least supportive of Iran, the biggest democracy in the region, and the most supportive of Saudi Arabia, which is the least democratic. Kind of goes counter to our stated goals.

As for the question at hand, for sake of US interests, Saudi should get help from somewhere else. Help from the US would only make things worse. Also, the "two state solution" of a new oil field state and a religious state around the holy cities is as realistic as the "three state solution" for Iraq. The US likes atlases appearing as they do. The problem with redrawing any border is that it brings other borders into question, which brings even more borders into question. I don't know Saudi's makeup or geography well, but I'm sure Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. Wouldn't stand by idly if a land grab of the world's most valuable land was going on.