Nawaf Obaid, director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, recently posted an interview about US-Saudi relations and a set of briefing slides on the Saudi - US Relations Information Service website. His interview largely affirmed my reading of the Saudi calculations during the Lebanon-Israel war:
Saudi Arabia came through with, what could be called “its part of the bargain.” The Kingdom was forthright in its perspective of what Hizbollah was doing. It stepped up to the plate by offering political coverage for other countries to come in and condemn what Hizbollah had done. That was made with the hope that America would reign in the Israelis. The reality proved to be the complete opposite. To some extent that embarrassed the Saudi leadership while at the same time it gave Hizbollah support within the wider Arab and Muslim world.
The expectation was that both sides would reign in their respective, if you want, constituencies. That would put an end to it, to put an end to the Israeli attack on Lebanon while beginning to isolate or sideline Hezbollah’s operations there. It actually backfired because one side did do what was needed -- Saudi Arabia came out with strong statements -- and the other side, the Americans, did absolutely nothing.
Also of interest in Obaid's interview is an accompanying set of briefing slides about Iraq, which seem to reflect official Saudi thinking.
Obaid breaks the insurgency down as such: 77% "domestic secular" (officer corps, former Baathists), 16% "domestic religious", and 7% "foreign religious." He breaks down the composition of the 5380 identified foreign jihadis as such: 16% Yemeni, 11% Sudanese, 16% Syrian, 12% Egyptian, 10% Saudi, 7% North African, and 22% Algerian. While the Saudis have an obvious interest in minimizing the Saudi component of the foreign jihadis (one slide reads "although Saudis make up only the sixth largest contingent, this should still be a major concern for the government"), this breakdown is still interesting - particularly his argument that the Algerians are the largest, most experienced, and most violent group. Also interesting is the trend-line: one chart shows that the number of Algerians increased from 600 to 1250 in the period between September 2005 and March 2006, while North Africans went from zero to 375. All countries went up - suggesting a growing absolute, if not relative, foreign presence - but the North African angle is intriguing.
Obaid's presentation asserts that Zarqawi was only one commander, and not the most dangerous, and that "the idea of a single commander is a Western delusion - no single leader orchestrate's al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq." Several foreign commanders operate their own networks, he argues, with the Algerian being the most dangerous, while "the Egyptian" took over Zarqawi's network and melded it with his own.
Finally, Obaid claims that Iran has assisted al-Qaeda in Iraq, including "active help" in transporting fighters from Afghanistan to Iraq and "material support, in the form of explosives, food, and logistical help." I wonder about this, given the intensely anti-Shia nature of the insurgency and its attacks on Shia civilians, and given the existence of more than enough of its own Shia proxies and supporters in Iraq. To me, that sounds more like the Saudis helpfully prodding the US to be tough with its Iranian rival than reliable information - but who knows?
The punchline: "all indicators point to increased likelihood of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," while "Iranian influence can be expected to increase as American influence wanes."
Obaid's interview and briefing slides fall into the "do with this what you will" category - they strike me as a useful window into the thinking of the Saudi establishment, at the least.
Obaid claims that Iran has assisted al-Qaeda in Iraq, including "active help" in transporting fighters from Afghanistan to Iraq
Now that does strike me as preposterous.
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | August 24, 2006 at 11:09 AM
What do you mean by "North Africa" as opposed to Algeria and Egypt (which both are in North Africa) - Morocco, Tunisia, The Sudan, Mauritania?
Or possibly the northern part of sub-Saharan Africa?
Posted by: Carsten Agger | August 24, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Carsten - he didn't break it down, but I'm pretty sure he meant Morocco and Tunisia, maybe Libya?
Posted by: aardvark | August 24, 2006 at 12:45 PM
[The punchline: "all indicators point to increased likelihood of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," while "Iranian influence can be expected to increase as American influence wanes."]
A recent Chatham House report says the same sort of thing.. It adds that as the US toppled Saddam and the Taliban, they removed Iran's chief competitors in the region. I'm sure I've read people like Abdel Bari Atwan write that a few times in past months. Also from the report:
"Iran views Iraq as its own backyard and has now superseded the US as the most influential power there; this affords it a key role in Iraq’s future. Iran is also a prominent presence in its other war-torn
neighbour with close social ties, Afghanistan. The Sunni Arab states of Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf are wary of Iran yet feel compelled by its strength to maintain largely cordial relations while Iran
embarrasses their Western-leaning governments through its stance against the US. "
I'm not sure how to tie links into the text (or if I can), but here are a couple for references if you're interested..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6031953,00.html
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf
Posted by: Aqbawi | August 24, 2006 at 01:18 PM
"Obaid claims that Iran has assisted al-Qaeda in Iraq, including "active help" in transporting fighters from Afghanistan to Iraq"
...sounds suspiciously familiar...
Donald Rumsfeld - November 2002:
"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."
or even:
George W Bush - 17 June 2004:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
(both: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816963.stm)
Posted by: Aqbawi | August 24, 2006 at 01:51 PM
I don't buy that "America didn't keep its side of the bargain" part one bit. When has the US ever demonstrated it has that kind of control over Israel?
Obaid knows that.
Posted by: Dan | August 24, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Lawrence Wright, in his Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 also suggests that Algerians form the core of insurgent activities in Iraq.
Generally speaking, N. Africa is understood to composed of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya; sometimes Mauritania is included. Egypt is sui generis, even if it happens to be, geographically, in N. Africa. The Arabic dialects of the N. African countries are more similar to each other than they are to any other dialect. Egyptian Arabic is spoken only in Egypt, though it's widely understood because of the Egyptian film and TV industries. But a Lebanese, Egyptian, or Saudi to watch a Tunisian film? They need subtitles...
Posted by: John Burgess | August 24, 2006 at 04:27 PM
On the Iranians helping Al-Qaeda in Iraq? I don't have any problem in believing this. To see it as an impossibility is to fail to recognize that there are different flavors of Shi'ism, only one of which is popularly practiced in Iran and run/supported by the government.
That happens to be 'Usuli Shi'ism. While it does have Arab adherents (primarily in Lebanon, but also in the Gulf States), the more indigenous Shi'ism for the Arabs is Akhbari Shi'ism. [Al-Sistani is Akhbari.] Hugely different philosophies behind them though the religious rituals are generally the same.
Akhbaris, for instance, do not recognize a place for a clerisy, a hallmark of Iranian religio-politics. They believe that until the Hidden Imam returns, there is no true religious authority and that one has to be satisfied with doing the best one can. If you screw up, that'll be the subject of discussion between you and God come the day of judgment. In the meantime, you can keep your judgmental opinions to yourself.
Posted by: John Burgess | August 24, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Are sub-Saharan Africans involved? I figure that Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis must be involved as well.
Posted by: Habibah | August 24, 2006 at 11:58 PM