So Israel is being asked/tasked to do the US's dirty work in Iran

Submitted by Jon (France), Jul 8, 2009 at 12:43

The Web is bouncing with infomercials about the common interests of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel, and about a "no-see no tell" authorisation for Israel to attack Iran. This seems possible but is it the whole story ? Probably not.

I think that the Saudis don't really give a rat about the Israelis or the Palestinians. The Saudis care about the maintenance of the family in power. They are on the other hand very worried about the Persians.

Iran is acting through intermediaries the Hamas and the Hez, and the Syrians in such a way that the Al Saud family is being put under pressure. The potential for a Shia uprising in Saudi itself is highly uncomfortable for them.

The fact that the always malevolent (ie anti Arab) Persia is getting stronger is frightening for the family business planners.

The Saudis probably operate on the dimension where "an enemy of your enemy is your friend (at least for today)". That is why they are, in private (and since when do the Family do stuff in public ?) very happy that the Israelis might take out their enemies. Their vision is short term, or medium term (up to 20 years max).

The Israelis on the other side of this equation are in a less comfortable situation, for they are deeply convinced that the Persians are potentially their friends, and that it is just the regime which is an enemy.

They would much rather the Persians become a big power, and linked to them, dominate the Arab countries. The Israeli strategic perspective is minimum 50 years.

They are particularly loath to attack Iran, now, because they see the seeds of a collapse of the religious dictatorship.

Obviously if they have to, they will take out the Iranian nuclear programme, but just as obviously would prefer not to have to.

Had the US "done the dirty work" under Bush, the US would have alienated Iran, and the Israelis could have benefited from that. Now the US is manoeuvring so that the Israelis do the dirty work, and the US benefits.

Mr. Obama would like to make sure that the Israelis not become hegemonic in the Mid East, as the US gets out of Irak and in the future Afghanistan. The US vision is of a necessary strategic retrenchment out of the Mid East, as budgetary constrains make a long term presence inconceivable.

The Israelis have been building a major relationship with the Indians, and completing this with the Persians (whose language group is the same as that of India ...) would present a check mate to Arab power, indefinitely, and would be worrying for long term US oil supplies and US oil majors, never mind strategic implications. All that stands between a Persia friendly to Israel, and unfriendly to most Arab states is the Ayatollahs.

Mr. Obama therefore has to support the Ayatollahs against the democrats in Iran, and fight against regime change there, to the extent of visibly aligning the US against Israel.

I would add to the above analysis that the Chinese are very much on the same side as the US. The Chinese, particularly now that they are the largest investors in the US treasury market, have congruent interests to the US, plus an insatiable need for Oil, and no particular interest in anything else in the Mid East.

They would be extremely uncomfortable with the Israel India Persia axis, particularly since this would suck in the Russians at some point, who have every interest in this type of scenario. The Russians probably see themselves "loosing India" as a client state which paid for weapons, and as a foot in the Southern Seas, which might be important to interdict China at some point. They also have a rapidly declining population which means that soon they will be out of the game.

Expect perhaps the KGB to assist the Mossad ...... to do regime change in Iran .... that would be quite a combination !

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".