Among the many things confirmed by the latest WikiLeaks data dump is Saudi Arabia’s concern about the inroads of Iran in Lebanon. Moreover, a U.S. diplomatic cable from May 2008 confirms that Saudi thinking has been centered on a military response to the Iranian encroachment. These facts reinforce thoughts I voiced earlier this year about the purpose of Saudi Arabia’s $60 billion military shopping list. But the apparent progress of Saudi thinking, from May 2008 to the summer of 2010, may be even more informative.
What the Saudis proposed in 2008 was a combined Arab peacekeeping force, deployed to Lebanon under UN auspices and supported with air cover and logistics by NATO. Having Arab forces on the ground in Lebanon — supplanting Hezbollah and Iran — was clearly the motivating factor. A force of this kind would have been lightly armed and dependent on the firepower of NATO, but it would have been Arab.
The arms sought by Riyadh in the $60 billion deal this year represent vastly more capability for an offensive military campaign than would be appropriate for a peacekeeping force. The Arab nations could have put together a peacekeeping force without buying anything new. Meanwhile, as I discussed in September, the Saudis face no threat for which the strike aircraft and assault helicopters in the new arms deal would fill a defensive role. The particulars of the deal indicate that offensive action is envisioned. And the campaign the hardware is best suited for is armed action against the Levant.
Concern about Iran (and, I suspect, about Turkey) increases the urgency of these preparations for the Saudis. The $60 billion arms deal was announced within months of a February meeting in Damascus — between Bashar Al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah — which was widely touted in the region as a “war council.”Arming up is not the Saudis’ only reaction: they sponsored a rare summit with Syria’s Al-Assad in Beirut in July and have kept a steady stream of senior Saudis going through Lebanon for one conference after another throughout the latter half of 2010. Establishing the Saudis — and, by extension, an Arab coalition — as leaders in resolving Lebanon’s internal instability is a central motivation for Riyadh.
The $60 billion arms deal indicates that the Saudis are not planning to leave the outcome to diplomacy, chance, or the United States. Population and geography mean the Saudis cannot launch an offensive strike without a coalition; it’s not something they foresee doing soon. It’s undoubtedly contingent on other developments. But what Americans should keep in mind is that the joust over Lebanon is a central front, not a sideshow, for the factions of the Middle East. This applies in the military as well as in the political realm. Lebanon, the most vulnerable nation bordering Israel, is key terrain — and it’s in dispute. Given the advanced state of Iran’s proxy campaign there — and the declining decisiveness of U.S. power — it’s also becoming urgent.
What success has Hillary Clinton had except to get elected in NY State after Guiliani had to drop out of the race due to cancer? Her Health Initiative, her Presidential campaign were disasters.
Her last foreign policy stance was to basically call Gen. Petraeus a liar and told him the surge was not working. What the heck does she know? Huh!
With Clinton in his administration, Obama will effectively silence a potential voice of opposition. She is not, as a member of the administration, going to counter the positions of the president, regardless of what some have suggested. She will be, for all intents and purposes, a loyal cabinet member.
Too, she will not be running for president for the next four years, a situation favorable to Obame. Same with McCain. If Obama can entice the man into his cabinet, then another ‘maverick’ voice will be silenced.
Good rule to follow if he can effect it: Appropriate your opponents into your administration and silence them.
It’s not such a hard concept to follow, is it?
I don’t disagree that Hillary would be the better of all other conceivable Obama options. However, this in and of itself is dependent on which incarnation of Hillary to which we refer. The notion that she is an avowed hawk seems laughable, given her most recent transformations.
Honestly, the changes she made on stage during primary debates were reminiscent of a human tornado, destroying her own credibility (of which there was any) in the process.
What was her latest? She voted for the war, but didn’t like how it was being conducted? Oh, and if she had had the authorization to do over, she would not have voted for the war. I can just hear her hectoring voice squeal right now. Ouch.
Incidentally, I think Obama would have to be incredibly insecure to select her.
What questions will the Republican Senators ask during her confirmation hearings? About what should they ask?
She has normal patriotic instincts. This 2006 piece by a peacenik: Hillary the Hawk summarizes what’s right with her; and attacks her for it.
(Rahm Emanuel, btw, is also denounced here, for standing up to Murtha.)
Agreed, it could be worse. Agreed, it removes a force that might have pressed against Obama in some respects in the Senate. And agreed, she has very little actual experience to qualify her for the position.
But what really bothers me right now…all this press slobbering over the “Team of Rivals” nonsense. First of all, probably the differences between them in the campaign were more about posturing than substance; Hillary thought she had to position herself as tough on defense, and Obama thought in the primary he had to position himself to her left, then pirouetted and became more Hillaryesque in the general. Second, we are talking about two members of the same party here; Obama will probably choose a token Republican for something, but nothing crucial, and when Bush chose token Democrats for his cabinet he certainly didn’t receive gushing from the media about how like Lincoln it made him. Third, one has to wonder whether this wasn’t a part of some sort of agreement made back around the time of the convention. I’m not in the habit of wearing tin foil hats, but we all wondered whether there would be some sort of agreement, and some mentioned the possibility of the Supreme Court. SecState is actually much better for Hillary because it preserves her Presidential ambitions. She’ll be a little old by the time Barack is done, assuming he is able to run again 4 years from now, but 8 years from now if she has had a number of years at the helm of State she’ll be able to point to actual relevant executive experience and history as a statesman (or stateswoman).
She’ll be a little old in 2016. But Republicans, having pushed someone even older in 2008, won’t be able to object very effectively, and she’ll probably look more healthy than McCain did. And if there’s one thing we should have learned from the years 1992 to 2000, it’s that we should never underestimate the extent of the Clintons’ ambitions.
Barack Obama, December 27, 2007: “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”
I guess according to obama’s comment, we are not going to see any change!!
HIllary would be our toughest, roughest Secretary of State since Jim Baker.
Hillary is a concession by Obama. Obama and the illuminati left know that such a moderate democrat is going to prove to be difficult to push agenda past, but she will still be the best choice, especially above Kerry.
it seems like, if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, then there will be some serious personality and agenda conflict between her and Obama