Noah Feldman argues that an Arab military coalition would be good for the United States and good for Israel. He opens with a conventional balance of power argument:
The Iranians see the Saudis as their adversary across the Persian Gulf, and any foothold on the Arabian Peninsula is a potentially important chess piece to use against Saudi Arabia. In any case, the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn’t insisted on a precise overlap of Shiite beliefs when choosing Arab allies.
Conversely, the last thing the Saudis want is an Iranian-supported regime in Yemen. That’s why they’ve been bombing Sanaa — to dispossess the Houthis. The challenge of the Saudi bombing is that, from a regional perspective, it looks simply as though Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a proxy war in Yemen.
and closes with this:
If Egyptian-Saudi-Jordanian military cooperation succeeds in Yemen, then it becomes conceivable that Egyptian troops could provide the main body of an eventual ground force against Islamic State. Egypt would get money from the Saudis — but, more important, Sisi could help Egypt regain some of the international prestige it has lost in recent decades. This could help his domestic legitimacy considerably. It could also occupy the Egyptian Army in a military task, which would enable Sisi to consolidate his control of the military.
Even Israel would be unlikely to object. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel, and Saudi Arabia has shown openness to such a treaty in the past. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly sees Iran as the major geopolitical threat. In the Sunni-Shiite struggle, Israel increasingly looks like it’s on the side of Sunnis.
All of this assumes that the states involved are able to use all the hardware they’ve bought over the years effectively and that their ground troops are willing to fight. I think that Mr. Feldman exaggerates the role that sectarianism plays in what’s going on in the Middle East right now. IMO the evidence that whatever support the Iranians have provided to the Houthi in Yemen is substantial or relevant is pretty weak. I think it’s more along the lines of “the enemy of my enemy”. There’s a Bedouin proverb that may be relevant: I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers.
We have a proverb, too: he who sups with the devil should have a long spoon. We will always be the strangers and should be very cautious in evaluating our interests in so fractious a region of the world.
How’d military interventionism work out for Egypt in the past?
For that matter, how well has it worked out for us in the last few years?
to dispossess the Houthis
That phrase is almost antiseptic in its avoidance of blood. The Saudis are bombing the shit (and the blood, guts, sinew and bone) out of people stuck on the ground. I’m reminded of an exchange from the movie Lawrence of Arabia:
Ali [watching an artillery bombarment at night from very far away]: God help the men who are under that.
Lawrence: But they’re Turks!
Ali: God help them.
How would one calculate the, er, Iranian subsidies, to the Houthi? I am guessing the Iranians are getting their money’s worth in a low cost terrain.
In any event, this analysis(*) suggests that the U.S. needs to adopt a balance of powers approach similar to the Concert of Europe. Why not publicly offer the Saudis short-range nuke capabilities in the event that Iran becomes a nuclear power?
(*) Not Dave’s, I’m sure he finds this idea repugnant.
I’m very concerned about any country whose government has serious stability issues possessing nuclear weapons. Of countries that presently have nuclear weapons or which are suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons that includes North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Israel.
To clarify I think that any authoritarian government has serious stability issues. That would include KSA. I think the idea of giving them nuclear weapons is absurd. Why not just give them directly to DAESH?
Pakistan has stability issues because its control over its territory is so tenous and its intelligence service seems to have a life of its own. Israel’s stability issues are implicit in its size.
“If Egyptian-Saudi-Jordanian military cooperation succeeds in Yemen, then it becomes conceivable that Egyptian troops could provide the main body of an eventual ground force against Islamic State.”
That’s comedy gold. Feldman should be the new Daily Show host or a Tom Clancy ghost writer.
Yes, there’s a lot of magical thinking in his post.
Iran is a revolutionary. expansionist state. Within that framework I am far more concerned about it having nukes, than Pakistan, than North Korea, in that order. If the Sauds are in the picture, I would place them between Iran and Pakistan.
I also think a good case can be made that the U.S. is a revolutionary, expansionist state. Shhhhhhhhh…..