(This was posted on my website last week):
Things seem to be suddenly quieting down in the Gulf region, in terms of rhetoric. There has been little follow-up on the NIE Iran report, after an initial burst of necon damage control spin all over the media outlets. President Bush, and even VP Cheney, have both been quiet on the subject. Even Iran's Ahmadinejad has been silenced- Iran's al-alam TV website has barely referred to the nuclear issue these past few days. His own website barely mentions the issue now.

There is still vocal disappointment in some Arab media, particularly the Saudi-owned media like alhayat, asharqalawsat and a few Gulf satellite newpapers. And in these papers, there has been an increasing tendency over this past week of talk about a conspiracy. Some of the editors and columnists have even started to talk of 'capitulation' by Washington, which is absurd and only reflects nervousness at a possible rapprochement between Washington and the clerical regime in Tehran.
The ire has spread to the Lebanon crisis as well. A regular alhayat correspondent and analyst writes in today's (Dec. 14) edition that Bush is now compromising over Lebanon, abandoning his 'promises' to the Lebanese (meaning to the less than half of the Lebanese who support the Saniora-Hariri cabinet). When a country is as divided as Lebanon, or Iraq, or, come to think of it, as the United States, compromise is the only solution.

France's Nicholas Sarkozy has come under some fire as well this week, partly because of perceived laxity about Lebanon. He can't be compared to Chirac who was close to the Hariris- Chirac has had his own ethical/financial issues since leaving office, but these are the kind of issues that make some Arab media and rulers comfortable with a Western politician. Sarkozy doesn't seem to have these kind of issues, not yet, but then he is just a rookie.
There have also been dark hints in some Arab media this week about Sarkozy's close relations with 'Jewish goups', whatever they are, and talk of his Jewish 'roots' or connections. At the same time, he is criticized for being too easy on Syria in Lebanon, allowing her to regain some influence, something that clearly would conflict with the interests of these alleged 'groups'.
In the end, Riyadh may have more money, but it is too far and Lebanon is surrounded by Syrian territory except for a short strip of Israeli border.

Sarkozy has been under fire in Algeria as well, even during his latest visit. The Algerians, led by the forever-ruling FLN, are still blaming France for what they themselves, led by Mr. Bouteflika's FLN, have done during 45 years of independence to screw up their own country. Seeing how Algerians cross the Mediteranean by droves to live and work in France, they probably would have been better off staying part of France- after some changes to empower the Arab and Berber citizens. They would be free to speak, write, and vote by now. And they would enjoy European Union living standards by now.

Iraqi officials have hinted at a proxy war waged in Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran finances her allies and probably arms them, although anybody can buy any kind of arms in Iraq these days. Saudi Arabia is financing her proxies among the Sunni tribal shaikhs, and is trying now to buy off some of the marginal Shi'a shaikhs as well. The latter is unlikely to work for long, given the history and treatment of Shi'as in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are good at this sort of thing, funding a civil strife, and they have had longer experience in it than anyone else in the region. They had perfected this long before the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

The first time was probably during the (North) Yemen civil war of the 1960s, after army officers overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed a republic. They were Nasserist pan-Arab secularists, and the Saudi regime was terrified at having a pro-Nasser secular republic next door, especially with unresolved border issues. They poured money among the tribal shaikhs and got the civil war started. Their nemesis, Egypt under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, had no choice but to send in troops to counter the flow of petro-money. Egypt's military was bogged down for several years in a guerrilla war with seventh-century tribes being financed by an eighth-century petro-dynasty. The Egyptians were bloodied and demoralized, and although this crtainly did not cause their defeat on June 5, 1967, it probably added to the other serious issues they had. They, together with Jordan and Syria would have lost the war anyway. The audacious Israeli war plan, tactics and superior training did most of the job.

Is it deja vu all over again, as they say in Riyadh? The Yemen war ended as a stalemate, but the monarchy was not restored: it remained a republic in name, although of course not democratic. It is not likely that the new Saudi efforts will fare any better in Lebanon or in Iraq- nor would any Iranian efforts to dominate these countries succeed, despite the media frenzy about that possibility. Not when at least half of the people in each of these countries seems to be on the 'wrong' side, or is it the 'right' side. Maybe this is why King Abdullah and Mr. Ahmadinejad have a date: they will be going to the Hajj together next week.
Cheers
Mohammed