From one perspective, the common thread is the crisis in Syria, where a
29-month conflict has cemented divisions in the rest of the region and
set the stage for an existential fight on multiple battlefields between
two highly competitive Mideast blocs.
From another perspective, the common thread drawing these disparate
crimes scenes together is the "culprit" - one who has strong political
interest, material capabilities and the sense of urgency to commit rash
and violent actions on many different fronts.
In isolation, none of these acts are capable of producing a "result."
But combined, they are able to instill fear in populations, stir
governments into action, and in the short term, to create the perception
of a shift in regional "balances."
And no parties in the Mideast are more vested right now in urgently
"correcting" the regional balance of power than the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the state of Israel - both nations increasingly frustrated by
the inaction of their western allies and the incremental gains of their
regional rivals Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and now Iraq.
Worse yet, with every passing month the "noose of multilateralism"
tightens, as rising powers Russia, China and others offer protective
international cover for those foes. Israel and Saudi Arabia are keenly
aware that the age of American hegemony is fast declining, and with it,
their own regional primacy.
Common foes, common goals
At the helm of efforts to "correct" the imbalance is Prince Bandar bin
Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the US's longtime go-to man in Riyadh -
whose 22-year reign as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington provided
him with excellent contacts throughout the Israeli political and
military establishment
Like Israel, Bandar has long been a vocal advocate of curtailing the
regional influences of Iran and Syria and forging a neocon-style "New
Middle East" - sometimes to his detriment.
When he all but disappeared from public view in 2008, one of the
reasons cited for Bandar's "banishment" from the royal circle of
influence was that he had "meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up
the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king's approval."
The frustrated Bandar, who at the time officially headed Saudi's
National Security Council, was also notably absent when Saudi King
Abdullah paid a highly visible visit to the Syrian president in late
2009 to renew relations after four years of bitter tensions.
All that changed with the Arab uprisings in early 2011. Regime-change
in Syria - according to an acquaintance who visited various prominent
Saudi ministers (all key royals) in 2012 - suddenly become a national
priority for the al-Saud family. According to this shocked source, the
Saudis had come to believe that if the battle for control over Syria "is
lost," the kingdom would lose its Shia-dominated Eastern Province where
its vast oil reserves are concentrated.
That year marked Bandar's return to influence in the kingdom, and
within short order he was promoted to head the powerful Saudi
Intelligence Agency, known for its myriad links into the underworld of
global jihadis.
But the kingdom's once-reliable western powerhouse ally, the United
States, appeared to be withdrawing from the region. Highly sensitive to
the fall-out over its aggressive interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq,
Washington was shying away from the kind of overt leadership that the
Saudis desperately needed to re-establish their equilibrium in the
region.
Which is where Bandar comes into the picture. The former ambassador to
Washington has the kind of relationships that go deep - no Saudi knows
how to twist American arms better than he. But to push western allies in
the desired direction, the Saudis were in need of an influential and
opportunistic ally that was also passionately fixated on the same set of
adversaries. That partner would be Israel.
Says a 2007 Wikileaks cable from the US embassy in Riyadh:
"We have also picked up first hand accounts of intra-family tension
over policy towards Israel. Some princes, most notably National Security
Advisor Bandar Bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, are reportedly pushing for
more contact with Israel. Bandar now sees Iran as a greater threat than
Israel."
Bandar's ascendancy to his current position suggests more than ever
that the Saudis, at least for now, have put aside their reservations
over dealing with Israel. And Iran's election of a moderate new
President Hassan Rouhani has brought urgency to the Saudi-Israeli
relationship - both fearing the possibility of a US-Iranian grand
bargain that could sink their fortunes further.
Putting wheels into motion
For Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Syria is the frontline battle from which they
seek to cripple the Iranians in the region. None have been as ferocious
in lobbying Washington on the issue of Syrian "chemical weapons use"
and "red lines" as this duo - perhaps even setting up false flag
operations to force its hand. Since last Winter, says the Wall Street
Journal :
"The Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that
Mr. Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a
"red line": the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents
flew an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas
exposure. Prince Bandar's spy service, which concluded in February that
Mr. Assad was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the US, which
reached a similar conclusion four months later."
The following Spring, it was Israel's turn. In an article entitled
"Did Israel Ambush the United States on Syria," Alon Ben David says:
"By stating that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical
weapons, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the director of Israel's Military
Intelligence Research Department, cornered the Americans. Washington
finally - and very tentatively - admitted that such weapons had been
used. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planned to ambush the
Americans, it was a phenomenal success. From an Israeli standpoint,
this was a chance to test America's supposed "red line."
The Russians, however, have stood in the way of every effort to draw
the US into intervening directly in Syria. In the past year, the Saudis
and Israelis have tag-teamed Moscow, by turns cajoling, threatening and
dangling incentives to shift the Russians from their immovable position.
Just last month, Bandar beat a path to Moscow to test Russian
President Vladimir Putin's appetite for compromise. According to leading
Lebanese daily As-Safir, a private diplomatic report on the Saudi
prince's visit claims that Bandar employed a "carrot-and-stick" approach
to wrest concessions from Putin on Syria and Iran.
In what has to be the most delusional statement I've heard in a while,
Bandar allegedly told the Russian president: "There are many common
values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against
terrorism and extremism all over the world." He continued with a threat:
"I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city
of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten
the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move
in the Syrian territory's direction without coordinating with us. These
groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but
they will have no role or influence in Syria's political future."
According to the report, Putin responded to Bandar thus: "We know that
you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that
support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely
incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism
that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations
according to clear and strong principles."
Bandar ibn Israel: a terror Frankenstein
Chechen jihadis have, of course, turned up in Syria to fight alongside
their brethren from dozens of other countries against the government of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past two years.
The Saudi links go beyond jihadis though. Seventeen months ago in Homs
- and barely a month after the battle over Baba Amr - 24 Syrian rebels
groups sent an email to the externally-based Syrian National Council,
complaining about the rogue behavior of the Saudi-funded Al Farouq
Battalion. This is the group to which the infamous lung-eating Syrian
rebel once belonged.
Alleging that Al Farouq was responsible for killing at least five
rebels and fomenting violence against civilians and other fighters, the
group wrote:
"The basis of the crisis in the city today is groups receiving uneven
amounts of money from direct sources in Saudi Arabia some of whom are
urging the targeting of loyalist neighborhoods and sectarian escalation
while others are inciting against the SNC.?They are not national,
unifying sources of support. On the contrary, mature field leaders have
noted that receiving aid from them [Saudi Arabia] entails implicit
conditions like working in ways other than the desired direction."
In a reprisal of his role in Afghanistan where he helped the CIA arm
the Mujahedeen - who later came to form the backbone of the Taliban and
Al Qaeda - Bandar is now throwing funding, weapons and training at the
very same kinds of Islamist militants who are establishing an extreme
version of Sharia law in territories they hold inside Syria.
Says an analyst at a Beirut-based think tank:
"These fighters, many of whom are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda,
are much more pragmatic today. They are ready to take funding,
facilities and arms from the Saudis (who previously they targeted).
There is no concept of a main enemy - it could be the US, Russians,
Iranians, Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood. Their only priority is to use the
new situation of instability in the region to form a core territorial
base. They now think in Syria they have a real opportunity to regenerate
Al Qaeda that they didn't have since their defeat in Iraq. In the Sinai
too. Through a central Syrian base they are ready to converge with
other regional actors from which they will move into Lebanon, Iraq and
other places."
"Some of them know Bandar for a long time," says the analyst. "There
have always been Saudi intelligence officers dedicated to oversee
jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya."
Though the Saudis tell Washington that their goal is to keep
extremists out of power in Syria, elements in the US administration
remain uncomfortable about where this could end. Says the Wall Street
Journal, quoting a former official concerned about weapons flowing into
jihadi hands: "This has the potential to go badly" - an understatement,
if ever there was one.
Using Lebanon as a lever
Whereas western powers have sought to maintain stability on the
Lebanese front, the Saudis - who lost influence in the Levantine state
when Hezbollah and its allies forced the dissolution of a Riyadh-backed
government in early 2011 - are not as inclined to keep the peace.
Paramount for Bandar's Syria plans is halting the battlefield
assistance Hezbollah has provided for the Syrian army in key border
towns which had become supply routes for rebels.
To punish Hezbollah and weaken its regional allies, the Saudis have
used their own alliances in Lebanon to hammer daily at the Shia
resistance group's role in Syria. One easy route is to sow sectarian
tensions in multi-sect Lebanon - a tactic at which the conservative
Wahhabi Saudis excel. Pitting Sunni against Shia through a series of
well-planned acts of political violence is child's play for Saudis who
have decades of expertise overseeing such acts - just look at the
escalation of sectarian bombings in Iraq today as example.
This does not necessarily mean that Riyadh is involved in planning these operations though.
Says the Beirut analyst: "The escalation may be Saudi-run, but not
necessarily the deed itself. (When they back these Islamist extremists
in Lebanon), they know the software of these people. They know they will
attack Shia and moderate Sunni, use rockets, car bombs, etc. They
empower these groups being conscious of the consequences. These guys are
predictable. And the Saudis also have some trusted men among these
groups who will act in a way that will conform to Saudi interests and
projects."
The diplomatic report on the Bandar's Moscow visit concludes: "It is
not unlikely that things [will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both
the political and security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision
to respond to Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian crisis."
Two bombings: one, targeting a Shia neighborhood, the second aimed at
Sunni residents. On another front, the IDF launches a secret mission
across the Lebanese border, swiftly thwarted by a Hezbollah
counterattack. Soon after, an Al Qaeda linked group called the Abdullah
Azzam Brigades (AAB), which last year acknowledged its fight against the
Syrian state, launches four rockets into Israeli territory. Israel does
not retaliate against this Salafist militia though. The IDF choses
instead to strike at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
(PFLP), a group that supports the Resistance in Lebanon and Syria.
It appears that Israel, like the Saudis, has a message to relay to
Lebanon: Hezbollah should stay out of Syria or Lebanon will bear the
consequences.
The escalation of violence in the region - from Lebanon to Iraq - is
today very much a Bandar-Israel project. And the sudden escalation of
military threats by Washington against the Assad government is
undoubtedly a result of pressures and rewards dangled by this duo.
While Putin may have told Bandar to take a hike when the he offered to
purchase $15 billion in weapons in exchange for a compromise on Syria
and Iran, the British and French are beggars for this kind of business.
Washington too. With $65 billion in arms sales to the kingdom in
process, the Obama administration is prostituting Americans for cold,
hard cash.
Let there be no mistake. Bandar ibn Israel is going for gold and will burn the Middle East to get there.
By Sharmine Narwani
This commentary originally appeared on Al-Akhbar on August 28
