USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011020.2055 (On Screen): Saudi Arabia is a wild card. It announced that if the United States attacked any Arab country, the Saudis would side with the Arabs. That's interesting, because the next target on the list after Afghanistan is straightened out is almost certainly Iraq. One way or another, the reign of Saddam Hussein is going to end soon. If it doesn't happen through diplomacy (which seems unlikely) or assassination (on the ground or by targetted air attack, which seems even more unlikely) then it will involve a ground war. The question is the extent to which Saudi Arabia follows through on this threat. For example, it could make a token demonstration simply by refusing to permit use of its land and airspace. In that case, an attack would be made from the Gulf and out of Turkey, but the fighting would be difficult because the front would initially be narrow in both places. If that was the extent of Saudi "siding", it would be a problem but not a fatal one.

A second level would be if they actually provided troops and other aid. That is actually less of a concern than you might think; Saudi Arabia actually doesn't have that big an army. Their air force would be a much more formidable threat, since they're armed with F-16's; on the other hand they don't have anything like as many of them, and though their pilots are good, they're not as good as ours. If Saudi jets tried to defend Iraqi air space, then their airfields would be subject to attacks to render them useless, and there might have to be other actions against them. I don't think they would have the ability to hold the air over Iraq; I don't think they could hold the air even over Saudi Arabia if we decided to dispute it. The real question would be their oil and what they would do with it.

They tried a boycott once already, in 1973. At that time, OPEC controlled a larger percentage of the world's oil supply than they do now. Since then, the North Sea oil field, North Slope of Alaska and major oil production in Russia have come on line. Russia, in particular, is eager to export more oil to get hard currency. There is also the US strategic petroleum reserve, established in 1975 to protect the nation against a recurrance of an oil supply boycott. It currently contains in excess of 500 million barrels of petroleum, and unlike oil wells it can be pumped out as fast as it's needed. There's also the fact that Kuwait, unlike Saudi Arabia, would have no sympathy for Iraq and might be willing to increase oil output to compensate for a cutoff by Saudi Arabia, if the US Navy could keep the waterways to Kuwait clear. So while a cutoff of Saudi oil could be a problem, I don't think it would be a catastrophe. And Mexico and Venezuala also might be able to increase production at least to some extent, and surely would do so if asked. There would be an impact, but I don't think it would be as severe as in 1973 -- and it wasn't effective then, either.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is very vulnerable. It is not self-sufficient in virtually anything except petroleum, and would be extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade. As long as it was still shipping oil, this would not be necessary, but if it stopped doing so, the US could cut Saudi Arabia off from all world goods, including food if need be; Saudi Arabia would be hurt much sooner and much deeper by that then would the rest of the world. By far the easiest way to do this would be to mine the Saudi Arabian harbors. One B-52 can drop enough mines in one sortie to render pretty much any harbor useless (it doesn't take many); with the resources we have in that area now, we could stop all shipping in and out of Saudi Arabia within three days. Mines brook no arguments, they listen to no threats, and they can't be frightened or bluffed. They don't negotiate and they can't be bought off.

I believe that this announcement by Saudi Arabia was mainly intended for internal consumption. They are trying to deal with the political issues involved in having the US attack a Muslim nation, albeit not an Arab one. The Taliban are trying to play up the war as Christianity versus Islam, a new crusade; the US (and indeed the Saudi government) are trying to portray it as a battle of civilization against terrorists; the US is letting Saudi Arabia sit it out and stay neutral, because we don't need them and we recognize that forcing them to actively support us could destabilize their government. But even with the nation remaining neutral, this is leading to unrest inside Saudi Arabia. The Saud monarchy's grip on the nation is reported to be loosening, and the possibility does exist for a revolution there. This announcement was intended to help prevent that, by portraying the Saud's as loyal Arabs.

Still, when and if this eventuality actually does come up, I suspect the refusal to allow use of their territory would be the main extent to which they would carry out their threat. If that was all they did, while continuing to trade, we would probably ignore it just as we are now, letting them stay neutral. If they begin active military operations against us, we'd blockade and their government would almost certainly fall. Unfortunately, what would replace it would probably be worse in the long run, and it might lead eventually to a war in Saudi Arabia after Iraq was taken care of. Still, that prospect would not cheer the Saud's themselves, since they would be gone.

It's also possible, of course,