In an upcoming interview on 60 Minutes, Crown Prince Mohammed ibn Salman speaks of his country’s rivalry with Iran in disparaging terms. He makes one astonishing claim and another which seems debatable, if not wrong. The interview comes as he prepared for his maiden voyage to the U.S., where he hopes to bamboozle entrepreneurs with his massive plan to wean Saudi Arabia off oil and diversify its economy. To do this, he will have to solicit a huge influx of western investment to create these new commercial initiatives. Given the way he manhandled hundreds of wealthy Saudi businessmen and princes over the past few months, extorting much of their wealthy from them under torture or threat of torture, these financiers would be well-advised to use caution in lightening their wallets.
Here’s the interview transcript:
NORAH ODONNELL: You’ve been rivals for centuries. At its heart, what is this rift about? Is it a battle for Islam?
MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN: Iran is not a rival to Saudi Arabia. Its army is not among the top five armies in the Muslim world. The Saudi economy is larger than the Iranian economy. Iran is far from being equal to Saudi Arabia.
Um, wrong. Iran’s army is ranked fourth in the Middle East, followed by none other than…Saudi Arabia. Overall, Iran’s military is ranked 21st in the world. While the Saudi prince is correct regarding respective economies, Iran has a far more diverse economy than Saudi Arabia. There will come a time when Saudi oil reserves will be depleted. If MBS’ scheme fails, his country will have nothing to fall back on. While Iran has the potential to diversify its economy in numerous ways.
NORAH ODONNELL: But I’ve seen that you called the Ayatollah, Khamenei, “the new Hitler” of the Middle East.
MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN: Absolutely.
NORAH ODONNELL: Why?
MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN: Because he wants to expand. He wants to create his own project in the Middle East very much like Hitler who wanted to expand at the time. Many countries around the world and in Europe did not realize how dangerous Hitler was until what happened, happened. I don’t want to see the same events happening in the Middle East.
Er, we’re having a really bad history moment here. First of all, there’s no evidence that Iran wants to “expand” in the same way Hitler did by invading, conquering and occupying much of Europe. As for recognizing the danger of Iran, it’s easy to make the argument that Israel and the Saudis themselves are at least as aggressive and expansionist as Iran in the region.
Those of you who heard echoes of this bombast in the remarks of other Mideast leaders, Bingo! You’ll recall Bibi Netanyahu’s equally mendacious historical claim that Tehran is Munich and today is 1938. The rhetoric is precisely the same. The only difference is that Bibi dressed it up a bit more dramatically (and hysterically). MBS doesn’t have Bibi’s flair for drama. But the result is the same: two bogus leaders ginning up hysteria by creating false parallels between their arch-enemy and one of the world’s great villains. There is no comparison. Attempting to create one defames history and truth.
Of course, there are scores of U.S. bankers and business-people eager to taste those Saudi petrodollars. They won’t be put off by a brutal klepto-royal with a shaky grasp of history. But if this is any indication of what MBS’ rule will bring to the Middle East, all I can say is caveat emptor. Invest your billions with this guy and you’re buying a pig in a poke. My apologies to my Muslim readers for associating a Muslim with a pig. But in this case, if the hoof fits, wear it!
Finally, MBS offered the entirely reassuring statement that if Iran made a nuclear weapon, his country would follow suit:
NORAH ODONNELL: Does Saudi Arabia need nuclear weapons to counter Iran?
MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN: Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.
While such a statement is undoubtedly meant to buttress the hardline position of Israel and Trump that not only must Iran be stopped before it gets a nuke, but the P5+1 nuclear deal must be torn up as a prerequisite for halting Iran’s nuclear goals. But instead, it raises a red flag for those of us frightened that yet another U.S. administration will be hoodwinked into facilitating yet another Middle Eastern country’s entry into the nuclear arms race.
You’ll recall that the U.S. ( and France) played key roles in supplying the nuclear materials and expertise which enabled Israel’s entry into the world of nuclear-armed nations. Now, Donald Trump proposes to repeat the same error with the Saudis. Under the guise of helping them develop a nuclear energy capacity, the president proposes supplying the House of Saud with a nuclear reactor and American expertise in building it. It’s a slam dunk. What could go wrong?
Let’s just remember that Pakistan is only one political upheaval away from rule by Taliban-like Islamist hardliners. And it has The Bomb. Whose hands could such weapons fall into in the event that Islamists overthrow Pakistan’s government? God only knows. Now Trump proposes to drop The Big One (or at least the precursor to one) into the lap of yet another shaky Mideast regime. What could go wrong?
My impression is that Saudi Arabia already has nukes. As I understand it, she bought them from Pakistan, and there they remain — for now. Saudi Arabia’s made it clear to Iran that should Iran actually develop a bomb, the nukes currently in Pakistan will be transferred to Saudi Arabia.
There’s no Iranian nuclear threat — at least not one that can’t be easily contained. This is all about other things entirely.
… I really, really don’t like being on the side of darkness and evil. This is getting depressing.
As to the-stupid-Hitler-comparison, if we were going to compare Iran to anyone, we might possibly look to the pan-Slavism of late Tsarist Russia. Russia encouraged Slavic communities in the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish Empires to look to her for liberation, and thus fostered unrest, and Iran seems to play a similar role among Shia communities from Lebanon to Yemen.
I can see how this would worry Saudi Arabia, but I don’t see why I should sympathize. They might try not oppressing their Shia subjects. To continue with the analogy, I don’t see why I would have wanted to help Turkey hold on to her Bulgars and Serbs and things. Obviously, there are practical reasons to keep Saudi Arabia et al from descending into blood-soaked anarchy — but it’s not as if the Saudis are the good guys and the Iranians the villains in this piece.
A plague on the mullahs, and a plague on the House of Saud.
That said, the Prince’s comparing Iran expansionism to Hitler’s expansionism is fair, if not apt. There is Saudi meddling, but there is not Saudi expansionism. There is no Saudi equivalent to Iran’s IRGC.
@Dr John: Comparing Iran to Hitler is neither fair nor apt. There is no Iranian expansionism. Iran plays the same role Saudis do in supporting its allies. In fact, some might argue it does so in a far less brutal, lawless way than your Saudi pals do.
By the way, your protestations about the House of Saud ring hollow, since Bibi and Israel have thrown in their lot with the very kleptocrats you purport to denounce. Didn’t get the memo from Hasbara Central yet, apparently.
@Richard
“There is no Iranian expansionism”
No less than the New York Times, Tim Arango, disagrees with you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-iranian-power.html
I would like to see some news cites disproving the notion that, “(t)here is no Iranian expansionism”.
If you want to claim that KSA is ‘expansionist’, that’s fine, but don’t deny Iranian expansionism in the same breath.
Apparently, I did not get the memo from Hasbara Central. Not yet, and not ever.
I loathe the Saudi autocracy and Wahabism, and I recognise that the average Iranian citizen has much more freedom than the average Saudi citizen. I also recognise the links between Saudi princes and terrorism, including the 9/11 terrorists.
The Saudis are not my pals. If Iran and Saudi Arabia would war against each other, I would not take sides. Rather, I would light up a Cohiba.
@ Dr. John: The NY Times is not the Bible. In fact, it often drinks the Kool-Aid when it comes to Iran. You should read this important article which goes into far more detail on this issue: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/
In fact, Wright argues that Iran’s policy is no different than Saudi Arabia’s or Israel’s. Its approach is primarily defensive in nature. But its enemies (you being one) refuse to view matters from anywhere but their own deep-seated prejudices. Certainly not from the perspective of Iran which, since 1979 has been attacked by Iraq, the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. When you feel under attack you’re going to defend yourself and your interests and you’re going to do so assertively and energetically. That’s not expansionism.
You have never said a word criticizing Israel’s bromance with those Wahabiites you claim to despise. Why is that?
That’s disgusting. No better than Daniel Pipes view of the Syrian conflict: let them kill each other. It’s all good as far as Israel is concerned.
@ Dr. John: The NY Times is not the Bible. In fact, it often drinks the Kool-Aid when it comes to Iran. You should read this important article which goes into far more detail on this issue: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/
In fact, Wright argues that Iran’s policy is no different than Saudi Arabia’s or Israel’s. Its approach is primarily defensive in nature. But its enemies (you being one) refuse to view matters from anywhere but their own deep-seated prejudices. Certainly not from the perspective of Iran which, since 1979 has been attacked by Iraq, the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. When you feel under attack you’re going to defend yourself and your interests and you’re going to do so assertively and energetically. That’s not expansionism.
You have never said a word criticizing Israel’s bromance with those Wahabiites you claim to despise. Why is that?
That’s disgusting. No better than Daniel Pipes view of the Syrian conflict: let them kill each other. It’s all good as far as Israel is concerned.
hate to disagree, Iran took foothold by suborning lebanon’s shiites with money plenty money until they became a branch of iran and overwhelming lebanon political structure and then with the political vacuum after saddam’s fall they moved in with the shiites rebels until they went to be the power behind the power in iraq, full throttle, then hizbollah moved to “help” assad following with iran’s full army in order to be the power behind the power, they tried with hapless hamas but because of wasted monies they moved on
so no i disagree iran does have a full plan to overwhelm the middle east, not by occupying but by being the “religious” power behind the power,
same as hitler he occupied territories adjunct and so is iran + iraq + lebannon + syria , is that encircling
are those not occupation, or i will swallow they all have their own government, yeah sure, but who REALLY REALLY RULES
dont want o upset no one
What puzzles me the most about this pieces is – why would a progressive Jewish blogger from the north west bother himself with protecting Iran?
It isn’t like Iran is completely innocent in this whole shananigan. Even if you claim isn’t aiming for regional hegemony, clearly it isn’t just caring about its own business rather dipping its hand hand anyplace it can.
How does protecting Iran honor repairs the world is beyond me!
@Ariel Koren: what puzzles me most about your comment is– why would an Israeli apologist bother himself with protecting Saudi Arabia?
It isn’t like Saudi Arabia is innocent in this whole shenanigan, etc. Etc.
You get the idea…why would a blogger in the Pacific NW who’s been writing about Israel’s relationships with the Arab & Muslim world for 15 yrs want to “bother himself” with the role Iran plays in ther region? Boy, if you can’t answer that question yourself you’re even dimmer than we thought.
As for Iran, it pursues its interests in the region no differently than Israel or the Saudis. In fact, some might argue it does so in defense because of the aggressive, expansionist role played by both these enemy states.
I didn’t protect the Saudis. I actually haven’t even mentioned them.
And what Israeli expansionism are you taking about? Iran has 10,000s of rockets aimed at Israel and is actively involved in many conflicts in the region. Israel haven’t extended anywhere since 1967.
Why are you so in love with Iran?
@Ariel Koren: No Israeli expansionism? 20 year occupation of southern Lebanon. 50 year occupation of Palestine. Assassinations of Iranian scientists, Palestinian leaders, Syrians, Lebanese, etc. Four major wars, countless invasions of other countries. No, Israel is as prim and proper as a church deacon.
Even if your interpretation is correct and not completely biased, what does that have to do with Iran?
‘What puzzles me the most about this pieces is – why would a progressive Jewish blogger from the north west bother himself with protecting Iran?’
When Americans — gentile and Jewish — are fighting and dying there to perpetrate the greatest evil in our history, then your puzzlement will vanish.
This is all a scheme to get us to attack Iran. That’s wrong, futile, and probably disastrous for our future.
It’ll probably doom Israel as well — but it’s the part about America that bugs me. This is going to make Iraq look like a stunning success. This is all so SURE to fail — in every sense of the word, for everyone. Even the Iranians won’t come out ahead.
‘…same as hitler he occupied territories adjunct and so is iran + iraq + lebannon + syria , is that encircling…’
Apparently, Iran is just to sit there in terrified impotence as Israel and her American golem do whatever they please to her — God forbid she take measures to protect herself.
As a religiously-based state, Iran, has, of course, concerned herself with the fate of her fellow Shi’a. That actually maps her field of activity, not some fantasy of ‘encircling.’ Encircling what? The only place that is ‘surrounded’ would be Iran.
…and aside from religious concerns, that’s exactly what’s driven her. In the fact of the incessant and vicious hostility of Israel and her monster, Iran has sought — with considerable success — to strengthen her position with her neighbors. She’s on good terms with Turkey. She’s influential in Iraq and Afghanistan. It looks like she’s going to come out on top in Syria.
And all this has happened in spite of our hostility and a decidedly limited military capability. Indeed, it’s worth noting that while Iran had nothing to do with starting the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, she’s been the one clear winner in the first two, and is going to be the winner in the third.
Far from achieving any of this with naked aggression, she’s done it by diplomacy and carefully aligning herself with the actual powers that be in each state. Certain arrogant statelets who DO rely on naked aggression could learn from this. Iran goes on from success to success. Meantime, every attempt by Israel to expand her empire turns to ashes.
It’s telling. Militarily, economically, even demographically, Iran is far outweighed by her Israeli-American foe. In some respects, there isn’t even a comparison. But look at the last twenty years and ask yourself?
Who’s winning — and why? The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
One element I think is going to play a major role here is the sheer cultural gulf between the Saudis and the West.
It’s been masked up until now. They stay in their playpen and we stay out. However, as Saudi Arabia moves toward playing an aggressive role in the Middle East, we’re going to see some awkward moments.
Witness that thing with kidnapping Lebanon’s Prime Minister. That was supposed to work? What were they thinking? Obviously, we’re a long way from being on the same page as the Saudis — and that’s going to make for some rough sailing.
Saudi Arabia is some kind of attempt to maintain a medieval Wahhabi paradise with petrodollars — carried out by a people who remain pretty medieval themselves, lashings of new cars or no. There are going to be…communication issues.
Hopefully. I wish only the worst for all this.
hits me to my stomach, “we stay out” because THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. you elected Obama on the condition to retract from being the shining light of the world to start belly gazing. and now you went one step further by IGNORING THE WORD AND FURTHER YOUR BELLY GAZING.
when you are a superpower, both economically and morally you must seed to progress. otherwise you empower the nuts of the world.
nixon empowered china to bring about the education of a billion people and now rather than go forth and educate the Indian subcontinent you leave that to Xi and Putin. GREAT LUMINARIES . it is your duty to protect the world against exactly that. TO ENLIGHTEN IS TO EMPOWER THE PEOPLE. religion serves only to discriminate en enslave.
so for as much as the saudis have much to be ashamed, they have as yet to be as depraved and territory hungry as Iran.
and lets not forget the depravity that Israel sows thanks to the empowerment of the religious ugliness .
how little respect is given to the Roosevelts and followers who rebuilt the entire globe out of zero, where is Kennedy who promoted the best and wanted america to succeed.not by tariffs or calling fake news. these people went by Don Quijote’s word, the dogs are barking that means we are moving forward, they didn’t cane the dogs because they were being followed
so much waste so litte gain, viva las tarifas
‘Israel haven’t extended anywhere since 1967.’
That’s a remarkable statement. I’m trying to understand why you would make it.