Persian Gulf Security
and
Oil Issues: The
recent visit of Secretary of Defense Cohen to the Persian Gulf resulted in
shifting American military commitment away from the traditional pillar of U.S.
Gulf policy, namely Saudi Arabia, --to Kuwait.
Although Kuwait sits exposed and vulnerable between Iraq and Iran and
is at the very end of the Gulf, the U.S. has been left no choice except to
anchor its military presence in the Gulf on Kuwaiti soil rather than Saudi
Arabia. Although the rationale
for this redefinition of U.S. policy seems strange to those who have not yet
seen the changes going on, first with respect to oil and second regarding
Russian aims and US pusillanimity, it is our strong contention at IASPS that
the deteriorating economic and political conditions in Saudi Arabia arising
from the dramatic reduction in oil revenue has been the driver for the shift
in American military posture in the Gulf.
This lowering of the U.S. commitment in the Persian Gulf was detailed
in a recent (September 30th) Reuter’s dispatch,
“The
United States, responding to political concerns particularly from Saudi
Arabia, is looking to trim the size and lower the visibility of its military
presence in Gulf Arab states, diplomats and military sources say.
The main factor driving long-term redeployment plans is the
determination of Crown Prince Abdullah, heir to ailing Saudi King Fahd, to
reduce a U.S. presence he sees as potentially destabilizing in the desert
kingdom.”
IASPS
Research Papers in Strategy
no., 4 (July 1997) by Wihbey
regarding the Saudi succession argued that Abdullah would likely be forging a
new security alliance with Iran based on a rational evaluation of lessening US
interests in the Persian Gulf as a result of diminishing markets and eroding
American strategic reliance on Persian Gulf oil.
This is now happening.
Indeed
the issue of oil supply and pricing (to a much lesser extent) are trend-lining
in a manner totally consistent with Wihbey’s /IASPS projections since 1997.
With respect to supply, a recent analysis by the OECD (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development) (A.P., October 11) concluded global oil
supplies have increased --major consuming countries are importing less oil.
The survey indicated that OPEC compliance with production cuts was
eroding and that Iran, Iraq and other producers are pumping out more oil,
thereby creating the conditions for downward pressure on prices.
This evaluation is validated by Chevron’s public declaration to
calculate its planning and development costs on a price of $17 to $18 a
barrel, since as Chevron indicates, the current price of oil is overvalued due
to excess supply of petroleum. The
following comment by Mehdi Varsi of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, the bank’s
Iran expert, sums the matter up: “there is no shortage of oil…high oil
prices are just a short term phenonomen” (Reuters Sept. 28). The oil era is
over. It has not sunk in, however.
West
African Oil: Again consistent with our projections, West Africa is
becoming the present Administration’s preferred oil supplier to the United
States in view of the eroding Persian Gulf circumstances (see above).
On October 28 the president of Nigeria was invited to the White House.
In the aftermath of Madeline Albright’s visit to West Africa on
October 20, the Administration is pledging increased aid and assistance to
Nigeria in order to promote its energy sector. This will boost production,
furthering the supply, maintaining low oil prices and creating a strategic
backstop for oil and natural gas supplies to the United States.
Read the following statement by Albright:
“when
the history of this decade is written, Nigeria’s transformation has every
chance of standing beside the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution and South
Africa’s long walk to freedom as a shining example of the strength of human
dignity and the depth of the desire for freedom” (Washington Post, Oct. 21).
She
means the US is shifting its oil
province from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Guinea. In other words, the
Wihbey/IASPS prediction of this shift is taking place. An important indicator
of this change, which is unmistakable now, appeared on the web site of United
States Naval Institute (Periscope, Oct. 4) .
Syria: Numerous
Western, Arab and Islamic wire services have recently reported on the internal
economic, political and security chaos within Syria. (IASPS adjunct fellow
Yuval Levin anticipated this before it took place in a publication for JINSA).
Hundreds have been killed between rival factions of the Assad ruling class.
This is heating up. However it ends, a weak and dangerous Syria will fall into
Russia’s orbit. Islamic opposition groups are now openly active, and
Russian, Iranian, and Chinese interests have asserted themselves in Syrian
regional policy, particularly against Israel.
This may be a surprise to policy experts in the administration, but it
is not a surprise to us or, for that matter to regional Arab regimes.
IASPS briefings and publications have made repeated predictions
that such a situation would arise as the Syrian economy collapses. The main
cause of this collapse is the dramatic reduction in domestic oil revenue
subsidies from Persian Gulf oil producers and diminished remittances from
Syrian workers in the Gulf states. Syria
is now confronting a high level of violence, essentially a succession
struggle. Together with Syria’s increasing purchases of missile systems by
the Syrian military, these developments will have serious and immediate impact
on Israeli security. Only a clear
headed understanding of regional economic conditions derived from oil pricing
and supply factors can offer the type of accurate and consistent projections
that IASPS has been able to provide.
Summary In our view, these and other developments, for example
missile defense and the peace process, must be seen in the wider picture. The
wider picture is that in spite of these developments, US overall policy is
being formulated against a background of not taking the Russians (FSU)
seriously. This means, again in our view, that the US is leaving itself open
for what we called a “Russian Led OPEC:” It’s doing so, first by
supinely drawing down its strategic posture in the Gulf, second by weakening
Israel (by catering to the worst anti-Zionist impulses of Israel’s political
class who are also the opponents of economic reform and of missile defense),
and third by failure to support a Baku-Ceyhan pipe line from the Caspian.
As the FSU is now
straining every resource to dominate the Caspian littoral and to rid the
region of hostile Islamic populations, at the same time leveraging declining
Arab regimes by means of missile and WMD transfers and sales (with China’s
assistance), the Russians are building a substantial threat to Western
interests. Mortimer Zuckerman’s May 10 editorial in US News & World
Report based his assessments of these subjects on an IASPS study by Wihbey,
quoted extensively by Zuckerman who
raised most of the points made here in this update. Subsequent developments,
for example in Syria and Saudi Arabia, indicate that our analyses are
pertinent.
As for US policy,
our IASPS Research Papers in
Strategy , no., 7 made the point that US policy makers should say three
particular words every morning when they wake as guides to what American
geopolitical strategy should be in Eurasia and the Gulf. Those three words
are: Turkey, Turkey, Turkey. However, US policy makers
--to US, Western and Israeli misfortune, continue to be focused on only
two words: peace process. According to our analysis, outlined here, the hard
facts of overall regional geostrategic realities based in factors of oil,
Russian aims and weapons’ supplies policies are on a collision course with
the actual policies the West is following.
