Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
Or to contact Money Morning Customer Service, click here.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
My meetings and media interviews continue here in London. But this morning I want to fill you in on one of the more interesting briefings I have ever held.
Last night, Marina and I had the distinct pleasure of dining with Khaled Duwaisan, Kuwait's Ambassador to the Court of St. James and the longest-serving foreign emissary in London.
His Excellency is a very gracious man, well respected by his peers, and, after more than two decades in London, certainly somebody who has seen much come and go in his time.
Our discussions centered on the situation presented by Iran in the Persian Gulf and the current crisis there.
Also attending the dinner and long discussion were the ambassadors from every other Gulf Coordination Council nation in the region and the legal representative of the Iranians (who currently have no official diplomatic connection with the United Kingdom).
Now, as with such sessions, all of the conversations were held under Chatham House rules. That means, while general themes can be discussed, all participants agree not to connect named people with specific positions in commenting on the meeting afterwards.
This was one of the more memorable sessions I have ever had. It was striking how articulately and passionately the delegates addressed the subject.
The overwhelming response to my comments could be summarized in two ways: the rejection of a nuclear-armed Iran and a strong opinion that the region must settle its affairs on its own.
The first conclusion is certainly shared by the West, but the second may well be difficult to achieve in practice. The prospect of Iran with nuclear capability is hardly a matter Washington, or London, or Brussels will allow the region to decide on its own.
The gathering certainly understood that. These are, after all, seasoned diplomats well-schooled in the protocols and realities of international politics. But they are also experienced in the affairs of a region with the longest and most intricate negotiating traditions on the face of the earth.
They also have a perspective honed from several thousand years of history, tradition, and conflict. There was present a quality I rarely experience in my international meetings — patience.
However, one other matter quickly surfaced that was unanimously viewed as a major element in the ongoing conflict. The assembled representatives spoke about it candidly and directly.
The "Arab Spring" is viewed very differently within the region than it is in most Western capitals. While the expressions of frustration and hope issuing from the streets in places like Cairo, Damascus, Tunis, and Tripoli are well-recognized and considered a watershed in the current regional climate, they are also ushering in something viewed with great concern.
Returning to the forefront of concern is the split between the two great traditions of Islam.
Most of the Moslem world is Sunni. Iranians (and southern Iraqis) are overwhelmingly Shiite. Therein lies the single biggest worry pervading last evening's conversations.
Now the entire Arab world unifies when the issue pits Moslems against non-Moslems, especially when it comes to respecting their deeply held religious beliefs. The ongoing demonstrations and worse against portrayals of their Prophet are indications enough.
But inside the world that is the Persian Gulf (or the Arabian Gulf as some participants last evening would prefer to call it) the separation of the two camps is clear and long a cause of dispute and conflict.
Iran, by its neighbors' standards, is regarded as a large problem. Tehran exports both terrorism (Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, now part of the Lebanese government itself, is the clearest example of this) and a messianic view of religion.
Both create problems for its neighbors, but the religious basis of the threat is most endemic to the region's overall security.
The ambassadors couched some of their comments in the carefully crafted language of their profession. But on two matters they were direct.
- First, they commented several times on what they regarded as an American double standard. They rejected the idea of a nuclear Iran. But they also found Washington's silence on Israeli nuclear capability disingenuous. Either nuclear weapons are prevented in the region as a whole, or some new version of mutually assured destruction (MAD) ensues. Saudi Arabia could develop its own deterrent in short order and a dangerous race would be on in earnest.
- Second, it may take much longer and be frustrating to Western interests, but the only solution that will stick is one that comes from the region itself. Few around the table last evening, however, thought Washington trusted them enough to pull that off. It was also agreed that Tehran, for that matter, does not seek to be an equal in the region but the dominant power.
When it came time for me to make some concluding remarks, I told a story that happened decades ago.
During an assignment in my counter intelligence days, we found ourselves in a situation that required we pit villages in a remote area against each other. The divide and control approach is still one of the primary weapons in many parts of the world (including the Persian Gulf).
One day, the elders from four of the villages came to me and simply said they refused to play the game any longer. For several days, I had to consider what to do next. Finally, I called them together and simply asked, "What do you need?"
One elder smiled and said, "That is the first time any American has ever asked that. Usually you just tell us what you intend to do for us."
I suggested last evening this may be the most appropriate approach for the U.S. in the Gulf this time around. We have tried politics, and we have tried the Marines. Maybe we should simply let them decide what they need from us.
The ambassadors nodded in approval. But even then, everybody understood Washington could never allow the Iranian nuclear ambitions to play themselves out on their own.
We still have a way to go.
Related Articles and Links:
- Money Morning:
You Can Drill All You Want, Oil Prices Are Still Headed Higher - Money Morning:
Ignore the Doom-and-Gloom Crowd When They Talk About $40 Oil - Money Morning:
Oil Prices are Higher, But It Won't Be Much Help for Alternative Energy - Money Morning:
This Key Energy Metric Could Make You A Lot of Money
About the Author
Dr. Kent Moors is an internationally recognized expert in oil and natural gas policy, risk assessment, and emerging market economic development. He serves as an advisor to many U.S. governors and foreign governments. Kent details his latest global travels in his free Oil & Energy Investor e-letter. He makes specific investment recommendations in his newsletter, the Energy Advantage. For more active investors, he issues shorter-term trades in his Energy Inner Circle.
Good article, makes sense to let them solve their own problems but they need to do it quickly before the bloodshed starts.
I found the article's style reassuring and refreshing in its modesty. I carefully looked for bias words, arrogance, towards the various topics involved. For more than 20 years I have studied, as a non-professional many of these topics. I think you have hit the target on the "reluctance" of Washington to allow anyone else but themselves decide what is IN America's interest and what isn't. A drunk sometimes will never learn until they hit rock bottom….rock rock bottom? We have to admit that there will eventually be unnecessary suffering of more innocent people…..The question is, "HOW MANY more people must suffer, die, before there is a light at the end of the tunnel?" American interests have quick and dirty set of calculations on the ratio of 1 American to "x" number of non-Americans dying in order to "achieve" their objective based largely, I think, on PR damage more than business/diplomatic backlash. I think the Internet wags the dog, the masses of PR generated by the Internet tweets/Facebook activity offsets or gives the marching orders to the business/diplomatic world these days.
I think we Americans greatly admire Russia, and Israel and probably China for the appearance of their governments to ignore Public relations in order to achieve their objectives. It seems that Iran also has this disdain for the rest of the world's opinions when it comes to their agenda. But we know this is a mistake. It is not just a matter of image.
There are emerging guiding principles, like massive, previously submerged icebergs, rising up in this era of the modern age. One of these principles is "the" standard of justice. By the Internet individuals even on the street level can "see" the iceberg, eventually, with their own eyes. I include myself in this as well. The truth eventually comes out, works its way out, I say eventually. We all make choices, as individuals and as nations. The choice on whether or not to attack and how to attack is a choice. If we go against the emerging principles, we may experience a short term gain, but the iceberg will not be denied, it will puncture our unassailable protections, and counter strategies like so much child's clutter. And we will eventually bow to the force of justice and the non-sectarian, non-national, non-biased truth. You and I, alive in this era, must accept that we and our loved ones will suffer before the truth wins out. If we are in say, Bangladesh, the suffering will be much more severe. This seems like an injustice. but only for the "short" term.
Interesting article, but I must remind you that Israel has shown much more "patience", as you describe it, in dealing with Iran than has been shown vice-versa. It would seem to me that, historically, Israel would be a much safer bet to have nuclear weaponry under their control than for Iran or Saudi Arabia to have under theirs. I don't see inflammatory rhetoric about "wiping Iran off the face of the map" or "returning Persia to it's rightful owners" coming out of Israel, do you?