Weapons of mass consequence

Paul Rogers, 3 August 2007

Subjects:

The huge United States military deal with Arab states and Israel will benefit domestic friends and overseas adversaries.

The United States' plan to provide its Arab allies and Israel with military aid, announced on 31 July 2007, is large-scale by any standards. It includes the provision of $20 billion-worth of precision-guided bombs, aircraft upgrades, new warships and other equipment to Saudi Arabia; $13 billion-worth of military supplies to Egypt; and smaller quantities of arms to other close allies such as Kuwait and Oman. The biggest transaction of all involves Israel, whose $30 billion-worth of contracts over the 2007-17 period represents a 30% increase over the last decade.

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001As with most arms agreements of this magnitude - the controversial al-Yamamah deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia, currently under US investigation - is a prime example - the political as much as the commercial dimensions are significant. In this case, Washington is seeking to bolster its interests in the middle east via a delicate balancing-act: assuaging Israeli concerns over the increased sales to the country's Arab neighbours with the scale of the bilateral deal with Tel Aviv, giving itself leverage to pressurise Riyadh over Iraq, and consolidating its alliances with friendly (or subordinate) Arab states.

An additional, and somewhat neglected, aspect of the US's strategic initiative deserves attention. This is the beneficial effects the comprehensive arms-sales deal will have on four key constituencies, in America itself and around the world.

Friends and rivals

The first major beneficiary is the Republican Party, as it prepares intensively for the epic presidential election of November 2008. The two aspects of the deal's largesse, commercial and political, are clearly linked.In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here

Paul Rogers's latest book is Global Security and the War on Terror: Elite Power and the Illusion of Control (Routledge, July 2007). This is a collection of papers and essays written over the last twenty years, with two new essays on the current global predicament

The domestic arms industry is the most evident commercial beneficiary, but the security of the very lucrative contracts the deal represents will better be guaranteed if the White House remains under Republican control. Moreover, the favoured candidate will clearly need to maintain unstinting support for Israel while protecting and cultivating the Republicans' relationship with the Saudis.

The changing political nature of pro-Israel sentiment in the United States is a relevant consideration here (see Anatol Lieven, "Israel and the American antithesis" , 19 October 2004). The George W Bush administration is dependent less on the American Jewish community (which numbers approximately 6 million) than on the tens of millions of American evangelical Christians (many with Christian Zionist sympathies) who believe that Israel is a core part of God's plan as the "end days" approach (see "Christian Zionists and neocons: a heavenly marriage", 3 February 2005). The reconfiguring of the domestic politics of US support for Israel is greatly influenced by the tendency of this large group to vote both Republican and more assiduously than other citizens.

The second beneficiary is Russia. At present Russia's relations with Iran are in a trough over the fuelling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, and in this sense the US project - aimed so obviously at circumscribing Iran's regional power - comes at a perfect time for Moscow. Indeed, it is reported that Iran has moved rapidly to respond to Washington's move by starting negotiations on a major purchase from a major Russian arms manufacturer, Sukhoi.

If the reports are confirmed - Russia has described them as a "pure lie"- Tehran may acquire as many as 250 advanced Su-30 fighter-bomber aircrafts. The Su-30 is a long-range aircraft with potential for anti-ship warfare, especially when equipped with some of the new cruise missiles. The Iranian air force could equip up to twelve squadrons in a $1 billion deal that would also involve the delivery of some tanker aircraft for aerial refuelling. The combination would transform Tehran's aerial capabilities, which are now confined by dependence mainly on 1960s- and 1970s-vintage aircraft.

The Russians, too, would be very happy with this outcome. They are beginning to redevelop their own aircraft industries after more than a decade in the doldrums, and big export orders are just what they need for economies of scale. The benign effects would not stop there: US arms companies could highlight Iran's new military resources to argue that the Saudis and their Arab neighbours need yet further upgrades.

The third beneficiary is China. China already has two strong connections with Iran, both of which could well be enhanced by the US deal. The first is that China is already supplying Iran with a range of missiles, including some particularly effective anti-ship missiles that can be launched from its coast. One of these made its way to Lebanon in 2006 and was used by a Hizbollah unit - quite possibly Iranian-trained - in one of the most damaging and (to the Israeli navy and armed forces generally) shocking attacks of the summer war: the disabling of a heavily armed Israeli Saar-5 missile corvette, the INS Ahi Hanit (see "Israel, Lebanon, and beyond: the danger of escalation" , 17 July 2006). China's business interests go far beyond Iran, but it will hardly miss an opportunity for some more arms sales there.

The second connection is that China sees Iran as one of its main sources of oil in the coming decades, and seeks to build on the major long-term supply deals the two countries have concluded since 2005. In the face of US support for Iran's potential enemies, the Chinese will be happy to consolidate their economic links with Tehran; an immediate option might be to re-establish these recent agreements on an arms-for-oil basis.

Osama's smile

The fourth beneficiary will be the al-Qaida movement, even though it has - American efforts to forge the link notwithstanding - few if any connections with Iran. For al-Qaida, though, the beauty of the American plan is that it links three of the movement's key opponents: the major elite regimes of the middle east (especially the House of Saud as the unacceptable Keeper of the Two Holy Places); Egypt with its persistent suppression of Islamist movements; and the United States.

The plan thus connects the principal elements of al-Qaida's "near enemy", which are buttressed in turn by the "far enemy" it also seeks to target, the United States. The arms deals consolidate the near enemy/far enemy connection in a way that will have substantial propaganda benefits. If the increased US support for Israel - the"Zionist entity" - is included, it is easy to see that the al-Qaida leadership will have greeted this week's news with quiet satisfaction.

The combination of Iraq, a Taliban revival in Afghanistan, instability in western Pakistan and new initiatives in Algeria and Morocco means that the al-Qaida movement has promising territory to cultivate. The Bush administration may be unable to see it, though its allies and those in the middle east itself may be clearer-eyed: this series of arms deals linking some of the United States's key allies is an unexpected bonus to the country's inveterate adversary.

This article is published by Paul Rogers, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Quote

Comments

alfredo.bremont

2 August 2007 - 10:16pm

There is no busyness like the death busyness, as we can see, even Libya will have is share of weapons of mass destruction. However will all this materialize by 2020 or shall we experience a climate upheaval and the global civil war will have reach New York by that time. One thing we can learn is that publicity is good for the customer, and arms race is good for the economy, pollution death and destruction is very good for the poor the underdog and the brave soldiers. The other thing we learn is that this world gladiators have no time to exist we wonder if they do exist at all, all they do is chase the future, living tomorrow and sleeping 4 hours a day. Moreover, all this for what, to kill those that have chosen to live, to spend their own time on themselves, rather than chasing the unpredictable, and we must recognize the future is unpredictable, and G W knows quite well how unpredictable the future is. The present we hardly know it as most of the time, we exist on the future and the past well he gives us the means to manoeuvre and concretize our intellectual manipulative intelligence.

bcharbonneau

3 August 2007 - 1:57pm

This is only another example of US militarism; the one at home, that is. I have to disagree with Paul Rogers on that the deal might not survive if Democrats win the White House. American economy and political system are so closely tied to the industrial-military complex that to forget such a deal would be political suicide for many. Forget US Middle East policy; too many jobs and profits at stake at home. And that's what is so sad about it. US foreign policy is continuously reinvented by people (Pentagon, industry, think tanks) that will reconfirm the need for military power AND solutions. Forget politics. Forget political solutions. Why not wage war when it's so profitable at home?

hari_1

3 August 2007 - 4:12pm

The authour makes brief mention of "Israel...Zionist entity" in context of his analaysis. I'd like to suggest his analysis is too pedantic to get to the core of what really matters to decision-makers in GWB WhiteHouse(WH). GWB & gang have now reached end-game of their strategy; namely, how to strangle and take control of middle-east oil flow from a strategic perspective, while simultaneoulsy securing existence of Israel as its main chess piece on the board. The future perspective of current decision-making by this WH is in line with APIAC (Jewish lobby on the Hill). The main actors in the decision-making process are either (also) members of APIAC or its supporters. The dichotomy facing this WH is not only the fact that they've increased the likelihood of Israeli permanent isolation in the region; in fact, actually increased the question of its existence (60yrs old soon!). Zionism, as we knew it under the Azkanzi regimes, no longer rule Israel. Israel is today becoming a racist state when it comes to Palestinian state. Population mix and racial plurality has made a bad cocktail mix out of current Israeli (domestic) politics. The survival of Israel, in the absence of a Palestinan State, may eventually become its archilles heel and contrarian policy developments - not necessarily in vital national interest of US. The EU seem to understand the policy dilemma - in absence of a viable Palestinian State - which GWB has stubbornly opposed (until now). WHy now when hardly 18mths remain for him in office? Because he's to rescue his failed (APIAC) policy. I don't think the Sunni regimes will relent to his orders without a quid-pro-quo. They cannot accept a Shia regime, in Baghdad; a strategic oil state in the region.

maher_colin

3 August 2007 - 8:07pm

Colin So, what is Paul Roger’s advice? Cancel the arms deals to Saudi, Egypt and Israel? And the result will be: neither Russia nor China will try to sell arms to Iran? Then Iran, no longer threatened by the US, will give up its empire ambitions. Is that what this Professor of Peace Studies is teaching his naïve students at Bradford Unitversity? And what of America’s predicament in Iraq? Paul Rogers also wants withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq, with similar reasoning: if the US troops are no longer there, Al Queda will stop terrorist attacks in Iraq and of course Sunni and Shi’a will stop killing each other and just peacefully negotiate who is to control Iraq’s government and oil. Rogers sounds evangelically Christian: If thy enemy smite thee, turn the other cheek -and he will stop.

andrew.spencer01

4 August 2007 - 10:16am

Maher_colin's posting on Paul Rogers' piece is an excellent example of why it's so difficult to have sensible discussion of important issues. Rogers is chided for simply telling it like it is and not providing a 'solution' to problems he isn't responsible for. But why should a 2,000 article, full of interesting, important and under-reported facts, be expected to provide 'solutions'? And who, incidentally, is responsible for America's "predicament" in Iraq? Unfortunately, the kind of clap-trap that Maher_colin spouts is also typical of the response of mainstream journalists in the press, radio and TV to serious discussion such as that provided by Rogers. Little wonder that ordinary folk get confused about these issues. We should, I suppose, be grateful that at least the students at Bradford University get a balanced and informed account.

Steven Rogers

7 August 2007 - 10:34pm

Looks to me like much ado over very little. The Iranian deals may be of some minor benefit to the Russian and Chinese arms industries, but not to any extent that would alter any strategic equations. Neither is it clear that Iranian arms purchases are a response to the US aid package: Iran has long-standing military supply connections to both countries, and given the state of Iran's military these upgrades would likely have been pursued in any event. Iran spending billions on arms that wouldn't survive the first hours of any conflict with the US is hardly a risk or a major problem for the Americans. In fact, if the Indian Air Force's experience with the SU-30 is any indication, they may be as much liability as asset: the Indian jets were delivered years behind schedule, and, per globalsecurity.org: "The shortcomings of the SU-30K arose from the fact that it was designed and optimised for an air defence role. Their electronic warfare system was unsuitable to meet the Indian threat environment and the radar performance was below expectation. The navigation system lacked accuracy, very limited capability existed for accurate weapon delivery and weapon system controls were poorly integrated. Although, the aircraft was capable of a large weapon load, the air to ground armament did not include any precision guided munitions, a key requirement during the Kargil Operation. On account of the large size and range of the aircraft, it was difficult for the aircraft to survive against threat of modern air defence weapon systems unless its avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems were upgraded and well integrated." Not so much of a threat, really. The real threat to Iran, of course, is not military but economic: their economy is already reeling from the ugly trinity of inflation, unemloyment, and corruption, and there are no policies emerging that seem likely to alter that. The Islamic socialist economic structure is simply unsustainable, and no matter how much geopolitical advantage the US hands Iran, that crippling factor will remain. The rivalry between the US and Russia or China is also muich overplayed. Sure, it's there, but these are also status quo powers with integrated economies and little incentive to rock boats. China in particular has no incentive to want trouble in the Gulf. Military confrontation in Iran would likely disrupt key energy supplies to China. We see lots of dire talk of how China needs to assure its energy supplies, but China's export-dependent economy also requires economic growth and stability in its key customers in the EU, the US, and NE Asia. China does not want trouble in the Gulf. The links between the US and Israel and the US and Saudi Arabia are hardly news, and the incremental propaganda gain to AQ from this deal is negligible, certainly not sufficient to justify retreating from the deal. While AQ has certainly gained from American blundering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and from the thorny problem of Pakistan, they have also lost a great deal of traction in Saudi Arabia and the Guld States, on account of an economic transformation that has gotten precious little attention from many analysts. Rogers and George Bush seem cut from the same cloth to me: viewing the world exclusively through the lens of their own ideological preconceptions. In either case, the ouput is often too distorted to be of much use.