Riyadh’s crown prince gave Iran his earnest assurances, all the while imploring Trump to invade.
“The Prophet said, ‘War is deception.’” This is among the most famous hadiths — authoritative accounts of the sayings and doings of Mohammed that have scriptural status in Islam — drawn from the Riyad al-Salihin collection, in a chapter called “Obligation of Jihad.” Back when I was investigating and prosecuting terrorists and those who abet them, it was a theme we heard constantly: the doctrinal rationalization for lies (such as the pose of moderation by sharia supremacists in the West) intended to lull the enemy into a false sense of security.
In a post yesterday after the joint American and Israeli aerial attacks on Iran began, I noted that the Shiite regime had launched retaliatory strikes against Sunni Arab states that collaborate with our government, Saudi Arabia being the most prominent. This appeared to be a misplay: Those states had assumed a pose of neutrality during the tense face-off that seemed certain to erupt into armed conflict, so the Iranian strikes had the effect of uniting them against Tehran.
But there was a caveat. Citing Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, I added, “The public neutrality of the Sunni regime in Saudi Arabia has been in tension with its private sympathy for war against the Iranian regime.”
Sure enough, the Washington Post has a big story today on the double game played by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the Saudi kingdom. Salman, it turns out, gave assurances to Tehran, even issuing a public statement that he would not permit Saudi airspace or territory to be used in any attack against Iran. Privately, however, over the past month, he constantly lobbied President Trump to carry out the invasion and eradicate the Shiite regime.
Salman reportedly admonished that Iran would emerge stronger if the Americans failed to follow though after amassing formidable forces in the Gulf region. He also enlisted his brother, the Sunni regime’s defense minister, Khalid bin Salman, to warn Washington about the downsides of refraining from an invasion.
It is a useful reminder. To be sure, the United States and Israel have historically been lightning rods, inducing rival Muslim governments to set their differences aside for the greater good of jihad against the West. Yet the default position in the absence of such a common non-Muslim enemy is internecine warfare.
And betrayal.
Be careful whom you trust: The U.S. has regarded the Saudis as key regional partners for decades. Still, the Saudi government promotes Islamic fundamentalism — to which it formally adheres, although the sometimes brutal Salman is something of a reformer (on the generous curve according to which such things must be measured). It was never surprising that 15 of the 19 suicide-hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, nor that the American rationale for supporting the Saudi royal family, despite its duplicity, is that they’d otherwise be replaced by something worse.
I hope the Iranian people overthrow their monstrous regime (and I hope someone is reading Bing West about how that can’t be done unless they’re sufficiently armed). But for all the president’s rhetoric heralding the dawn of regional peace and prosperity, we need to focus on American objectives: eradicating the regime’s capacity to project power and threaten vital American interests, weakening it to the point that it can be overthrown, something we cannot do.
Beyond that, the neighborhood remains a vipers’ nest. We have to take it as we find it, remembering the old wisdom Reagan liked to quote: “Trust everybody . . . but cut the cards.”