THE pathetic sight of a lame duck hopping across the Middle Eastern landscape, looking for love in a hostile terrain and studiously avoiding the site where its wings were clipped, was more than compensated for by the priceless image of the Leader of the Free World swaying hand in hand with the Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines. The clumsy two-step kind of summed up relations between Riyadh and Washington: perfect coordination isn’t always achievable, but they are usually willing to dance to each other’s tune.

 

In this particular instance, however, the House of Saud didn’t appear overly keen to play ball with the House of Bush. Sure, the Saudis were willing, as always, to do their bit for the American arms industry. George W. Bush’s entreaties for cooperation in bringing down the price of oil seemingly fell on deaf ears, however. He even offered a brief lesson in economics as part of his plea: “When consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline,” he explained, “….it could cause the economy to slow down. If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased.”

 

That may not be entirely an empty threat: fears of a looming recession in the US bear testimony to the economic management skills of the Bush administration. The Saudis also know, however, that in his seven years at the helm, Bush has done nothing to temper his nation’s addiction to oil. One can’t be sure, on the other hand, whether the president realises the extent to which his Iraqi misadventure and confrontation with Iran have exerted an upward pressure on petroleum prices.

 

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Control of Iraqi oilfields was meant to give the US a say in the levels of Middle Eastern output. Neoconservative optimists imagined the cost per barrel would hit rock bottom, and that Iraqi oil revenues would easily pay for the country’s reconstruction – or at least its continued occupation. In fact, Iraqi output remains below the pre-invasion level.

 

Bush was presumably advised not to say too much about Iraq during his Arab jaunt, but he is clearly chuffed by evidence of an “improvement” in conditions and happy to go along with the explanation that last year’s surge in troop levels has turned the tide. Those who hold this view obviously see no irony in the fact that, nearly five years after the invasion, “progress” is measured in terms of the daily death toll.

 

Even within that context, the reduction in violence is being measured against the horrendous statistics of the deadliest year thus far. It is obviously a good thing if fewer people are dying, but the methods that have contributed to this – namely the co-option of Sunni and Shia militias, which are equipped with weapons and tasked with maintaining security in sectarian enclaves – do not bode well for the future in the absence of a national reconciliation process. 

 

One cannot altogether discount the cynical view that these arrangements could prove to be a recipe for an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath. And while the Iraqi prime minister has been enthusiastically congratulated by his American sponsors for allowing Baathists to return to government posts, that only begs the question: did hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die just because an American cabal couldn’t stand the sight of Saddam Hussein?

 

If there was little room for Iraq on the presidential mind, that’s partly because it was preoccupied by Iran. Late last year a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – based on the information available to all US intelligence agencies – concluded that Iran abandoned efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons some years ago. In a reasonable world, this revelation would have entailed a degree of relief in Washington, given the frenzy that had been whipped up over Tehran’s intentions. Instead there were long faces and sneering efforts to discredit the NIE.

 

Bush says he just knows that the Iranian leadership dreams of going nuclear. Leaving aside the question of his credentials as a psychoanalyst, the point is: are anyone’s dreams worth the risk of war? In Israel’s opinion, they may well be. But Iran’s neighbours don’t look at it the same way. Neither Saudi Arabia nor the Gulf states are exactly thrilled by their geographical proximity to Iran. They weren’t comfortable during the Shah’s era, and  – like the US – they supported Saddam’s aggression against the land of the ayatollahs. But over the past couple of decades they have reconciled themselves to a wary coexistence, and they are reluctant to rock the boat.

 

They realize Iran’s regional clout has been enhanced by the events in Iraq, and much as they would like it to be reduced, the last thing they want is another conflict. Iran’s possible nuclear ambitions don’t bother them as much as Israel’s nuclear arsenal – which, of course, no US leader ever dares to mention. Bush did the UAE no favours by choosing Abu Dhabi as the venue for his only regional peroration, but his utterances may well have contributed towards stemming the decline in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s prospects ahead of elections scheduled for March.

 

It is said that oil prices were at the top of Bush’s agenda when he climbed aboard Air Force One, but his Middle East visit is also being seen as a desperate quest for relevance. There’s still nearly a year to go before he vacates the White House, yet the primary season means he is being all but ignored by the media and the public back home. In Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it could easily be guaranteed that he would be the centre of attention, if not exactly the cynosure of all eyes.

 

In Jerusalem and Ramallah, Bush held out the prospect of a peace settlement by the end of the year between Israel and the Palestinians, involving an independent and contiguous state for the latter. Almost no one took him seriously: even the habitually obsequious Tony Blair found it hard to vociferously endorse the pledge. Not because it can’t be done, but because it is not going to happen without heavy pressure on Israel: a credible threat to cut off funding, rather a gift of $30 billion in cutting-edge weaponry.

 

Bush conceded that a “Swiss cheese” Palestine wouldn’t be viable, yet illegal Israeli settlements keep on sprouting up and spreading out in the West Bank; meanwhile,  Gaza’s worsening plight  elicits no concern and Hamas continues to be deemed beyond the pale. Shortly after Bush left, Israel opted for another deadly military incursion into the beleaguered statelet, secure in the knowledge that there would be no negative reaction from the US.

 

In terms of blind support for Israel, many Palestinians perceive Bush as the worst offender they have thus far encountered. Partly as a consequence, prospects for peace in those parts are about as realistic as chances of democracy in Saudi Arabia.

 

It’s hardly surprising that Bush’s tourism accomplished nothing of value – unless one takes into account the emeralds and rubies he gathered from Arab potentates. He returned home laden with bling, but almost  certainly none the wiser. One can only wonder, with a degree of trepidation, what he’ll do next to stay in the limelight.

 

Email: [email protected]

---