House of Saud in Gray Lady's Crosshairs

The New York Times' new willingness to focus on the Saudi role in war currently convulsing the Middle East is again on display this morning. First, in a frontpage story, "Saudis Back Syrian Rebels Despite Risks," by Robert Worth where he skeptically interviews an erstwhile Saudi jihadist named Abu Khattab supplied by the Saudi Interior Ministry:

But as Abu Khattab talked about Syria, his own convictions seemed scarcely different from the jihadists he had carefully denounced (two officials from the Interior Ministry were present during the interview). He made clear that he considered Shiite Muslims and Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect to be infidels and a terrible danger to his own people. 

“If the Shiites succeed in controlling Syria, it will be a threat to my country,” Abu Khattab said. “I went to Syria to protect my country.” 

At times, his sectarian feelings seemed to outshine his unease about the excesses of some of his more extreme comrades. He did not deny that he had often fought alongside members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the brutal jihadist group affiliated with Al Qaeda. 

Abu Khattab also mentioned proudly that he is no stranger to jihad. He fought as a teenager in Afghanistan (“With the government’s permission!”) and, a few years later, in Bosnia. He chose not to fight the Americans in Iraq “because there are too many Shiites there,” he said, with a look of distaste on his face.

Yet this is a man who lectures inmates at the rehabilitation center every week about ethics and war. The center, like many Saudi institutions, has been somewhat embarrassed by the contradictions of Saudi policy with regard to Syria. Although the center incarcerates some men who have been arrested for trying to travel to Syria, last summer the nephew of Abdelrahman al-Hadlaq, its director, was killed while fighting there. His mother posted statements on Twitter saying she was proud of him.

Worth makes clear that the Saudi ban on nationals traveling to Syria for jihad is a farce. A story like this could have been written and frontpaged at any time during the last year. Why now? Why the sudden focus on the explicit Saudi connection to the Qaeda florescence?

My sense is that the catalyst is Anbar. Fracturing Iraq with jihad is something that apparently is not going to fly with the United States Government. And the extent to which the Gray Lady is a stand-in -- definitely in terms of foreign policy priorities -- for the USG, the abrupt shift in coverage of the conflict in Iraq-Syria-Lebanon to highlight Saudi weakness and cravenness is noteworthy.

Next, a story by Ben Hubbard and Anne Barnard, also on the frontpage, that briefly quotes Nusra Front head Abu Mohammed al-Jolani calling for the creation of an Islamic court to resolve the conflict between ISIS and other Salafist groups. Then Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango report in "In Iraqi City Under Siege, More Support for Militants Than Officials" a story which must be the reason the Saudis are suddenly getting frontpage attention. Sunnis in Falluja are lining up with Al Qaeda to fight against the Iraqi Army:

“We are going to fight for our city,” said Saif al-Jumaily, a resident of Falluja who said he did not want to live under Al Qaeda rule but would nevertheless fight against the Iraqi Army should it try to retake Falluja. 

The government’s shelling of Falluja in recent days, and its previous heavy-handed response to Sunni protests in the province, which prompted the recent fighting, has exacerbated the animosity among Sunnis toward the central government. For many residents, the shelling has also evoked painful memories of the early years of the American occupation of Iraq, when United States forces fought two big battles for control of the city, with heavy civilian casualties. 

“We are sick and tired of wars in Falluja,” said Mohamed Hameed, a 35-year-old resident of the city. “Every time, we think this is the end of the battles. We want to live a normal life. We have had enough wars in the previous years, and we saw Al Qaeda, the Americans and the Iraqi Army destroying our city.” 

Mr. Hameed added: “Today when I leave my home I cry. I see the flags of Al Qaeda again; I see damaged buildings. I see masked men with guns. It’s like walking into Falluja of 2005. I remember all those bad days and ask myself, what was the fighting about then? Why did so many Iraqis and Americans die for this city? Now we are in the same situation.” 

In the current fight for Falluja, many ordinary citizens would rather see their city in the hands of plain-clothed and masked militiamen — even if they do not understand their true allegiance — than under the control of soldiers loyal to the Shiite-controlled federal government. 

Scenes of Shiite men, some of them waving the flag of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, as they lined up at army recruiting stations in Baghdad to volunteer to fight in Anbar Province, have only heightened the sense of sectarian grievances among Sunnis here. An offer from Iran to give military aid to Mr. Maliki has also added to the sectarian tensions.

The Awakening fighters in Ramadi have cooperated with the government to oust ISIS from that city. But Falluja appears to be different. As Iraqi Army tanks circle, the city is under siege. An all-out assault with heavy civilian loss of life would likely herald an expansion of civil war that would be the end of Iraq. 

The question then becomes, "How much longer before U.S. military intervention?" The United States spent trillions of dollars invading Iraq. I don't think American elites will stand by and watch a caliphate erected.