Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Game

The leaked State Department cables reveal the diplomatic seduction that defines relationships in the Middle East

Print Email
(Clockwise from top left: Norberto Duarte/AFP/Getty Images; Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images; Dmitry Kostyukov/AFP/Getty Images; Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images; Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images; Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content

Deadly Fictions

The classified diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks are the Pentagon Papers of the pro-Israel right

This is how U.S. diplomats used to talk about their work in the Middle East: “Every American ambassador in the region knows that official meetings with Arab leaders start with the obligatory half-hour lecture on the Palestinian question,” one with a long tenure in the Middle East told the New York Times before Thanksgiving. “If we could dispense with that half-hour and get down to our other business, we might actually be able to get something done.”

But that was in the pre-Cablegate age. One of the surprising (to some) revelations of the leaked diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks is that, counter to what we’ve been told for over a half century, the Palestinian question does not dominate the thinking of Arab officials.

American journalists still get the “half-hour drill”—I’ve gotten it most recently from the prime minister of Lebanon—but with U.S. diplomats, Arab rulers have more pressing issues to discuss. Indeed, the Wikileaks cables seem to confirm that our Arab allies are consumed by their fear of the Iranians. But are they really?

A number of analysts have spent the first weeks of the post-Cablegate era fighting a rear-guard action against the reality of Mideast diplomacy portrayed in the Wikileaks cables. Some are claiming that what the Arabs say in private to U.S. diplomats about Iran is not what they really mean, or that Arab security regimes do not represent the will of the Arab people. Others argue that those American analysts who find their positions vindicated in the released cables are just looking for any evidence to justify their desire to make war on Iran.

Even if these critics are just trying to cover their tracks, their remarks raise, albeit indirectly, an essential point: We know what the Arabs tell diplomats and journalists about Iran, but we don’t know what they really think about their Persian neighbor. The gap between internal Arab discourse and statements made to Westerners is a staple of that branch of intelligence work often neglected here in the United States known as counterintelligence, which helps sift out truth from noise.

Perhaps it is helpful to think of the Wikileaks cables in lay terms as a transcript of a guy (in this case, the Saudis) trying to pick up a pretty girl (the Americans) at a bar. What the boy says to the girl may or may not be true. What is most significant is the effect he means to produce, which is to convince the girl to go home with him. Hence, for observers what’s most interesting about the boy’s end of the conversation is the insight it offers into his own psyche—is he subtle, overbearing, self-obsessed, sensitive to others?—and into his perceptions of the girl.

For example, it is well known that during the Cold War the U.S.-Saudi alliance was facilitated by the fortunate fact that the adherents of an austere brand of Islam known as Wahabism who preside over the world’s largest known reserves of oil feared godless communists as much as we did. Unfortunately, that wasn’t quite true.

While the United States ensured the steady flow of Saudi oil that stabilized world markets—and the constant stream of oil receipts that filled Saudi bank accounts—Riyadh flirted just enough with Moscow to keep Washington on its toes. Even before the Saudis’ 1988 purchase of Chinese missiles, it was obvious that what the house of Saud feared was not communism so much as the Soviet alliance with radical actors—from Nasser’s Egypt to Saddam’s Iraq—who were opposed to Riyadh.

The Saudis told U.S. officials they hated communists because it flattered their American protectors who were fighting Moscow on four continents; the notion of a shared ideological passion, as well as a common strategic interest, gave the Saudis special status in Washington. Yet it was clear after Sept. 11 that our feckless petro-billionaire allies were themselves a strategic threat, a perception that the Saudis countered by telling us that they feared Iran—just as we do, and just as Washington’s nearly omnipotent Israel lobby does.

Seduction, or seeming to make your own the fears and desires, the habits and anxieties, of your allies is one of statesmanship’s more useful arts. The Wikileaks cables have very handsome examples of diplomatic seduction, most notably the emir of Qatar’s sympathizing with poor Israel, America’s ally, who he says can’t be blamed for not trusting Arabs. The Israelis, said the emir, nearly Shakespearean in his unctuousness, “have been under threat for a long time.”

American officials do it, too, which is the original reason why U.S. diplomats ever sat still for the “half-hour drill” in the first place. However, the Washington policy establishment’s obsession with the Arab-Israeli peace process shows the danger in using seduction as an instrument of statecraft—less-clever diplomats are susceptible to seduction and easily led astray from pursuing the interests of their own country.

Here, for instance, is Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri fixing on a vital American interest, terrorism, in a recent interview with the Washington Post. According to him, terrorism and violent extremism are the result of a failed peace process.

“In the ’90s there wasn’t al-Qaeda, there wasn’t Hamas, there wasn’t all these extremist groups,” Hariri claimed, incorrectly, but with an eye trained on getting the sympathetic attention of Washington. “The main problem that we have in Lebanon, and in the region,” he continued, “is we don’t have a real peace process. … A lot of people talk about arms and smuggling and Hezbollah and all of this. But if we have a comprehensive peace, would we be talking about this?”

In other words, if you don’t have a peace process, you get terrorism. Never mind that Hariri here effectively blames the stalled peace process for the murder of his father, Rafiq Hariri, killed in a spectacular terror operation almost six years ago. What is important is that U.S. officials have come to mouth the same commonplaces: Without peace in the Middle East, they say, you are going to have terrorism in the region. But by that reckoning, since the United States has a central role in the peace process, a lack of peace is also going to bring terror to American shores. In this interpretation, there can be no other explanation for Sept. 11 except that the United States brought those attacks upon itself by failing to create peace. But an interpretation that exculpates not only al-Qaida but also the Middle Eastern intelligence services responsible for the preponderance of terrorism must lead to irrational policies that are invariably detrimental to U.S. interests. The lesson is that if you do not do counterintelligence, or sift out the noise, you cannot understand what is in your own national interest.

As it turns out, the debate over what our Arab allies say to U.S. diplomats in the released Wikileaks cables is mostly noise. The pro-Israel side now has more evidence to show that it is not just Jerusalem that fears Iran, while the opposing faction contends that it doesn’t matter because no matter what anyone says the problem really is Israel. In the end, both camps have some truth on their side.

The anti-Israel camp is correct insofar as there is no obvious reason why we should act at the behest of the Gulf Arabs. The fact that the Sunni Arab regimes “hate” Shia and Persians should disgust us rather than please us. The Saudis are the same rulers who also hate Jews and, as the cables show, still back anti-American terrorism, while they repress their own subjects.

What the Saudis have provided that’s useful is not their counsel but rather insight into their efforts at seduction, which convey their understanding of how we perceive our own national interest, and how easily they believe we can be seduced. If they repeat obvious lies about the depth of their feeling for the Palestinians enough, we will take them at face value. If they say that the communists and then the Iranians are their deadly enemies, we will accept this commonality of interests without question.

Just as the Saudis accurately mirrored Washington’s fears of the Soviet Union in order to seduce us into protecting their own interests, they are now reflecting our fears of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is likely they fear Iran as much as they say they do, even as they are already moving to make certain accommodations with the Shia power. The fact is that the Arabs live in the Middle East and understand that someday, even if that day is far off in the future, the United States will leave, either by choice or coercion, and they will be stuck with their Iranian neighbors whether they like it or not.

In the meantime, the words the Saudis utter to American diplomats are not intended to provide us with a transparent window into royal thinking but to manipulate us into serving the interests of the House of Saud. Accordingly, once we have dispensed with the noise, it should not matter one whit to U.S. policymakers whether Iran is a danger to the Arabs or, for that matter, to Israel: Tehran represents a major strategic threat to American interests.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Is is just me, or do you also chuckle whenever a cable refers to the Government of Israel as “the GOI”?

Regarding the “Palestinian question”, here’s my question: who exactly are they?

See this for an explanation:

Olkd Rockin' Dave says:

All these countries that want us to attack Iran are stuffed to the gills with modern weaponry, much of it purchased from the US, and full up with American-trained personnel. But their attitude can be summed up as “Let’s you and him fight.”
The proper US response should be that if they want to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, then let them openly put together a coalition force and the US will then agree to participate.
The Yemeni attitude toward fighting al Qaeda is at least a little more constructive – “You fight him, I’ll hold your coat.”

Why is it now assumed that if you are pro-Israel, you are “on the [political] right”? I can’t believe that I’m the only person in the US or in the world who is a liberal and pro-Israel. Are there others out there?

Yes. There are many. I am one. I know many others.
But, I have to admit that the rabid anti-Zionism of some on the Left, has caused me to rethink many of my old positions about other things. I no longer routinely support everything liberals do.
It has actually been a great relief since over the years, when I was a knee jerk liberal, I ended up giving lip service to a lot of things I did not believe were good. Now, I am more open to critically evaluating every issue separately. I am still probably classified as liberal in most of my positions, but not all. And much happier.

Lillianf says:

Yes, Linda. I love THE NEW REPUBLIC because they are often socially liberal and almost invariably pro-Israel.

Sophia says:

I’m on the Left and I’m also pro-Israel.

I don’t see the conflict although some of the right wing Israeli government and religious officials drive me nuts but then I have a problem with right wingers period. Apologies to right wingers:)

The Left has become internally conflicted though, abandoning economic ideals in some cases and adopting many post-colonial issues and seeing things through the lens of (for example) South Africa – which doesn’t apply to human rights issues in the Middle East or Central Asia and which certainly doesn’t apply to Israel (which fought the British Empire and is not an offshoot of it.)

Nevertheless, the spectre of “colonialism/imperialism” colors discourse when it comes to the West AND Israel – regardless of the imperial history of the East or various awful situations in Africa. Israel has somehow become the poster child of post-colonialism and is held to be a racist entity – ironic to say the least and also inaccurate – nevertheless this is a popular perception. I think it’s antisemitic myself. But there’s enormous global propaganda supporting this idea (not all coming from the Left either – much is from the “unaligned” world and is religiously driven to boot.) In this framework Israel’s democratic system and national regard for human rights are simply ignored.

So many things have changed since the demise of the Soviet Union – intellectually the Left hasn’t kept up. And, issues formerly dear to the Left – like feminism – seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Plus there’s a problem with “cultural relativity,” ie the Left, progressives in general are happy to argue for progressive virtues here at home but ignore them abroad, where they seem, oddly, to support repressive regimes. This doesn’t make sense.

Where Israel is concerned, antisemitism clearly plays a role and that’s true on all sides of the political spectrum.

“…it should not matter one whit to U.S. policymakers whether Iran is a danger to the Arabs or, for that matter, to Israel: Tehran represents a major strategic threat to American interests.”

Anyone who has an above-room temperature IQ in Iran opposes Ahmadinejad and the Mullah Mob – or they left Iran years ago. Because of this brain-drain, the bumbleheaded brutes who are currently running the country couldn’t achieve their nuclear ambitions without Russia and Pakistan’s help.

It doesn’t matter what we do about Iran – after we’re done and our economy, unity and national confidence suffer the predictable resulting damage, Russia, Pakistan and our other frenemies in the area will move on, helping another dimwitted dictator achieve their nuclear dreams. Will our next WMD threat be coming from Syria, Venezuela, Sudan..? It doesn’t matter. What’s clear is that we’re playing this whack-a-mole game according to Russia, Pakistan, etc’s rules. We need to find a better way of dealing with our enemy/allies

Miha Ahronovitz says:

This is an article not written with the clarity Tablet accustomed its’ readers. Difficult to follow. What it says in a nut shell we have prof many Arab leaders are more worried about Iran than of Palestinians and Israel. Thanks you. All could be said in 75% fewer words

This article may be a little difficult to follow but I dont think it sais that at all. I think what it says, in a nut shell, is dont trust what the arabs tell you – no matter what they say. They just tell you what you want you hear.

I think it is very important to disentangle this notion that being “pro-Israel” is synonymous with being “right-wing.” Whatever flaws Israeli society may have from a liberal perspective, in a region filled with authoritarian, theocratic, and oligarchical regimes, Israel easily has the most left-wing country in the Middle-East– even with Likud in government.

Sure, there are right-wingers who “support Israel” but that doesn’t mean a.) they support Israel for the same reasons that I do; or b.) that their idea of “support” is the same as mine.

West Bank for dummies – why Samaria is so crucial to Israel’s existance:


Bryna Weiss says:

Count me too, as a Liberal Leftie who absolutely supports Israel and is ashamed of JStreet!

Excellent brief and this article solved the problem a lot. Give you thanks We trying to find your details?-.

Helpful info discussed I am really pleased to read this particular post..many thanks with regard to providing all of us nice information.Great walk-through. I truly appreciate this article.

I am glad that I have observed this blog. Ultimately anything not a crap, which we understand quite usually. The web site is lovingly maintained and up to date. So it really should be, thank you for this welcome transform.

Some really prize posts on this site, bookmarked .

Hello may I reference some of the information here in this entry if I link back to you?

Excellent web site. Lots of useful info here. I’m sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thanks for your effort!

Wonderful goods from you, man. The Game – by Lee Smith – Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too excellent. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it wise. I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a tremendous The Game – by Lee Smith – Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life informations.

Wonderful goods from you, man. The Game – by Lee Smith – Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful. I really like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you are saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it smart. I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is really a terrific The Game – by Lee Smith – Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life informations.

Nice post we were looking forit I can tell that you will be a specialist your field! I am launching a website soon & your information can be really helpful for me Thanks for all your help & wish you all the success in your business.

Whoa! that post was quite helpful thanks.

I’ve said that least 1398123 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

Ive got to say, the layout alone made me come back to this web page again. But now that Ive read what youve got to say, Ive got to share it with the world!


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Game

The leaked State Department cables reveal the diplomatic seduction that defines relationships in the Middle East

More on Tablet:

Kerry Links Rise of ISIS With Failed Peace Talks

By Lee Smith — Secretary of State: ‘I see a lot of heads nodding’