Obama, the United Arab Emirates' Prince, and the Bluff Named Iran

President Barack Obama met on Tuesday with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, who is also Deputy Supreme Commander of the U.A.E. Armed Forces. The meeting took place in the Oval Office, and the press did not have access. The White House spokesman was vague in follow-up statements, saying that “the two leaders had a productive discussion about common interests in the region.”

Before he visited Obama, Sheikh Al Nahyan was received by U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The three discussed military cooperation and security in the region. According to the official Emirati news agency, “the leaders discussed the strong and broad-based relationship that unites the two countries, and pledged to continue close cooperation in the areas of security and economics.” In other words, they exercised total discretion.

Tuesday’s meeting came after the U.S. National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, met with the Crown Prince on April 13. The two failed to clarify differences on a number of issues in the region, the most pressing among them being, of course, Tehran’s position and its so-called ambitions for great power in the Gulf region.

“I think having heard unsatisfactory answers from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CENTCOM Commander General James Mattis, the Crown Prince has come here to try and convince the president himself of what he thinks should be done in regards to Iran,” said Simon Henderson, an American expert on Middle Eastern affairs for Al Arabya.

“The UAE thinks that the U.S. doesn’t take Iran seriously. From the UAE perspective, Iran is the major problem in the region and it needs to be countered, whereas the U.S. thinks that greater political freedoms are the issues to focus on.” said Henderson.

In fact, however, the U.S. does not disregard Iran, or at least STRATFOR strategist George Friedman so believes. In his opinion, the fear of an Iranian offensive is the only thing behind the recent requests the U.S. made concerning Iraq and the withdrawal of American troops, which will take place on Dec. 13, 2011. The Americans urged the Iraqi government to give its opinion on the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the possibility of them remaining in Iraq after the deadline as quickly as possible, arguing that such an operation takes time.

Friedman believes the basis for this pressure is merely the fact that the U.S. wishes to remain in position in Iraq, the idea being that it can closely monitor Iran’s movements, which they have taken much more seriously since the beginning of the revolts in the Arab world.

The 170,000 American soldiers now stationed in Iraq could not stabilize the country, and the 20,000 which will remain after the scheduled December withdrawal will only have a symbolic role. A destabilized Iraq will be easy prey for Iran, which can ruin all that the Americans built from the end of the war until now, believes Friedman.

The only country that can fight on Iraq’s behalf in a confrontation with Iran is Saudi Arabia, a classic rival of Tehran that supports Sunni Iraqi financial groups, but it doesn’t have a land army capable of withstanding the Iranian army. Moreover, on April 18, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei warned Saudi Arabia that it can be invaded in turn as punishment for the deployment of Saudi troops into Bahrain. So the Saudis, as dependent on the U.S.’s protection as the U.S. is dependent on their oil, are very watchful of Washington’s response to requests from the U.A.E. prince.

It is difficult to say if the Iranians are bluffing by threatening Saudi Arabia, but it’s even more difficult to believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s army can invade in the first place without a swift reaction from the U.S. and Israel. The only thing Iran can do in response to military aggression will be to close their oil lines and send the price per barrel skyrocketing.