Mecca agreement

Submitted by Robert Solot (Mexico), Feb 26, 2007 at 09:13

This subcommittee's panelists agree that the Mecca agreement sponsored by Saudi Arabia was a disaster, since it affirmed Hamas's rejectionist position. However, Seymour Hersch writes about a new administration strategy against Iran, "In the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction. At least four main elements were involved, the U.S. government consultant told me. First, Israel would be assured that its security was paramount and that Washington and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran."

This would mean that the Mecca agreement is just the surface, under which may lie more postive developments for Israel. Is there anything to Hersch's reporting? Also, am I right to be skeptical about the widespread fear and contempt of the Shiites? Why is Shiite resurgence such a dangerous thing? I'm wary of being an unknowing victim of Sunni propaganda, given that Saudi money and influence is so strong among Arabists in the government and in the think-tanks.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".