Bernard Haykel

From Daily Planet Staff Reports

For the foreseeable future, Americans should expect to see more terrorist attacks on gas and oil installations in the Middle East because “our dependence on these resources keep these regimes in power, with certain pathologies,” an expert on the Persian Gulf said Oct. 5 at UNC Asheville’s Reuter Center.

“We’re obsessed with control over these areas” because they largely fuel the world’s sources of energy production. “So we really ought to think about oil in more complex ways” by working on alternatives that would enable the U.S. to generate energy without gas and oil.

So said Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle East studies at Princeton University, who addressed “Oil As A Weapon: Al Qaeda and the Doctrine of Economic Jihad.”

About 150 people attended his one-hour talk and most stayed to hear him field questions from the audience for 20 minutes. For the first time, the annual world affairs lecture series, hosted by World Affairs Council of WNC, is being co-sponsored by the North Carolina Center for Creative Retirement, based at the Reuter Center.

Haykel was introduced as an expert on Yemen and Saudi Arabia who is well-connected with Middle East royalty and tribal chiefs,

After noting that “it’s a real pleasure and honor” to be speaking at UNCA, Haykel immediately turned to business and, in rapid-fire-style, said that two topics he would be discussing are “the world of oil and fossil fuels” and “the world of Al Qaeda and Muslim politics.”

He said it is important to note that “there have been many Al Qaeda attacks on oil installations since 2003. The most spectacular, which failed, thank God, was in Saudi Arabia and would have cut one-tenth of the (world’s) daily oil production.”

For Americans and others around the world, “If it had succeeded, we would have all known about it, standing in long gas lines,” wreaking havoc on economies everywhere.

He told the audience that his presentation would “disabuse of notions” that most Americans hold about the Middle East and the oil situation.

For instance, Haykel said popular opinion is erroneous that “oil or gas are going to be irrelevant anytime soon. They’re not.”

While “wood and coal have gone done over time,” as energy sources, “gas and oil will remain increasingly important till at least 2030.” In charts on a projection screen, Haykel showed that nuclear and hydro power, “as you can see, are minimal” in their overall contribution to U.S. energy generation.

“In 2025, on a scale of 125, oil has generated 56 percent “of our energy output,” followed by gas, which accounted for 35 percent. “So, together, they are important for us.”

Haykel showed charts indicating, he said, “The energy pigs of the world are the United States and the Middle East oil-producers. We’re linked in our energy-consumption habits.” As an example of wasteful energy use in the Middle East, he showed a picture of an indoor ski slope in Dubai — a facility refrigerated to maintain snow, despite its location in a sizzling-hot desert.

“Most of the world’s gal and oil consumption has taken place in the United States,” he said. “We known we’ve run out of oil or will run out very soon” in the U.S.

Regarding oil and oil sands, Haykel said, “Through an accident of geology, most of the world’s oil reserves are in the Middle East — in the Persian Gulf ... The gas is also primarily located in the Persian Gulf.”

In what the professor termed the second part of his talk, Haykel turned to religion, noting there are 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. “They are monolithic.” Al Qaeda “belongs to the Salafis,” who believe in scriptural literalism, have an obsession with theological purity, centered on reforming other errant Muslims and seek a return to the primitive Islam of the centuries when Muslims were powerful.

“Even the Salafis reject El Qaeda,” Haykel said. “Only a few thousand strong,” they are “mainly obsessed with reforming other Muslims. They really are bothersome to other Muslims ... You could say all Al Qaeda people are deranged in some way.”

The professor noted there are three kinds of Salafis, including quietists, who are obedient to Muslim rulers; activists influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, politically engaged and seek power through organized terrorism, and jihadis, who week power through armed struggle.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Haykel said it has Egyptian origins, and was started in 1928 as an anti-imperialist movement. “The argument here is that Islam is a comprehensive system, the goal of Islamizing society is to bring everything under the aegis of Islamic law. The MB seeks to accomplish its goals through organized activism. “They’re unprincipled political opportunists — more interested in coming to power than anything, so they’ll compromise on principles. In contrast, Al Qaeda won’t compromise on principles.”

An interesting aspect is how the royal family and religious establishment in Saudi Arabia deal with one another, Haykel noted. “Basically, the Saudi royal family need Wahabis to give them legitimacy. But they’ve clearly established that the royal family rules and the religious establishment’s job is to rubber-stamp them.”

middle-east-map.jpg

“Saudis are now sitting on over $600 billion in cash assets in their banks. They’ve very conservative and didn’t invest in any financial assets.”

He added, I think the interesting question would be, what would happen if we (the U.S.) weren’t there. They can’t drink the oil. They’ve got to sell it.”

Regarding the Taliban, the professor said, “They don’t belong to Salafis tradition. They belong to an Indian tradition.” However, he added that “the Taliban has been Salifised.”

“The Taliban all come from a large tribe” of tens of millions of people. He said it is a “very powerful, warlike tribe. Whe you have a martial people that become Salifized, then you have a very dangerous threat.”

During a question-and-answer period, someone asked why the West does not make an alliance with moderate Muslims to defeat the terrorists.

“It’s problematic,” Haykel replied. “It’s hard for Muslims who hate these guys (terrorists) when the United States keeps attacking Muslim countries.” He added that another complication is what he termed the U.S. proclivity to support regions “that are tyrannical.”

Another person asked how the Saudis defeated Al Qaeda.

“First, they thought of Al Qaeda as a problem within the family,” he answered. “Saudis thought these are individuals like us. They’d bring in the families of these individuals to convince these people to back off,” with the threat of harming their families if they do not cooperate.

In a brutal scenario, the terrorists were told that if they did not come to terms, “you’re effectively keeping food off the table of your family ... It has worked, although not in all cases,” the professor noted.

A questioner asked if the U.S. were to completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and if an agreement was reached on the Palestine-Israel conflict, “what would happen?”

“The Saudis basically are on board and would bankroll a new Palestine state,” Haykel replied. “That would take away a major argument” in the Middle East.

“I’m not saying it would solve everything. It’d be a very good thing, though, and I’d welcome it, as would the president (Barrack Obama) — and huge numbers of Israelis.”

As for Iraq, with no U.S. presence, “there’d be a good chance of a civil war — very bloody and tragic — taking place” between the Sunnis and the Shiites. “I’m not very hopeful for (the future of) Iraq.”

Regarding Afghanistan, Haykel said, “I think Al Qaeda would take over. To me, Afghanistan’s ot really our problem” and should more properly be dealt with by the power’s in that region.

A final question was from soneone who wondered if “invading” Iraq benefited Al Qaeda.

“Yes and no,” Haykel said. At first, the terrorists benefited, but then it changed. “Lately, Al Qaeda has nt come out too well, in the long term, in Iraq."