Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 16, 2014
Saudi Arabia: besieged and fearful
The Saudi regime has long been considered a pillar of political stability in the Middle East, a country that commanded respect and prudence from all its neighbors. This is no longer true, and the first ones to recognize this are those who are important internal players in the regime. Today, they feel besieged on all sides and quite fearful of the consequences of turmoil in the Middle East for the survival of the regime.
Dhee Ayn in Hejaz (also known as Aqabat al-Baha or the Marble Village). A 400-year-old village built on a marble mountain visible for several kilometers as one approaches the village. Even from a distance the place can easily be located by its white glow. The houses of the village itself are not made of marble, but of flake stones and slate. Photo by Hejazi Israel (2010). Via Wikimedia Commons.
This turn-around derives from the history of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom itself is not very old. It was created in 1932 through the unification of two smaller kingdoms on the Arabian peninsula, Hejaz and Nejd. It was a poor, isolated part of the world that had liberated itself from Ottoman rule during the First World War, and came then under the paracolonial aegis of Great Britain.
The kingdom was organized in religious terms by a version of Sunni Islam called Wahabism (or Salafism). Wahabism is a very strict puritanical doctrine that was notably intolerant not only of religions other than Islam but of other versions of Islam itself.
The discovery of oil would transform the geopolitical role of Saudi Arabia. It was an American firm, later called Aramco – not a British firm – that succeeded in getting the rights for prospection in 1938. Aramco sought assistance from the U.S. government to exploit the fields.
One consequence of Aramco’s interest combined with President Franklin Roosevelt’s vision of the geopolitical future of the United States was a now famous, then little noticed, meeting of Roosevelt and the ruler of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud, on Feb. 14, 1945 aboard a U.S. destroyer in the Red Sea. Despite Roosevelt’s grave illness (he was to die two months later) and Ibn Saud’s lack of any previous experience with Western culture and technology, the two leaders managed to forge a genuine mutual respect. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s attempt to undo this in a meeting he immediately arranged soon after that turned out to be quite counter-productive, as he was seen as “arrogant” by Ibn Saud.
While much of the five-hour private discussion between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud was devoted to the question of Zionism and Palestine – about which they had quite different views – the longer-run real consequence was a de facto arrangement in which Saudi Arabia coordinated and controlled world oil production policies to the benefit of the United States, in return for which the United States offered long-term guarantees of military security for Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia became a de facto paracolonial dependency of the United States, which however permitted the very extensive royal family to grow wealthy and “modernize” – not only in their ability to use technology but even in a cultural sense, bending in their own lives many of the restrictions of Wahabite Islam. It was an arrangement both sides appreciated and nourished. It worked well until the latter half of the first decade of 2000. Two major events upset the arrangement. One was the geopolitical decline of the United States. The second was the so-called Arab spring and what the Saudis regarded as its negative consequences throughout the Arab world.
From Saudi Arabia’s point of view, the relationship with the United States soured for a number of reasons. First, the Saudis felt that the announced “Asia/Pacific” reorientation of the United States, replacing the long-dominant “Europe/Atlantic” orientation, implied a withdrawal from active involvement in the politics of the Middle East.
The Saudis saw further evidence of this reorientation in the willingness of the United States to enter into negotiations with both the Syrian and the Iranian governments. Similarly, they were dismayed by the announced troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the clear reluctance to engage in another “war” in the Middle East. They felt they could no longer count on U.S. military protection, should it be needed. They therefore decided to play their cards independently of the United States and indeed against U.S. preferences.
Meanwhile, their relations with other Islamic groups became more and more difficult. They were extremely wary of any groups linked to al-Qaeda. And for good reason, since al-Qaeda had long made it clear that it sought the overthrow of the existing Saudi regime. One thing that worried them especially was the Saudi citizens who went to Syria to engage in jihad. They feared, remembering past history, that these individuals would return to Saudi Arabia, ready to subvert it from within. Indeed, on February 3, by royal decree of the monarch himself (a rare occurrence), the Saudis ordered all their citizens to return. They sought to control how they returned, and intended to disperse them along the frontlines, to minimize their ability to create internal organizations. It seems doubtful that these jihadis will obey. They consider this edict an abandonment by the Saudi regime.
In addition to the potential adherents of al-Qaeda, the Saudi regime has long had a difficult relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. While the latter’s version of Islam is also Salafist, and in many ways similar to Wahabism, there have been two crucial differences. The Muslim Brotherhood’s principal base has been in Egypt whereas the Wahabite base has been in Saudi Arabia. So this has always been in part a contest as to the locale of the dominant geopolitical force in the Middle East.
There is a second difference. Because of its history, the Muslim Brotherhood has always regarded monarchs with a jaundiced eye whereas Wahabism has been tied closely to the Saudi monarchy. The Saudi regime does not welcome therefore the spread of a movement that wouldn’t care if the Saudi monarchy were overturned.
Whereas once they had good relations with the Baathist regime in Syria, this is now impossible because of the intensified Sunni-Shi’ite polarization in the Middle East.
The Saudi lack of appreciation for secularists, sympathizers of al-Qaeda, supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Shi’ite Baathist regime does not leave any obvious group to support in Syria today. But supporting no one does not project an image of leadership. So the Saudi regime sends some arms to a few groups and pretends to do much more.
Is the great enemy really Iran? Yes and no. But to limit the damage, the Saudi regime is secretly engaged in talks with the Iranians, talks whose outcome is very uncertain, since the Saudis believe that the Iranians want to encourage the Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia to erupt. While the total number of Shi’ites inside Saudi Arabia is uncertain (probably circa 20 percent), they are concentrated in the southeastern corner, precisely the area of largest oil production.
About the only regime with whom the Saudis are on good terms today is the Israelis. They share the sense of being besieged and fearful. And they both engage in the same short-run political tactics.
The fact is that the Saudi regime has internal feet of clay. The inner elite is now shifting from the so-called second generation, the sons of Ibn Saud (the few surviving sons being quite aged), to the grandsons. They are a large and untested group who might help to bring the house down in their competition to get their hands on the spoils, which are still considerable.
The Saudis have good reason to feel besieged and fearful.
9 Comments on "Saudi Arabia: besieged and fearful"
Arthur on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 1:29 pm
President Franklin Roosevelt’s vision of the geopolitical future of the United States
The euphemism of the year.
Winston Churchill’s attempt to undo this in a meeting he immediately arranged soon after that turned out to be quite counter-productive
WC (pun intended) was useful for the Roosevelt government to kick-start the war in Europe. After that he was an expendable item. Winnie after the war, observing the new geopolitical reality in Europe and the end of the British empire: “we slaughtered the wrong pig”.
The second was the so-called Arab spring and what the Saudis regarded as its negative consequences throughout the Arab world.
Arab Spring/Muslim Brotherhood: A sort of religious Bolshevism for the Arab masses, making royals regularly check if their heads are still attached to their bodies.
First, the Saudis felt that the announced “Asia/Pacific” reorientation of the United States, replacing the long-dominant “Europe/Atlantic” orientation, implied a withdrawal from active involvement in the politics of the Middle East.
I read that baloney already in the 1980s , in Alvin Toffler’s “Third Wave”. At that time I did not pay sufficient attention to the ethnic background of the Toffler’s of this world to see through their agenda. And since when is there oil and gas to be imported from Asia, which could justify such a shift? In the very near future, the US needs to begin worrying what they can bring to the table to enable further imports from Asia, when green printed paper will no longer suffice to ‘pay’ the bill. There is not going to be a shift towards a ‘Pacific future’ of the US. The future of the US will be very inward looking and the Transatlantic ties will remain dominant.
They therefore decided to play their cards independently of the United States and indeed against U.S. preferences.
Which means that KSA is shortly before it’s demise and up for grabs to the first Jihadist revolutionaries with guns. For the ‘House of Saud’ there is no alternative than the US.
This article was written by the Jewish-American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein. He is one of the rare Jews whose brain is not tainted by the neo-Trotskyite brain garbage like with most neocons. He clearly sees what is coming in the ME: a Jihadist overthrow of existing power structures and all left-overs of European-American colonialism, resulting in a re-erection of the Caliphate. He is also one of the few who sees what is coming in Europe: the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis (“the North”), replacing the West as the premier dominant geopolitical factor on this planet in the 21st century:
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/wallerstein-foresees-rise-greater-europe/
DC on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 3:23 pm
Q/The Saudi regime has long been considered a pillar of political stability in the Middle East, a country that commanded respect and prudence from all its neighbors.
Really? they are? When, and in what alternate Earth did that take place? In this reality, Saudi Arabia is considered one of the worlds most oppressive and retrograde monarchies in the entire world. Now, that comment above is a great description of how the Saudi Elite see themselves, and how they like to think others see them. But outside that rather narrow circle, and the writers, most would agree that characterization of the saudi regime is not widely shared…
And S.A.’s ‘affinity’ for the jews, has little do to with any shared sense of being ‘besieged’. Sauds greatest ‘enemies’ are its own people and migrant work force that it treats so shabbily. And both being key pieces of amerikas global empire is the deciding factor-nothing more.
Davey on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 3:46 pm
DC, is there anyone in your world that is not twisted, evil, and bent on unjust domination? What do you believe in just so I know. Maybe I can learn from you. At this point you seem to me just to be a spoiler taking cheap shots. What system should the world follow to save us from the hell that is in store for us?
Northwest Resident on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 4:09 pm
“DC, is there anyone in your world that is not twisted, evil, and bent on unjust domination?”
As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is “no”.
And did I read correctly that Arthur believes America started WWII? He wrote, “WC (pun intended) was useful for the Roosevelt government to kick-start the war in Europe”.
Which one of these two (DC or Arthur) that once wrote that Roosevelt was a “war criminal” for taking America into WWII? Either of you guys care to own up to that sad comment? I remember reading that comment and I responded, questioning your characterization of Roosevelt as a “war criminal”, but you both share such twisted and evil views of the world that I often can’t tell the difference between you.
Arthur on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 4:26 pm
NRW, that was me who said that Roosevelt and Stalin wanted WW2. The Germans merely wanted their stupid Danzig back and found themselves embroiled in a world war. What is so difficult to understand about that?
bobinget on Sun, 16th Mar 2014 6:06 pm
Mr Arthur (last name withheld to protect family still living) is simply what kindergartners call a ‘big tease’.
Why you guys get sucked into his agent provcocature
mud hole is beyond me. Ignore the old agitator and he will die of lonesomeness.
On topic:
As of last week the Saudis changed tactics in Syria. Today, long lines of trucks carrying food and medical aid are in Jordan waiting to cross into Rebel held territory.
While still delivering small arms and anti-tank weapons the ‘big’ stuff promised for months is not being delivered. President Assad is starving out civilians stuck in rebel held regions around the country.
“Surrender or Starve” is the name of this strategy.
So far four million have refuged in Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon putting an enormous burden
on these neighbors.
To keep the remaining two million internal refugees
in place, KSA has shifted to sending money, food and meds.
In some inaccessible parts of Syria, surrounded by government forces, Palestinian refugees by the thousands are starving to death. It’s ironic but Palestinian refugees have been
living in so called camps for decades in Syria but are now simply being eliminated by starvation.
(why waste food on THEM?)
No nation, no NGO, no UN can get any food into these camps. This crime and dozens more are cause of the worst humanitarian disaster since Ruanda. There are death camps everywhere inside Syria when anyone suspected is sent to starve to death.
When smuggled death camp photos were shown to Russian diplomats, I’m certain, decisions were made to
launch diversionary tactics.
To say Russia and Iran play ‘hardball’ would be
words of slight levity in a ruthless persecution.
Jimmy on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 12:42 am
Regarding the beginnings of WW1 and 2 which I see as one conflict with a pause:
In 1914 Germany had a railway connection through Serbia to Istanbul and from there to Irak and Saudi Arabia, which the German empire had built. The Turks were close allies with Germany back then. This was the German alternative to the Suez canal, which was under French and British control. So when the Russians and French interrupted this railway connection from two sides, Germany reacted by attacking them both. This is of course not a justification, but maybe a bit of an explanation. Never heard about that railway in history class did you? Do you stupid yanks even study history?
Makati1 on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 2:41 am
BOTH world wars were started by the banking cartel which made trillions of dollars of profit from them. Without WW2, the US would have never become the world leader of today. Never. After the war, Europe was destroyed and in debt to the US. Asia was in the same situation. The US was the only major country left untouched and the oil fields of Texas made it all possible.
Kenz300 on Mon, 17th Mar 2014 12:24 pm
Quote — “The kingdom was organized in religious terms by a version of Sunni Islam called Wahabism (or Salafism). Wahabism is a very strict puritanical doctrine that was notably intolerant not only of religions other than Islam but of other versions of Islam itself.”
———————-
Hate and intolerance on a massive scale…….