Saudi Arabia stews in policy hell: Spengler

By David P. Goldman on January 3, 2016 in David P. Goldman, Spengler, China, Middle East, AT Top Writers

Last week's mass executions in Saudi Arabia suggest panic at the highest level of the monarchy. The action is without precedent, even by the grim standards of Saudi repression. In 1980 Riyadh killed 63 jihadists who had attacked the Grand Mosque of Mecca, but that was fresh after the event. Most of the 47 prisoners shot and beheaded on Jan. 2 had sat in Saudi jails for a decade. The decision to kill the prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr, the most prominent spokesman for restive Saudi Shia Muslims in Eastern Province, betrays fear of subversion with Iranian sponsorship.

Why kill them all now? It is very hard to evaluate the scale of internal threats to the Saudi monarchy, but the broader context for its concern is clear: Saudi Arabia finds itself isolated, abandoned by its longstanding American ally, at odds with China, and pressured by Russia's sudden preeminence in the region. The Saudi-backed Army of Conquest in Syria seems to be crumbling under Russian attack. The Saudi intervention in Yemen against Iran-backed Houthi rebels has gone poorly. And its Turkish ally-of-convenience is consumed by a low-level civil war. Nothing has gone right for Riyadh.

Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom's $700 billion in financial reserves within five years, according to an October estimate by the International Monetary Fund (as I discussed here).

OK, so you don’t think that the West asked Saudi Arabia to manage their religious extremists after 9-11. I guess that everybody missed that 19 out 20 hijackers were Saudis, led by Saudi bin Laden, preaching the Saudi strain of islam. Also, the Holy Land Terrorism Trial results never registered with any Western government, and the whole US judicial system (up to and including the Supreme Court) has been completely misled in allowing the victims of the 9-11 attack in suing the Government of the KSA for damages.

On the Sunni side of islam, there are four main schools of jurisprudence (figh), used to make the legal judgements which define sharia - Hanafi (like the Ottomans), Maliki (like North Africa), Shafi (like Indonesia), and the smallest of them, the Hanbali (centered in the Government of Saudi Arabia).

The extreme Hanbali interpretation of the Wahabbis, also happens to be the exact religious doctrine of ISIS, al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To hear the Saudis tell it, the islam that they so generously promote, is the the pure authentic version, back to its roots, as founded.

The Hanbali fiqh is not based on that at all - it is entirely based on literal reading of a small select set of writings from long after the death of muhammad, guided by rigid application of arbitrary rules of interpretation, explicitly disallowing any logical analysis or moral judgement.

Significant among the rules of Hanbali “interpretation” is their assumption that any later verse, statement or action supersedes any conflicting earlier verse, statement or action - and that after their scriptures cut off, things can never change again for the rest of history, in any other circumstances. (although they deny any interpretation, insisting that they only read the texts as literally written).

So muhammad’s earlier concilliatory statements when he lacked power and was trying to recruit voluntarily (like “there shall be no compulsion in religion”) are replaced with his later statements while commanding an army of conquest (like “I have been commanded to fight against all people until everyone accepts allah”).

The Saudi royal family, under the extremist wahabbi interpretation, have the religious obligation to continue the fight until all accept allah as god.

...And so they have. See this detailed thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924323/posts

OK, so you donâ€™t think that the West asked Saudi Arabia to manage their religious extremists after 9-11. I guess that everybody missed that 19 out 20 hijackers were Saudis, led by Saudi bin Laden, preaching the Saudi strain of islam. Also, the Holy Land Terrorism Trial results never registered with any Western government, and the whole US judicial system (up to and including the Supreme Court) has been completely misled in allowing the victims of the 9-11 attack in suing the Government of the KSA for damages.

OBL declared war on the Saudi Royal family in his fatwa. He wanted to kill them because they worked with the US and allowed them in the Kingdom.

The extreme Hanbali interpretation of the Wahabbis, also happens to be the exact religious doctrine of ISIS, al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

Always fun to read Spengler's analyses. The notion of Saudi Arabia running short of cash is something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, but a combination of low oil prices, poor planning, and over-expenditure in the pursuit of proxy warfare - this is not necessarily the royal family's fault directly, but it is where the oil money is going to support the fifth pillar of Islam, "charity" - has proven a perfect storm. Iran is affected by the same set of challenges, to be sure, as well as a ruinously expensive nuclear program. The problem is that their proxies are too closely engaged at the moment to pull their fingers from the fire.

The Russians should know all about the expense of exporting warfare and appear to be relearning those lessons. The U.S. is still making payments. So the question is: who runs out of money first?

Had the Saudis managed to move their economy toward banking and international finance as they've been talking about for decades, they might not be quite so much in extremis. 700 billion is a lot of cash reserve by the standards of countries their size; by the standards of Cold War proxy warfare expenditure it's not really so much. Our grandchildren will be making payments on our own efforts in that arena; theirs will be extremely lucky to make it that far.

They can all agree on one absolute dictator - as long as it is them. I think Erdogan feels the same.

The Saudis have acted on the imperative to conquer the world for islam (ruled by them of course). They have developed the program for decades, as documented in the link that I provided you earlier with official reports, court findings and congressional testimony. It has been well established many times over that the Saudis provide funding, training and direction to terrorist organizations; and subversion programs targeted against Western societies (e.g. CAIR, Muslim Students Association, ISNA, etc.). Their religion demands it, and that religion is what they cite to justify their totalitarian power and obscene wealth. “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque”

They were the big funders of bin Laden and al Queda during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. Perhaps they had a family squabble or two along the way about who was in charge, but it is a parent and child relationship.

Saudi trained and sponsored Imams taught ISIS all their theology, and a flow of thousands of radically indoctrinated jihadis flow to ISIS from Saudi-operated mosques, teaching Saudi-approved doctrine (monitored by Saudi Embassy personnel) in dozens of country. They are the Saudi Foreign Legion in practice, although disavowed in public.

Saudi Arabia is the Mother Ship of Sunni extremism, and a whole litter of terrorist groups suckle at her teats.

The Saudis were our primary surrogate in our efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We funneled money, arms, and other assistance to the rebels thru them to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan. They have helped us in other areas of the world as well.

If you want to blame us for helping the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the world, then you have a better argument. No doubt, militant Islamic fundamentalism was furthered thru the crucible of Afghanistan and our assistance to the rebels who made their resistance a religious cause, which attracted jihadists from all over the world. We defeated the Soviets, but the jihadists filled the vacuum.

Carter greased the skids for the Shah in Iran and allowed Khomeini to hijack the Iranian revolution in 1979. We are now dealing with the results today with Iran looking to dominate the region and acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranians, the world's biggest state sponsored of terrorism and run by the mullahs, want to remove the Saudi Royal family and wipe Israel off the map. The Saudis view Iran as the greatest threat to their national security. With 10% of the Saudi population Shi'a, most of them living in the Eastern Province, the Royal family is concerned about Iranian influence in their own country. The recent executions were intended to send a message domestically that they will not tolerate dissent of any kind.

Obama sided with the MB in Egypt and elsewhere during the Arab Spring. Fortunately, in Egypt, the generals were able to oust the MB and take back Egypt from the fundamentalists. The Saudis wanted us to support Mubarak, a long time ally.

Obama got rid of Gaddafi who was cracking down on rebels who had been inspired by the Arab Spring in Tunisia. Libya is now in chaos with jihadists gaining control and forming a base for the spread of ISIS and its ilk.

The Saudi Royal family is keeping the Kingdom stable and oriented to the West. They are our biggest trading partner in the Middle East. We sell them billions of dollars in arms, which create jobs in the US and lower weapons costs for us. We have tens of thousands of Americans working in the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is the Mother Ship of Sunni extremism, and a whole litter of terrorist groups suckle at her teats.

No, the issue is Islam and the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism. Iran is far more responsible for what is happening than the Saudis. And the US bears a major responsibility for making the theocracy of Iran possible. And the Iran deal provides the Iranians with the money and lifeline they needed to keep the regime in power. We did nothing to help the opposition during the Green Movement. The biggest exporter of jihadism is Iran.

You can demonize the Saudis all you want, but come up with the alternative. Whom do you think will fill the vacuum if the Royal Family is overthrown? I can assure you that it won't be Jeffersonian democrats. In the real world, you don't have the luxury of choosing between good and evil. There are many shades of gray. We must do what is best in our national interests.

“You can demonize the Saudis all you want, but come up with the alternative. Whom do you think will fill the vacuum if the Royal Family is overthrown?”

That was the gist of my original question to you, as you seemed to have experience in the area.

Obviously, you have a high opinion of the Saudi regime, but those who see them as a problem in sponsoring islamism and global jihad (based on the extensive amount of objective formal findings of deliberate judicial processes and government investigations, including multiple major intelligence services), often come down to the question - How can the Saudi regime be reformed or replaced?

They are the world’s most thorough police state, with a higher percentage of their population dedicated to spying on and policing the population than any other, including communist China and North Korea. They are totally unfettered in terms of repressing dissent - no real legal or judicial constraints on imprisoning, torturing or executing anyone they want (they do have courts for routine purposes, which they can go around at will). In fact, they are world leaders in torture today - no technique is off limits (e.g. amputation, homosexual rape, eating feces, etc.). They are also one of the leading countries in the world for censorship of all kinds. So it is no easy feat to cook up a conspiracy there.

To answer your question, I would guess that the most likely replacement to the Saudi regime would be militant Wahabbi purists, a coup by self serving insiders, or a conquering foreign government.

The real prospect of true believers, ISIS-like jihadis, replacing the Saudi royal family, has long been their leverage to slow roll Westerners concerned with human rights and the promotion of extremism around the world. We have to modernize our society at the fastest pace that they will accept they say - we are working on it, and only we have the cultural knowledge and social connections to make this happen. Next year, we have women vote! (albeit only for local dogcatcher, from segregated polling stations). In the mean time, fifth columns of thousands of radicalized extremists are indoctrinated in Saudi mosques in dozens of countries

So what could get them to reform Wahabbism? Although there are some other problematic islamic extremists (Pakistani Deobandis, and the Iranian regime) most of the terrorist and subversion problem is not islam, but the wahabbi sect itself (al Queda, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Hamas, lone wolf Westerners from wahabbi mosques).

Can you envision some policy, or set of conditions, that would cause the Saudi regime to modify their state religion, so that it refutes the wahabbi doctrines that lead inevitably to war and atrocity? If not, they must eventually be replaced.

That was the gist of my original question to you, as you seemed to have experience in the area.

If you want my opinion, the Royal family will be replaced by Islamic fundamentalists who will eschew ties with the West. They will battle Iranian influences that could lead to the division of the country with the Shi'a taking over the oil rich Eastern Province and uniting/cooperating with Iran. Bahrain will fall soon thereafter to a Shi'a government replacing the current royal family of Bahrain, which is predominantly Shi'a. And Kuwait will be next.

It is not a matter of having a high opinion of the Saudi regime. We have worked with them in many areas to our benefit. Many of them are unknown to the public. And they have benefited from their association with us. We have counseled the Saudis on reforms. You just have to look at the annual human rights report. That said, we are not advocating reform or removal of the Saudi Royal Family from power. We have mutual security and economic interests that must be protected. If Israel can work in private with the Saudis on various issues, we surely can.

They are the worldâ€™s most thorough police state, with a higher percentage of their population dedicated to spying on and policing the population than any other, including communist China and North Korea. They are totally unfettered in terms of repressing dissent - no real legal or judicial constraints on imprisoning, torturing or executing anyone they want (they do have courts for routine purposes, which they can go around at will). In fact, they are world leaders in torture today - no technique is off limits (e.g. amputation, homosexual rape, eating feces, etc.). They are also one of the leading countries in the world for censorship of all kinds. So it is no easy feat to cook up a conspiracy there.

You don't have to lecture me on Saudi repression of their populace having lived there for five years. But I have also lived in Poland for a few years under the communists. They were more repressive and living conditions were far worse for the Polish people. The Kingdom is a paradise by comparison.

I also lived a few years in Iran during the fall of the Shah. Jimmy Carter castigated the Shah for his police state and the use of Savak. Carter pushed human rights and was instrumental in getting the Shah out of power. This paved the way for Khomeini and even greater repression than the Shah ever dreamed of. I lived there for two months after Khomeini took over and the change was immediate. Moreover, Iran became the greatest state sponsor of terrorism and we are dealing with the legacy of Carter today. Regime change for our friends and allies is not always in our best interests. What follows is far worse for our interests and the people of those countries.

Sometimes the despots and the dictators know far more than we do when it comes to understanding the character and nature of their own people. Pressuring them to relax their control is not seen as benevolence, but rather, weakness. It emboldens the opposition.

It will take a global reformation of Islam and a reconciliation with modernity. That is not going to happen any time soon. The reality is that the Saudi Royal Family is already vulnerable and weakened. The low oil prices coupled with huge population increases over the years given very high birthrates means that the regime can no longer afford many of the benefits they provide to the people and the huge foreign workforce that provides most of the services. The Saudis are now running budget deficits. The lack of resources and corruption will cause the downfall of Royal Family. And when they go, they will take much of the wealth with them.

The Saudi Royal Family are prisoners to their own creation. The country that is host to Mecca and Medina cannot move to a secular or even religious tolerant state. Islam itself must change. The Saudis have no control over that.

“The Saudi Royal Family are prisoners to their own creation. The country that is host to Mecca and Medina cannot move to a secular or even religious tolerant state. Islam itself must change. The Saudis have no control over that. “

Can’t means won’t. They could.

And again, it is the Saudi Wahabbi sect that won’t tolerate other religions, not the whole of islam. The Saudis have more direct influence and control over the wahabbi sect than anyone else - they are in fact the very center of gravity in the struggle against sunni extremism, due to their unique power over the wahabbi sect.

I don’t recommend pressuring the Saudis to ease up on their control, when they have ensured that there is no acceptable domestic alternative that could emerge. Their balls need to be squeezed until they turn their guns on the wahabbis and teach them to sing a new tune, or they should be replaced by a strongman who will.

The longer they are allowed to talk their way out of real reform of their pernicious state religion, and continue to spread it through all of islam and all of the world, the higher the cost in blood will be.

If, as you analyze, the current system is facing forces that will lead to its eventual implosion, we need to ensure an outcome that dis-empowers the wahabbis - who will remain eternal enemies of freedom.

The Saudis have more direct influence and control over the wahabbi sect than anyone else - they are in fact the very center of gravity in the struggle against sunni extremism, due to their unique power over the wahabbi sect.

Who do mean when you say "The Saudis"? The Royal Family? The clerics? the Mutawa?

Their balls need to be squeezed until they turn their guns on the wahabbis and teach them to sing a new tune, or they should be replaced by a strongman who will.

You are living in an alternate universe. Who is going to "squeeze their balls" and how? Who will that "strongman" be? Who selects him and puts him in power?

I don't know why people think that the US is so omnipotent, it can control outcomes and events around the globe. In the ME the people view everything as a conspiracy with the US being the master puppeteer. The reality is that we have a limited ability to alter events and even if we do, there could be unintended consequences. We are not the masters of the universe.

Islam is a religion of 1.3 billion and growing faster than any other major religion. It is a religion (or cult may be more apt) that demands great personal involvement from its adherents. You must pray five times a day; you fast for a month; you travel to Mecca/Medina on the haj if you have the money; and Islam has a political and legal structure that goes beyond mere religion. This reality confronts the developed world challenging our values, our culture, our political institutions, and our future. At the same time, the developed world is losing its confidence in our culture and institutions. Christianity is in decline in Europe and the US. Our cultures seek to accommodate Islam and Islam seeks to dominate us.

We have a clash of civilizations but only one party understands what is at stake. The Saudis are not the driving force behind the rise in militant Islamic fundamentalism.

You seem to counsel passivity - that it is unrealistic to do anything. But maybe somebody else will. Like maybe islam will sort itself out spontaneously. If not, oh well...we’ll just lose.

So balls can not be squeezed in the universe that you inhabit. Embargoes and sanctions can not be emplaced. Dirty secrets can not be aired. Assets can not be frozen. Arms sales can not be suspended. Regimes can no longer be undermined by intelligence services. Bad actors (if connected Saudis) can not be blackmailed, assassinated or even prosecuted. Surrogates can no longer be supported. Influence operations in the USA and Europe can not be investigated and prosecuted. Gloves can not be taken off, and hard truths about the Saudis and their wahabbism can not even be admitted.

In answer to your question about who do I mean when I say “the Saudis” have unique power over the wahabbis, I mean the royal family; who can hire, fire, promote, enrich, arrest, impoverish, torture or execute them, and their loved ones.

As you separately point out, the Saudis (Royal family) are under a lot of pressure. Doesn’t that squeeze their balls? Military, economic and political pressures - are the Saudis magically exempt from those elements of American power in the alternate universe that you inhabit? Anyone can be pressured, if you have the balls to do it.

Therein could be the problem.

You say definitively: “The Saudis are not the driving force behind the rise in militant Islamic fundamentalism.”

Then what is?

You seem to counsel passivity - that it is unrealistic to do anything. But maybe somebody else will. Like maybe islam will sort itself out spontaneously. If not, oh well...weâ€™ll just lose.

Not true. The only way Islam is going to be reformed is by Muslims themselves. They have to stand up like General Sisi in Egypt and call for reform.

Do you really think the West would ever take such actions against Saudi Arabia? Our target should be Iran. Instead, the sanctions are being taken off, $150 billion of their frozen assets are being returned, and Western businesses are flocking there to get contracts and sell products. The Russians are signed up to construct three more nuclear reactors. The Chinese are buying oil. You are obsessed with the Saudis and wahabbism.

In answer to your question about who do I mean when I say â€œthe Saudisâ€ have unique power over the wahabbis, I mean the royal family; who can hire, fire, promote, enrich, arrest, impoverish, torture or execute them, and their loved ones.

And if they try to do that, they will be overthrown. The Saudi Royal Family is riding a tiger they can't get off. The official title of the King is "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques."

As you separately point out, the Saudis (Royal family) are under a lot of pressure. Doesnâ€™t that squeeze their balls? Military, economic and political pressures - are the Saudis magically exempt from those elements of American power in the alternate universe that you inhabit? Anyone can be pressured, if you have the balls to do it.

To what end? Drive them into the Russian camp? The Saudis sit atop the world's largest supply of exportable oil. They can pump up to 10 mill bbls a day. The global economy depends on oil, which is a fungible commodity. The US can become self sufficient, but there will still be markets for Saudi oil, which is among the best quality in the world. Why attack the Saudis, an ally, when we have the Iranians working on developing a nuclear weapon and sponsor terrorists around the world? We need regime change in Iran as a first priority. Instead, you want to go after our biggest trading partner in the ME. In 2010 we concluded the biggest military deal ever with the Saudis, $60 billion.

You say definitively: â€œThe Saudis are not the driving force behind the rise in militant Islamic fundamentalism.â€ Then what is?

IRAN.

Iran is a big problem, no doubt.

But they are on the Shi’ite side. Which does not explain al Queda, ISIS, and the whole majority of militant islamism.

What is the driving force behind the rise in militant SUNNI Islamic fundamentalism?

“Do you really think the West would ever take such actions against Saudi Arabia?”

It boils down to a question of intent, rather than capability. The capability exists. Intent can change overnight.

“And if they try to do that (force wahabbis to moderate), they will be overthrown.”

That sets the standard for the degree to which balls must be squeezed, to produce the desired effect - an equal or greater threat to their power, wealth and lives.

“To what end?”

To preserve our societies and way of life from deliberate subversion, so that liberty might not perish from this Earth. Let the royal family stay forever, if they cease to support and export wahabbism - an existential threat to our form of government, our security, and the Enlightenment values of freedom of conscience and expression.

What is the driving force behind the rise in militant SUNNI Islamic fundamentalism?

Go ahead, admit it to yourself.

Meh...some article.

Here’s the deal: everything Obama touches turns to crap, and every friend of Obama he betrays.

Obama’s “Arab Spring” has been a disaster that has enflamed an already volatile Middle-East. ISIS boasts its own government in Libya. Egypt had to have a counter-revolution to kick out Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood. Yemen’s pro-USA President was ousted due to Obama’s meddling there.

...and in Syria, a nation so war-ravaged that millions of refugees have fled to Europe et al, the Sauds bought into Obama’s plan for “bringing democracy” to yet another country.

Oh, but the plot thickens. You see, Iran’s Hezbollah is fighting against the Sauds...fighting against Obama’s “moderate rebels” in Syria...against Assad (who despite his many flaws was an actual moderate for the region, and somewhat stable prior to Obama’s meddling).

Now, the above might have been manageable on its own, but...

Obama betrayed the Sauds by cutting a nuclear deal with Iran.

So the Sauds, fresh off their own emir dying and an internal balance of power being already delicate, have to contend with Obama getting a pro-Saudi, pro-USA President kicked out of Yemen next door, as well as are also stuck in a losing war against Assad in neighboring Syria.

In this mix, Obama discounted Saudi help in Syria+Yemen by giving Iran a sanctioned nuclear program.

But wait, it gets worse for the Sauds!

Fellow oil-exporter Russia is allied with Assad *and* is pissed off at Obama...so Russia is exerting some of its power next door to Saudi Arabia.

Now the above is really bad for the Sauds, but that’s not necessarily the worst of it...as the Sauds started their own oil war by opening the taps to maximum oil exports.

The oil war against American frackers hasn’t gone as planned, either. Contrary to their professional estimates, the USA oil production has increased even though the as planned bankruptcies of many USA oil frackers did happen.

The fracked wells, it turns out, have kept producing oil for the new owners or for the old bankrupt owners.

In fact, it turns out that fracked wells can be re-fracked again and again to boost any sagging oil production.

The Sauds are now approaching 14 months of cash reserves remaining, barely longer than their supposed ally Obama will be in Office.

The Sauds can’t get the Russians to cooperate, as the Russians are deeply suspicious of them at the moment, and compete directly against them in oil exports.

The Chinese have their own economic problems (major stock market meltdowns), but do appreciate cheap oil. That’s hardly good news for the Sauds.

Thus, true to form, everyone who sides with Obama gets screwed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.