Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
You forgot to mention Israel as a stable country, but your point is taken.

True that - but Israel would probably prefer to have the Saudis in power, keeping Iran and others in line. The Saudis do it anyway so it's much safer and cheaper for Israel to just let them truck on (maybe sabotage some secret deals now and them) than having to get their own hands dirty in the bubbling sectarian violence. Israel would have much less to gain from the fall of the Saudis than Iran.

One could surely argue that Saudi Arabia's exporting of extremist Wahhabi Islam across the globe has been more destabilising than stabilising.

Iran might not be pleasant (their execution tally is the highest of all, if somewhat less barbaric per execution), but their brand of Shia Islam is less toxic and fundamentalist than what is preached by the Saudis.

Perhaps Realpolitik does demand this and I am simply unrealistic, but I would hope for a world where we could just leave the various horrible bastards to get on with it without profiting from arming them and generally looking after them by getting them appointed to human rights committees and the like.

But that's not the world we live in, so I just hope for the day when we move away from oil and the bottom falls out of the region.

 Da Boss wrote:
One could surely argue that Saudi Arabia's exporting of extremist Wahhabi Islam across the globe has been more destabilising than stabilising.

Iran might not be pleasant (their execution tally is the highest of all, if somewhat less barbaric per execution), but their brand of Shia Islam is less toxic and fundamentalist than what is preached by the Saudis.

Functionally both states are propagators of terrorism. You'd be hard pressed to find a country in the ME that isn't (and yes that does include Israel, Turkey, and even Armenia). That's just part of the geopolitics there. You find some group of guys willing to blow stuff up, give them some money and some explosives and point them in the direction of someone you'd like to see go boom. It's especially become part of how these countries interact with Western states, as by ensuring the continued existence of terrorism, especially terrorism that can potentially destabilize the region or spill over into Africa, Europe, and Asia, they can lobby for financially and military support which in turn ensures the continued existence of their state and the power of the social elites within.*

It is distasteful, but with ISIS, we've seen how much very very worse it gets when such countries aren't around or become so weakened they can't even guard themselves from the terrorist groups they themselves and other states in the region help create, so we really have no choice but to suck it up while working on the larger underlying issues. I think it's one of those things that gets worse before it gets better.

*This doesn't mean the President of Iran sits down every day and decides what terrorist group he wants to start. It's not even remotely the product of the decisions of any particular person or group. That would be too simple and if it were so simple we'd have solved the problem ages ago. This is a very indirect means of power brokering in the ME resulting from back channel agreements, foreign policy, nepotism, and a certain degree of willful ignorance.

Relapse wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
We ally with Saudi Arabia because they are rich, powerful hypocrites and so are we.

The abuses of the Saudi government are widely known. They publicly behead people in a square with specially designed drains for the blood for medieval "offenses".

They are bombing the crap out of Yemen with arms sold to them by Germany, France and the UK.

There's no defense of our alliance with the Saudis past "They have a lot of oil and they are very rich."

I cannot wait til we've abandoned oil as our main energy source and can consign this brutal, evil monarchy to the dustbin of history.

The Saudis are in a panic on the oil front ever since fracking was introduced as a way to pull oil out of the ground. The amount of oil made available from this method has caused them to try to flood their competitors out with cheap oil, knocking the price down to a current average of 30-33 dollars a barrel. The oil angle is going to play less of a part as time goes on, I think. With that goes their wealth, unless there comes a day where there's a run on sand.

And now that their strategy to put competitors out of business didn't work, they are in even more trouble because the resulting low oil prices are devastating their income. Even worse for them, because the sanctions on Iran were just lifted, they can't reduce the oil production again to make prices rise, because that gap would be filled by Iran and they'd lose market share. The Saudis really worked themselves into trouble on this.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
One could surely argue that Saudi Arabia's exporting of extremist Wahhabi Islam across the globe has been more destabilising than stabilising.

Iran might not be pleasant (their execution tally is the highest of all, if somewhat less barbaric per execution), but their brand of Shia Islam is less toxic and fundamentalist than what is preached by the Saudis.

Functionally both states are propagators of terrorism. You'd be hard pressed to find a country in the ME that isn't (and yes that does include Israel, Turkey, and even Armenia). That's just part of the geopolitics there. You find some group of guys willing to blow stuff up, give them some money and some explosives and point them in the direction of someone you'd like to see go boom. It's especially become part of how these countries interact with Western states, as by ensuring the continued existence of terrorism, especially terrorism that can potentially destabilize the region or spill over into Africa, Europe, and Asia, they can lobby for financially and military support which in turn ensures the continued existence of their state and the power of the social elites within.*

It is distasteful, but with ISIS, we've seen how much very very worse it gets when such countries aren't around or become so weakened they can't even guard themselves from the terrorist groups they themselves and other states in the region help create, so we really have no choice but to suck it up while working on the larger underlying issues. I think it's one of those things that gets worse before it gets better.

*This doesn't mean the President of Iran sits down every day and decides what terrorist group he wants to start. It's not even remotely the product of the decisions of any particular person or group. That would be too simple and if it were so simple we'd have solved the problem ages ago. This is a very indirect means of power brokering in the ME resulting from back channel agreements, foreign policy, nepotism, and a certain degree of willful ignorance.

Hmmmm. I've an argument against this, but I'm probably a bit too tired and drunk to make it properly.

What I want to say is that in many ways, terrorism is simply a rational response to the massively unipolar world we find ourselves in due to the military might of the US. This is not to blame the US per se, but merely to acknowledge that for smaller states to find another way that is not kowtowing to America or it's allies will inevitably involve terrorism.

Since factions in Saudi do not like the US and Iran as a whole does not, both export terrorism, yes.

But I'm not talking about us actively seeking the collapse of Saudi Arabia so much as not sucking up to them and protecting them and so on in a disgusting display of hypocrisy. They are not so far removed from ISIS in how their state is governed, merely less violent and unstable. Condemning one while supporting the other is very damaging in terms of credibility.

I should also note that I am arguing from a fairly ideological standpoint - I believe that the only way that American power will be accepted by the world is if it is seen to be good and even handed. Anything else spurs paranoia from other states and creates instability. Again though, I do not wish to directly blame America for this. It is merely a consequence, not intentional.

I think the US should take a hands off, favour no-one approach to the region. Though any change in policy will result in instability, I don't consider the current situation particularly desirable.

 Da Boss wrote:
What I want to say is that in many ways, terrorism is simply a rational response to the massively unipolar world we find ourselves in due to the military might of the US. This is not to blame the US per se, but merely to acknowledge that for smaller states to find another way that is not kowtowing to America or it's allies will inevitably involve terrorism.

I'd actually take that a bit further; When face with the military might of a state like America, other states have no choice but to use indirect means of 'war' in executing their political goals. I think I saw someone on this board once argue that it's really easy for the US and other Western countries to be aghast at the sight of terrorism, but that for other countries their means of executing their political will are very limited. Just as much as the US leverages its military power as part of its foreign policy, so to do other countries leverage sectarian violence and terrorism because they can't compete with the US in conventional military terms. To do so would be suicidal.

Again though, I do not wish to directly blame America for this. It is merely a consequence, not intentional.

No I totally get what you're saying. Especially in a post-Colonial/Imperial world, it's very rational for other states to look on American power with great distrust especially since we have undoubtedly used that power in less than respectable ways for less than respectable ends. Its's not like it's just America. Russia is in a similar state, both with regards to how western and eastern Europeans view Russia, and how Russia is viewed in some parts of the Middle East. China as well in South East and Central Asia, and Europeans in Africa.

The current state of affairs is the fall out of the Colonial and Imperial ages, and to some degree everyone who held great power has become subject to a degree of this. America as the super power that survived the Cold War just stands out far more than the others, and its exercise of power has contributed greatly to the continuation of this state of affairs.

I don't think we even disagree as I find nothing disagreeable with your posts XD I think our thoughts are complementary on this subject.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
We ally with Saudi Arabia because they are rich, powerful hypocrites and so are we.

The abuses of the Saudi government are widely known. They publicly behead people in a square with specially designed drains for the blood for medieval "offenses".

They are bombing the crap out of Yemen with arms sold to them by Germany, France and the UK.

There's no defense of our alliance with the Saudis past "They have a lot of oil and they are very rich."

I cannot wait til we've abandoned oil as our main energy source and can consign this brutal, evil monarchy to the dustbin of history.

The Saudis are in a panic on the oil front ever since fracking was introduced as a way to pull oil out of the ground. The amount of oil made available from this method has caused them to try to flood their competitors out with cheap oil, knocking the price down to a current average of 30-33 dollars a barrel. The oil angle is going to play less of a part as time goes on, I think. With that goes their wealth, unless there comes a day where there's a run on sand.

And now that their strategy to put competitors out of business didn't work, they are in even more trouble because the resulting low oil prices are devastating their income. Even worse for them, because the sanctions on Iran were just lifted, they can't reduce the oil production again to make prices rise, because that gap would be filled by Iran and they'd lose market share. The Saudis really worked themselves into trouble on this.

They did indeed seem to have screwed themselves, although several companies have their backs to the wall or ready to go under. My company has a competitor, for instance, that is now all but gone with just about it's entire work force laid off.
. Several OPEC countries begged the Saudis to cut production, but were ignored. The current low oil prices are going to lead to a lot of financial and political chaos. If oil was in the 60 to 80 dollar a barrel range, that would pretty much stabilize things.