SomaliNet Forums

The death of King Fahd won't change much in Saudi Arabia --and that's just how the Bush administation wants it

By Eric Margolis

NEW YORK --Saudi Arabia has never been one of my favourite places to visit. In the 1970s, I was arrested by the Jeddah religious police, threatened with prison, became deathly ill, and was whipped by Riyadh airport police during a riot.

Saudi Arabia has changed a lot since then but still remains a feudal monarchy run by 7,000 princes protected by the United States.

The death of King Fahd, and the accession to the throne of his 81-year-old half-brother Abdullah, has provoked a lot of nonsense in the Western media about the possibility of democratic change and women's rights in Saudi. In fact, Abdullah has run the kingdom for the past decade as de facto monarch since Fahd was sidelined by a serious stroke.

Though an absolute monarchy, decisions in Saudi are made by consensus. Simmering rivalries between various senior princes have now broken into the open.

The powerful defence minister, Prince Sultan, became Crown Prince, but he's also 81. Princes Nayef (interior minister) and Salman (governor of Riyadh) are vying for the line of succession.

Younger princes are jostling for second-tier power slots, notably Turki, the wily former head of Saudi intelligence, and Bandar, who just resigned as longtime ambassador to Washington.

While personal, family and clan rivalries will roil Saudi Arabia over the coming months, major changes in political or oil policy seem unlikely. That is, unless the uprising against the royal family that has simmered for the past decade flares up.

Composed of al-Qaida, other Islamist jihadis, democratic reformers, and anti-American nationalists, the Saudi underground resistance is fragmented and not very effective, but it has terrified the ruling family and its American patrons.

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, declared war on the royal family, accusing it of deep corruption, grotesque prodigality, and being traitorous stooges of the U.S.

The Bush administration has concluded the Saudi royal family may not be able to suppress the Islamist rebellion much longer.

Some neoconservatives are urging the U.S. to establish direct rule over Saudi. Washington is also discreetly trying to cultivate non-Islamic opposition groups. A military coup appears difficult, since the army is denied ammunition and watched by a Bedouin tribal militia known as the White Army. U.S. armed forces are ready to protect the royal family.

George W. Bush's efforts to "promote democracy" in Saudi are a charade. The royal family relies for legitimacy on the ultra-conservative Wahhabi faith, a narrow-minded, rustic Islamic cult that views most other Muslims as infidels. A prime tenet of Wahhabism --much like medieval Catholicism or communism --is total loyalty to one's rulers.

The Saudi royal family and many U.S. Republican Party grandees are joined at the hip.

A dense network of business partnerships ties the Bush family, Washington's powerful Carlyle Group, and the military-industrial complex to the Saudi royals.

Princes Turki and Bandar are said to have worked hand-in-glove with the CIA for decades. Turki was the liason between the Saudis and Osama bin Laden during the 1980s war in Afghanistan. The Saudis, at Washington's behest, fuelled Iraq's aggression against Iran during the same period, to the tune of $27.5 billion US, as well as Saddam Hussein's abortive nuclear program.

Saudi's military buys advanced arms it can't use, but which keep arms plants humming in politically important American states. Saudi bases quietly serve the Pentagon's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And there have been instances of Saudi money being funnelled into Republican campaign coffers.

So don't expect Washington to risk real change in Saudi. We'll see only window dressing, like empty elections and gushy U.S. prime-time TV about Saudi women finally learning to drive.

The old deal will continue: The royals sell oil cheap in exchange for U.S. protection.

But a note of caution. The last really respected Saudi ruler, wise King Faisal, who was assassinated in 1975, warned that the way the royals were squandering the nation's oil wealth, the next Saudi generation might be back riding camels.

The ruling saudi family is one big natural disaster. I dont see why they spend billions on american weaponary each year, the most leathal opposition is within their family. This would make a good reality soap, I think I'll just sit back and wacth everything go to hell during the decades to come.

"But a note of caution. The last really respected Saudi ruler, wise King Faisal, who was assassinated in 1975, warned that the way the royals were squandering the nation's oil wealth, the next Saudi generation might be back riding camels."

Or like my granny sez, keep Somalia free of grasshopper (which used to be a delicacy before they got $$).

"The royal family relies for legitimacy on the ultra-conservative Wahhabi faith, a narrow-minded, rustic Islamic cult that views most other Muslims as infidels."

I can't wait when they are leashed like dogs on other Muslims. By then, I hope the west lets Iran get Nuclear weapons and unleash it on the wahabi palaces in Riyadh.

So u'd rather see Muslims with nuclear power destroy other muslims?

LH
Tell me about it!
Some fuuckers reason this way.

He probably thinks the authorities are watching. He is sooooo scared of being deported that he is willing to diss his own people and appear as "moderate" to the kufaars.

Lion

No, but what is their agenda and who do you think Iran is arming against with Nuclear weapons? If they hate and despise other Muslims, why suck up to them? The Al-Saud family is closely linked with the American Republican party, and if you consider them Muslims, then the Bush family must be some sort of an Islamic sect.

Zulu boy aka B-Max

Get off the arak zulu boy, and use your remaining brain cells to see the bigger picture. What have the Al Saud family done for Islam? They turned the prophet's pbuh land Arabia into a "Saud" fiefdom and are run from Televiv via Washington. May Allah SWT curse them and the idiots like you who support them.

Thelaw26---Of course i don't consider the Saud family (at least the ruling ones) muslims but what good is gonna come out of Iran (a muslim) nation bombing saudi arabia (another muslim nation) where millions of muslim lives will be lost??? No doubt the saudis are tied to the bush family. They don't even hide that. But u really do need to differentiate the people and their governments. All the muslim leaders need to be killed.

Lion

If they consider non-wahabi Muslims as infidels, what sort of Muslims are they? I said it before, and I will say again, they are the dajaal in Islamic clothing.

I doubt that they consider all non-wahabis kaafirs. Maybe the shias. And again, the whole saudi population doesn't subscribe to this sect.

That is not true Lion, except the minority Shia Saudis who have been mistreated badly and in some cases, a whole of shia Saudi town in the Eastern province were razed to the ground, and its residents buried alive. 99% of Saudis subscribe to this sect. It is embeded with Abdiwahab's teachings that sect Saudi members have no right to challenge the authority of the Al-Saud's. They are dameer iyo labadiisa dhegood.

I don't think so walaal. Just like all muslims/people living under tyrants are scared to say or criticize their leaders, the saudis wil lbe punished severly for speaking against the saud house.

But the argument out forth by Margollis here is fallacious. The House of Saud doesn't control Saudi Arabia because of the US. Long before the US was a factor on the Arabian Peninsula the House of Saud was calling the shots. There is a false notion that poor, corrupt government exists in the Islamic world because of the United States. This ignores the fact that Islamic government has been corrupt for well over 500 years. What caused European encroachment was Europe coming out of the dark ages and getting its act together. Whenever seriously challenged (by the Mongols, then the Europeans) the Islamic world was in real trouble. They haven't had decent leadership since the 14th century.

Asad doesn't run Syria because of the US. The corrupt Iranian Mullahs aren't propped up by Washington. Ghadafy does not owe his position to the US. etc. etc. etc.

Muslims look for excuses, use the CIA boogeyman, stretch every claim in the book, to blame the US for their troubles. The truth is, Islam goesn't explain how to govern and there is no history of represntative government in the Middle East for Arabs and other Muslims to draw from. They reach to the past, which was far less complicated than the modern world, for solutions that will not work. Then, when frustrated with a lack of results, look for scapegaots.

Moving to the top