Can someone explain the American-Saudi relationship? It's unclear to me who is in a position of superiority over the other, or if they are both on somewhat equal grounds. Why does American support the Saudis? Just because of Oil?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Just because of Oil?
Saudis realized they could live like wealthy westerners instead of perpetually medieval dune coons if they played it cool in trade deals and didn't ape out like their neighbors over goatfricker religion.
Sodosemites love circassians, look at how he's looking at him, he's reminding him of all the Slav sex slave basha bazi boys they got from the North.
The Saudi royal family is a British installed monarchy, they installed a bunch of monarchies across the Middle East (like in Jordan too) when the Ottoman Empire broke up as a way to control them, not exactly divide and conquer but more like divide and keep the peace through friendly regimes. Because they owe British favouritism for their existence they've generally kept good relations with Britain and the west throughout the Cold War, because of course rich powerful royals were also opposed to Soviet encroachment in the Middle East. So long as they keep things relatively stable they're fulfilling American and western wishes for the Middle East. It's hard for America to have allies in the Middle East because of Israel so a bit powerful ally like Saudi Arabia is of course important to them.
To say the reason they're close is oil is a bit simplistic, it's not about the Saudi's oil specifically but keeping trade across the Middle East and therefore oil exports stable, so you don't have stuff like the Houthi rebels attacking and interrupting shipping.
The Saudis were there before the British, but they helped them establish modern Saudi Arabia against the Turks, but yeah, they kept good relations with them and were close during the Cold War. There was also the Arab Cold War too, in which nationalist Arab republics (Egypt, Syria) had Soviet backing and faced off against tradionalist monarchies (Saudi, Jordan, etc.), who usually had Western support.
Well yeah I wasn't implying the British just offloaded a few of their own to rule these countries, they cultivated links with certain dynasties in the Middle East and offered them conditions to support them. I think something similar happened with Iran until they were overthrown.
Western powers have always been happy to keep the ME divided because it has the potential to be perhaps the biggest counter to Western hegemony besides maybe China, right on its doorstep too, European powers were very keen on breaking up massive political entities after WWI and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in breaking up the Ottoman empire. Most of the Middle East's history has seen it strongly united as a political/ religious entity but it's easily divided with all these different political entities that are at odds with each other, the Saudi model is genius because you have a small elite who don't give a frick about anyone but themselves and the people are pretty happy and don't care either because they're oil-rich. Chucking in a israeli state with massive western military funding that constantly BTFOs any kind of united front against it and sows division across the region on how to address it has certainly helped divide the Middle East even further, you have zealots in Iran who try to liberate Palestine but often end up hurting their own cause because of their moronic fanaticism versus indifferent Saudis who just want more oil money and a stable international environment so they can import Ferraris more cheaply.
>Most of the Middle East's history has seen it strongly united as a political/ religious entity
PFFAHAAHAHAHAHA
Yeah fair I phrased that wrong, I meant more that stuff like the concept of a caliphate is ingrained in their religion and they do believe in a united whole, there have of course been periods of rapid conquest as a cohesive Muslim whole that is more recent than the Roman empire in Europe. If the Ottomans weren't uncaring elitist morons the Ottomans would have been a massively powerful entity
>Most of its history is of constant fighting between different tribes and empires, in fact some of the oldest recorded history we have is of violence in the region as empires strove against one another to control it.
The same can be said of Europe, the point is like Europe there's a sense of fraternity among them, even more so in some ways given how Islam is a very territory/ politically focused religion and there are stronger language ties across the region. Funnily enough Europe has perhaps encouraged more independence throughout history but somehow they managed collectively rule the world coming into the 18th/ 19th century, I think they were able to do what Muslims have failed at for centuries; respectfully disagreeing with each others differences, but there's no reason Muslims wouldn't have been able to do that.
They had potential to become a counter to Europe in that regard but the last hundred years have exacerbated previously existing divisions alongside new ones like Israel, western sponsored monarchies and Cold War proxy wars such that it will probably never be a cohesive entity in our lifetimes.
>I meant more that stuff like the concept of a caliphate is ingrained in their religion and they do believe in a united whole
True, but
>there have of course been periods of rapid conquest as a cohesive Muslim whole that is more recent than the Roman empire in Europe
Not since Muhammad's death can you claim the existence of a "cohesive Muslim whole", and even then there was a clear Mecca/Medina split
>If the Ottomans weren't uncaring elitist morons the Ottomans would have been a massively powerful entity
Wrong
You should really read some more before confidently making such claims.
Islam has, in general, never lent itself to ecumenism. A decade after Muhammad passed, Islam was already riven with strife, and by its third decade, the fission was permanent.
The first four caliphs were called the Rashidun -'the rightly-guided' (lmaoing @ Umar (probably), having killed the prophet's daughter, rightly guided); look up their regnal histories.
The last of these, Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law, was opposed by Mu'awiya, the governor of Syria - these two sides would (as a gross approximation) become today's Shia and Sunni. There was a third faction, the Kharijites, that arose from those dissatisfied with Ali choosing, uncharacteristically for a caliph, to opt for arbitration talks with Mu'awiya, instead of more bloodshed.
(1/2)
Again though you can make the same argument with regards to Europe and Christianity, it took a while for it to catch on in Northern Europe and then you had the east/ west split which is still unresolved, not to mention all the wars and division caused by Luther and the spread of Protestantism.
And yet they were able to rule the world. Why? Because of cultural ties and an acceptance to look past religious differences, most European imperialists and traders didn't give a frick about muh Ninety-five Theses and theological arguments by the 18th century, ironically even though there was a common fraternity through Christianity it was through discarding it that they were able to advance. Europeans didn't even allow moneylending for a huge part of their history because of Christianity and now European banks rule the world, and it's no surprise that Islam refusing to grow out of that has severely stunted them.
I don't like these kind of religious based arguments to explain why Arabs or why Europeans are they way they are, it doesn't account for the different manifestations of both Christianity and Islam throughout history and how much people were actually attached to it, you had early caliphates that had religious plurality within them and the Islamic Golden Age when they started looking at old Greek philosophy and took new, non-Quranic thinking on board. There's nothing inherently religious about the fact that Muslims haven't been able to form a more cohesive whole and there's no reason the Islamic world couldn't have cast off the trappings of certain kinds of Abrahamic-religion moronicness, and you can see signs such as the Islamic Golden Age where it was actually happening but unfortunately fell apart.
1/2
Also part of your argument seems to be "but the Muslim world has never been ENTIRELY unified after Muhammed" but they were still able to maintain massive, powerful empires, it's like arguing China is a failure today because Taiwan is outside their sphere.
Kind of agree with what you're saying about the Sunni/ Shia split, that's perhaps an irreproachable divide, but again it's like Western/ Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the West didn't need Russia to get to where it is today and the Sunni world is large enough on its own that it could've reached some status of authority.
(2/2)
After this conflitct, the separation was irreversible, though at some times it was more open, and at other times, subdued - and note that all of this happened *just* between Arabs - wait until the Abbasids and the Umayyads continue expanding outside of the peninsula and subjugate other peoples to see really catastrophic dissension: the Berber revolt in the 8th century, the Zanj rebellion in the 9th by black african slaves in Mesopotamia, and then the Turkic/Central Asian ascendancy beginning in the 1200s
After this, there was NEVER a unified islamic political entity, and there probably never will be, because at its core, Islam is just Arab exceptionalism with the superficial trappings of an Abrahamic faith.
>Most of the Middle East's history has seen it strongly united as a political/ religious entity
Please tell me you are joking. The Ottoman Empire was the single longest, most stable empire in the history of the region, but it is not even close to being "most of the Middle East's history". Most of its history is of constant fighting between different tribes and empires, in fact some of the oldest recorded history we have is of violence in the region as empires strove against one another to control it.
Back in 1910, the Middle East had a very small population compared to Europe. In 1920, Jordan had barely 200.000 people and Saudi had slightly over 2 million. It wasn't possible for a united Middle East to counter Western hegemony back then.
Europe would've been thinking more of population centres like Egypt and Iraq, admittedly small compared to Europe but you could say similar of Russia, the point is Europe feared these massive political entities in the east because of their potential. They would've broken up Russia too if they could, and it would've saved the world the pain of a half century of Soviet moronism.
The Saudi's are an American client kingdom, their country is full of American military, all their people drink coca cola and starbucks. But if the Americans every try and test their loyalty, they can cut the oil, send gas prices up, and essentially guarantee a change in US government.
Because it was the big bad Americans who forced Coke, jeans and overpriced coffees on them. Obviously, local Arabs could not choose to drink it on their own accord. Uncle Sam himself personally went there and force-fed them. After all, they are brown imbeciles with no agency to choose things out of their own volition.
You need me to explain this to you? It's something that happens all over the world. Coca Cola is a useless product, its a novelty drink. The only reason people buy it is advertising, and the only reason they keep drinking it is its addictive. Anyone who competes with coke is either bought out or destroyed.
There is no free choice in the matter, you buy american, and only american or there are consequences. Exactly the same thing happened in Europe after WW2.
There is no free choice to not drink coke? Man, I can choose to drink water just fine and the CIA isn't sending goon squads. And you can still find local soft drinks across the world anyways. But yeah, it is useless indeed.
Yeah obviously individuals can do what they want, but this isn't the point, the point is why there is coke in Saudi Arabia at all and not some Russian soda or local soda or whatever. Its a big obvious red bottle of an example of where influence in the country is coming from.
I would say if you tried to stop importing coke to saudi arabia you would definitely get the goon squad treatment.
Because a few decades ago, Soviet consumer goods were absolute shit and few around the world wanted to buy them, while US (or Western in general) goods were considered quality and status symbols, because it meant you could afford to import from the cool places. Would you prefer a Mustang or Mercedes vs a Lada or Trabant?
Yeah except you dont have a choice if you are on the wrong side of the iron curtain. Are you like simple or something? Why don't you understand this?
Because the US consumer goods industry kept on being strong and dominant after 1991 and still applies vs China. It is hard trying to fight against established giants.
>how dare you sell something people want?
>how dare people buy what you sell?
>how dare people choose not to exercise?
>how dare your product be better than ours?
>how dare your advertising be better?
>But if the Americans every try and test their loyalty, they can cut the oil,
And destroy their own economy in the process. Saudi Arabia's economy is basically held up by tourism (since they control Mecca) and oil. Their number 1 customer for oil is the Americans, so cutting off America from oil is essentially cutting off their own hand. It's putting a gigantic multi billion dollar hole in their national budget.
>And destroy their own economy in the process.
Well yeah sure, but the royalty that run the country my or may not care that much about it. They aren't going to lose their palaces if the economy crashes.
They will definitely feel it when their standard of living starts to go down from the American retaliation (cutting off various trade goods). I have no idea why you think the royal family will be magically untouched when the wealth they have monopolized for generations suddenly starts to vanish.
Oh simple, they will joust go live in their properties elsewhere. Go hang out in their Paris apartments like the Shah did. Like you said they have monopolized this wealth for generations, you think they might have some savings? This is what all the outsted monarchs of the 20th century did.
And where are those monarchs now? Their dynasties are dead. I guess you agree with my point, then, that it would destroy the House of Saud.
Lol, aren't there still like hapsburgs in european governments today? And we didn't disagree about that, my point was they might not care. Royal families had never had a problem with taking everything that isnt nailed down and bailing.
Yeah monarchs that bailed are probably better off than surviving monarchies like the British and Danish, given they're forced to operate a public pantomime for relevance and aren't allowed to engage in external business ventures.
Once you look past King Charles and perhaps William the British monarchy isn't actually that rich, I remember reading how Andrew had to sell one of his few properties to pay for the Virginia Giuffre settlement and now has no money, and even the current British PM is richer than Charles.
Saudi diversified to China nowadays.
China has less than 20% the oil capacity of the United States, and most of the oil they use, they produce domestically. They have in fact grown their petroleum industry so much over the last few decades that they are now the number 7 oil producer in the world (Saudi Arabia is number 3). China cannot replace the American market for oil, even if they halted all domestic oil production and only used Saudi oil, they'd be buying a fraction of what the Americans did.
Depends how you view it I guess. They're in a better position than most vassals but they're also forced to keep a low profile towards Israel.
Muslim countries would immediately turn into Somalia if it weren't for Western trade and support.
If the Saudi monarchy was removed and replaced by a republic, most locals would vote for a party akin to ISIS, because they are much more conservative than the monarchs.
American thirst for oil is very great and not something they could easily replace. America consumes more oil than any other nation, while also being the world's largest economy, with more buying power for commodities and resources than anyone else. It might seem counter-intuitive, but in reality it is not Americans who are dependent on their oil imports, it's the oil exporters who are dependent on America, for their money. If America were to stop buying their oil, who would they sell it to? Who could possibly buy as much oil, at the same price, as Americans? Nobody else has that much capacity for it or that much money to spare.
watch Bitter Lake by Curtis [its free on YT] and read Thicker than Oil by Bronson
Bonus: Bin Ladens by Steve Coll
Like Israel they've got deep political ties to the US, especially to the Republican party. As long as they keep buying american weapons and don't frick with the oil market they'll be close allies with the us