Last month, we wrote a blog, Last Tango in Riyadh, so why a follow up six weeks later with a title that sounds the same? Well, the New York Times has just published an article that captured some of what we posted, but the New York Times, foreign policy experts, politicians, and yes, presidential candidates simply will not connect the dots to the disasters that loom in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf.
A Middle Eastern reader of the blog best summed up our reasoning as "intuitive." In our earlier piece, we talked of King Salman turning the Saudi succession hierarchy on its head with ominous implications; of the young Saudi deputy crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, embracing a program of reforms that had been denied by his family for over 50 years with little recognition of the land mines that lay ahead when it came to its implementation; and of American backing for the Al-Sauds, hailed by many as realpolitik, which in our view may be seen as the greatest American foreign policy blunder of our time.
We must begin by repudiating the view, popularly held in many quarters, that Islam is the reason for oppressive rule, dictatorships, injustice, enormous income and wealth inequalities, economic failure and backwardness in Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia. This is not the Islam that we know. The Qur'an preaches the opposite--the Unity of God's creation, social and economic justice, rulers (governments) that earn legitimacy by following rules and serving with the consent of their communities, the absence of opulence and poverty, absolute prohibition of corruption, and effective institutions (that include the rule of law with everyone equally subject to the law) as the foundation of a thriving and just community. Having said this, it is clear that fewer than a handful of Muslim countries (out of 56) could even approach such a description. Muslim countries have generally failed and Muslims have not held their rulers accountable.
In Saudi Arabia the Al-Sauds have set aside everything that we have described as the religion of the Qur'an. They took over the land with knives and swords and now they see it as theirs. With this mindset, they see no need for getting any approval from the citizenry. They are above the law. There is no need for effective institutions, as these would only undermine their absolute (and un-Islamic) rule. There is no need for income and wealth equality as the land is theirs; so they take whatever they want (not need) from the treasury--a treasury that has only depleting oil reserves as its source of income--with ominous implications for all future generations of Saudis.
King Salman showed his opulent and un-Islamic lifestyle during his brief visit to Washington after ascending to the throne. We had naively felt that the young Deputy Crown Prince was more of an idealist, with reform as his goal, but that he failed to show an appreciation of the implementation difficulties that lay ahead. Wait....What? How naïve we were! The king's young son is following in his father's footsteps. Earlier this year when he saw a yacht (439 feet compared to his yacht of only 258 feet) that he had to have in the South of France, he reportedly dispatched one of his attendants to buy the yacht, which he bought that same day from its Russian owner for about $550 million! It seems that we were absolutely wrong. He follows in his father's footsteps. We could possibly accept this IF the source of his wealth was his hard work and IF he were not asking ordinary Saudis to accept big cutbacks to their benefits in the face of low oil prices and dwindling government oil revenues. The landscape that we see in Saudi Arabia is not from Islam but one that has been created by and for the Al-Sauds. It is not a regime that can last long in its present form.
The point of all of this is to ask three questions and to answer them. What does Al-Saud rule portend for the future and the stability of Saudi Arabia? What has our support for the Al-Sauds gotten us? What does this discussion and the state of affairs in the Muslim World show as the best course of our Middle Eastern policy?
The answer to the first question is straightforward. The Al-Sauds have wasted 50 years of oil revenues on unwarranted military expenditures, unproductive subsidies (that cannot be easily ended without ominous political and social upheavals), corruption and unimaginable opulence, ineffective political, social and economic institutions, and a very uncertain economic future for the general citizenry. Moreover, their regional aggression in Yemen with indiscriminate bombing of civilians, which might constitute war crimes, will further undermine their legitimacy in the Muslim world. Simply said, it would take a miracle to save them for more than 10 to 15 years if they continue on their current trajectory.
US support for the Al-Sauds has been historically defended on the basis of access to oil, stability and to contain Iran and Iraq. Access to oil has always been an empty argument. Oil producers must sell their oil for revenues. This they will do with or without our political and military support. American support for dictators with guns, prisons, torture chambers and indiscriminate bombing (with US refueling support and weapons) presents a threat to all peaceful opposition but does provide for short run quashing of dissent, but at what cost? Can this continue forever or is it the proverbial finger in the dam? As important, does our support of such oppressive rulers buy us the love of Saudis and of the Muslim world?
For further confirmation of what our support has gotten us, just look at the results of our popularity in the latest Pew Polls for the Middle East and North Africa. Today the US is being adversely implicated in Prince Mohammad's adventure in Yemen. The upheavals that are sure to come in Saudi Arabia and in the region will further damage US interests around the world. These upheavals will be much more deadly than if the underlying causes of dissension had been addressed with some instability along the way. We must accept some instability for meaningful reforms because we cannot expect decades of harsh rule that has suppressed all opposition to be replaced immediately and peacefully by enlightened rulers and governance.
Furthermore, an important issue in today's world is to what extent does our support for oppressive Muslim rulers fuel Muslim terrorism? It provides terrorists with recruits because terrorists emphasize America's support of unjust dictators and make false promises of how they would change this when they take over. As for Saudi Arabia being a pillar against Iran and Iraq, we hardly think that this would be the case if and when these two countries get their own houses in order. We must also add that American support for the Al-Sauds is facilitated by large consulting contracts to former very senior US officials, gifts to foundations and universities and heavy lobbying by corporations and others who support the Al-Sauds.
So what should the US do?
The US should stop playing the music for the Al-Sauds. Instead, the US should make its support conditional on reforms before it is too late. If not, oppressive and corrupt rule and economic and social failure in Saudi Arabia and in the wider region will be increasingly associated with US support. This will only provide fuel to those who paint America's Middle East policies as a war against Islam and give increasing support for the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. If we continue on this path, we may even have to turn to Iran to salvage a modicum of support among Muslims of the region!
We understand that foreign policy experts who preach realpolitik characterize our recommendations as naïve. We, on the other hand, would characterize current US policy as immoral and shortsighted; we preach human rights and representative governance while supporting dictators who stand against everything we espouse and enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of millions of Muslims in their countries and in the region. Do policymakers think that our support of Saudi Arabia is winning us support among the hundreds who have been killed in Yemen and their extended families who run into the thousands? Will Saudis love us as we support the Al-Sauds when peaceful citizens are locked up because they have demanded much needed change? Is it not better to endure some short-run instability that could prevent catastrophic upheavals later?
We believe that all this is quite intuitive and can only hope that the two presidential candidates agree and focus on what could be on their plate in the coming years, if not months, namely, turmoil in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf. But we are not optimistic. Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State referred to Bashar Al-Asad as a "reformist," while Mr. Trump is focused on how Arabs are his friends and good business partners.