Saudi Hegemony vs. the Arab Spring

Thanks for your comment. There is an abundance of literature and analysis on this subject. As an introduction I offer some information from the Guardian readings of the Wikileaks cables, from which you can have a look at the actual cables;

Lebanon: "Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks. The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world."

Afghanistan & Pakistan: "... Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said."

Iraq: "Hill and his Iraqi interlocutors are not alone in their suspicions of Saudi policy. At a meeting in Ankara in February this year a senior Turkish foreign ministry official, Feridun Sinirlioglu, told an American envoy that "Saudi Arabia is 'throwing around money' among the political parties in Iraq because it is unwilling to accept the inevitability of Shia dominance there"."

* I don't know enough about Libya or Yemen to comment, take your point about the drama - but the greasy palms is the only comment thrown in for good measure.

Dear Khalid,

I wouldn't simplify my argument about Saudi Arabia as a case of 'finding fault wherever you look'. I can agree with you that the Iranian-Saudi contest for domination of the region is constantly in effect through proxy struggles. I used the word hegemony in reference to the Saudi position vis-à-vis Bahrain. In fact in 2005, the Bahraini Crown Prince recognized this Saudi dominance, saying to the American ambassador that; "Bahrain has worked hard not to become a vassal of Saudi Arabia, and we're certainly not going to let ourselves become a vassal of Iran."

I don't get into the business of comparative evils; 'poisonous pills' vs. 'hard pill to swallow', when you get into an argument like this you are really just talking about which suits your own interests or mindview better. And frankly neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia suit my own and I daresay my country's interests. Again when you talk about the Iranian pill to swallow, let me tell you that Iran had no hand in the uprising here - the only pill being shoved down our throats is the Saudi one, as it pursues its own interests.

As for Hizbullah; as the commentators here allude to, its degradation would certainly be a great victory for Israel, which again the leaders of the Gulf are edging closer and closer to. Just see this for an example:

"4. (C) The King spoke at some length on Israeli-Palestinian developments, expressing satisfaction at the positive turn of events. This is a good moment, he said, that can be important for stability in the region. He said that he had instructed newly appointed Minister of Information Dr. Mohammed Abdul-Ghaffar to make sure that official announcements or statements coming out of the Ministry of Information do not refer to Israel as the “enemy” or “Zionist entity.” He revealed that Bahrain already has contacts with Israel at the intelligence/security level (i.e., with Mossad), and indicated that Bahrain will be willing to move forward in other areas, although it will be difficult for Bahrain to be the first. When asked if Bahrain might look into developing trade contacts at some point, he said that this would have to await the establishment of “side-by-side” states. He added that he planned to travel to Jordan on February 19 to meet with King Abdullah and show his support for moving forward.

5. (C) The King stated that Israeli-Palestinian peace, by helping stabilize the Middle East, will facilitate economic growth throughout the region. But he also suggested that, when the Palestinian question is removed from the equation and the Arab-Israeli dispute is settled, Iran’s ability to cause mischief will be lessened. The Iranians will no longer be able to exploit the Palestinian issue for their own objectives." If you are sincerely interested in reading about the Saudi government's influence in Afghanistan Pakistan and Iraq I recommend Ahmed Rashid, As'ad Abukhalil or Nir Rosen (who actually has a very interesting and detailed reading titled, 'Prospects for the Sectarian Terrain' on this website).

This below, an introduction to the issue taken from the Council on Foreign Relations website:

Saudi Arabia's ties to Afghanistan exploded into view on September 11, 2001. Saudi national Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 mastermind and al-Qaeda chieftain, was given refuge by the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the kingdom's connections to Afghanistan predate the U.S. terror attacks. Beginning in the late 1980s, Saudi Arabia--along with the United States, Pakistan, and others--began supporting the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet occupation. Saudi Arabia funneled money and fuel directly to Afghans, as well as through Pakistan's covert intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes in his 2000 book, Taliban, that the Saudis gave nearly "$4 billion in official aid to the [mujahadeen] between 1980 and 1990, which did not include unofficial aid from Islamic charities, foundations, the private funds of Princes and mosque collections."

There is a lot more to discuss on this issue and I can only touch on major themes in this response; but hope it is of some use.