The monarchy's influence has waned with
plummeting oil prices. What that means for the future of the Middle East ?
Five years ago, when the Arab Spring seemed at its most hopeful
point, a Saudi diplomat told me, scornfully, that it would come to nothing. I
had met him in the halls of the United Nations, where I had been asking
diplomats about their views on Libya . The Saudis were eager to have
the UN validate armed action to remove Muammar Qaddafi. A Saudi news outlet,
al-Arabiya, had suggested that the Libyan military was killing its citizens
with abandon. Fog surrounded Libya . The U.S. State Department
seemed clueless. It did not have any reliable intelligence. Hillary Clinton,
who pushed for war, relied upon the French and the Saudis for their assessment
of Libya . These were unreliable
narrators. Saudi Arabia , at least, wanted the Arab
Spring shut down. It threatened its own undemocratic regime. The diplomat’s
scorn grew out of this anxiety.
Like an angry dragon, Saudi Arabia lashed around the region,
throwing money and arms, encouraging chaos in this and that country. One
underestimates the biliousness of monarchs: at a 2009 Arab League meeting,
Qaddafi had cavalierly dismissed the King of Saudi Arabia as a creation of the
British and a protectorate of the Americans. It was evident that the monarchs
would not tolerate his existence for much longer. Two years later, they—with
Western help—dismissed him.
Qaddafi was a personal affront to the Saudi King. More serious
was the imagined threat America ’s Kingdom perceived in Iran . When the Shah of Iran ruled
there, the Kings of Arabia smiled. It was Islamic republicanism they hated, for
it directly threatened them. Saudi Arabia ’s fear of Islamic
republicanism is what drives its policy. Saudi Arabia , Israel and the West pushed back
against Iranian influence through the U.S. ’ Syria Accountability Act
(2003), the Israeli war on Lebanon (2006) and the nuclear
sanctions regime of 2006. None of these worked.
Just as the Arab Spring provided the opportunity for the Saudis
to intervene in Libya , so too did it provide the
Saudis with the pretext for regime change in Syria and in other theaters where it
fantasized about Iranian influence (Bahrain , Yemen and Lebanon ). The Saudi ambition was to
erase Iran ’s presence. Five years later,
the detritus of that policy is clear: Libya , Syria and Yemen are destroyed, whereas Bahrain has been reduced to a prison
of dreams. The Saudi diplomat’s scorn was prophetic.
But much of the Saudi dream, given encouragement by the United States , has now turned. Syria and Yemen have been destroyed, but they
remain standing. Iran has been welcomed into the
fraternity of nations, whether with the slow erasure of the nuclear sanctions
regime or integration into the Chinese and Russian networks. Saudi Arabia ’s oil civil war has served to
bankrupt Saudi Arabia as much as its adversaries. No
flag of truce has gone up yet on the palaces of Riyadh . Nonetheless, there are
inklings that King Salman’s circle is aware of their grave miscalculation.
Absent massive Western bombardment, the government of Bashar
al-Assad is not going to fall. Saudi Arabia ’s main proxy force—Jaish
al-Islam—lost its leader, Zahran Alloush, in a bombing run last December. It
has not recovered. Saudi Arabia called in the opposition to Riyadh hastily, stuffed them into the
High Negotiating Committee and warned them that any Geneva meeting would demand their
surrender. The Committee dithered about the peace talks, and then watched as
the Russians and the United States agreed to a “cessation of
hostilities.” It would have been callous of them not to go along with anything
that resembled a humanitarian pause.
@ Salon