Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[Dayuhan]

The KSA could go a long way to solving some of their own internal revenue shortfall problems by rolling up a rich little neighbor or two

The Saudis don't have internal revenue shortfall problems. They had a budget surplus well up in the billions in 2010, and that's after cranking public spending up so high they had a hard time finding more things to spend money on.

Too often we base assessments of Saudi conditions on data and observations that reach back to the oil glut. Big mistake: times have changed. There's also a huge difference between the way this oil surge is being handled and the way the last one was handled: partly because they see the logic in it and partly because they're worried about expropriation of assets in the event of another major terror attack, most of the money is being invested within the country. Salaries in the civil service (the largest employer by far of Saudi citizens) have seen huge increases, and there's been huge spending on job-creating industries, schools, medical facilities, infrastructure, etc. That may be a blatant payoff, but it is working: there's a lot less anti-government sentiment than there once was. As with China, I really don't see major civil disorder happening in the KSA or the Gulf states unless there's a major economic shock. The tension of the mid/late 90s is largely gone.

We need to get it through our heads that we are not "providing" arms to the Saudis to advance our purposes. They are buying them, for their own purposes. Maybe silly purposes, and they may or not be achieving those purposes, but that's their choice. It's not about something we are doing to deter Iran, or for any other purposes. It's a business deal. They are initiating it. It's not us helping or using them. If we didn't sell the stuff they could buy equivalent stuff elsewhere. If we backed out of these deals, how many seconds would it be before alternative proposals from China, Russia, the UK, France, etc were on the table? The $120 billion that the GCC countries are spending on US arms is largely seen in that region as charity, and there is some merit in that perception.

The US is not protecting the Saudis from their own people, or enabling them to oppress their own people, or giving permission to oppress their own people. They can do that themselves, they don't ask our permission, and they don't care what we think. They are not dependent on us and we do not control them.

The actual amount of oil the Saudis sell the US is irrelevant. Even if we didn't buy a drop from them, the US would still be very concerned with keeping that oil flowing, because if it stopped, the people who were buying it would then compete with us to buy the oil we are buying, and prices for everyone would go through the roof. It's not about how much they sell us, it's about the percentage of overall world production they represent, and the very large percentage of world reserve production that they represent.

We fought Saddam when he threatened the Gulf oil supplies, and we would fight Iran if they threatened the Gulf oil supplies. This has nothing to do with protecting the Saudis or defending the Saudis. It has to do with protecting and defending ourselves. Quite aside from the fact that invading and absorbing your neighbors is illegal and unacceptable no matter what their form of government is, the US cannot allow that much oil to fall under the control of a government openly hostile to us. It's not about empowering the Saudis to oppress, it's not subservience, it's not us doing their bidding... it's just a common interest. Common interests are what make alliances, not similar political systems or similar ideas on government-populace relations.

Israel and the Gulf States work hard to keep the U.S. thinking of Iran as "the enemy." Iran is not the enemy, Iran is both the past and the future of that region.

Iran is part of the past and future of that region. So are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and others.

The Iranian government also works hard to sustain the perception of hostility. They are deeply invested in that perception and they need it to continue. It's not just about the history. The Vietnamese have as much historical reason as the Iranians to dislike the US, but their government has astutely recognized that getting along with the US and the west is in their interest, and set the past aside. The Iranian government could do the same, if they chose to. They don't choose to. They have as much to do with sustaining hostility as we do, and they do it intentionally and for their own purposes.

Of course we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. We had no quarrel with the Japanese people in 1942, but we still fought a devastating war with the country. Hostility is a choice of government, and it's not just a blind reaction to past affronts. It's a decision and it reflects a purpose. That purpose may be the government's, not the people's, but it's governments that start wars.

I don't think "the Iranians" per se have any real desire to invade the states across the Gulf and start a region-wide war. I do suspect, though, that there are people in that Government who have some ambitions and ideas, and it is possible that they could choose to carry them out. If their people allow them to try, and follow them, there will be a big mess, even if we have no quarrel with their people.

Someday we will either let the tail wag the dog, and get us into a fight with Iran; or we will swallow our pride and re-establish relations with this important nation over their protests. I hope it is the latter.

I doubt that the current Iranian government would allow that to happen, even if we tried: that dance takes two. They need somebody to hate: a common enough ting in repressive, extremist governments.