![]() |
Saudi rulers use war on Yemen to remain relevant |
Saudi Arabia, despite its abhorrent human rights record
enjoyed diplomatic, political, economic, and military cover that shielded it
from any criticism or sanctions. In fact, Western countries often referred to
Saudi Arabia and the few Arab countries that fell under the direct influence of
the kingdom as the axes of moderation. The marginalization of ethnic
minorities, diminutive attitudes towards groups belonging to different sects, abuse
of foreign laborers, domination of women, selective application of cruel
punishments, political corruption, blatant nepotism, and flagrant interference
in internal affairs of other countries all went unexposed—beyond the reach of
media and even academic scholarship.
The rulers of Saudi Arabia used its wealth-acquired clean
image to build religious centers in Western countries and madrasas and mosques
in poor Muslim countries and staff these institutions with administrators and
imams who were indoctrinated in Wahhabism—albeit under the name of Sunni Islam.
In addition to this soft form of proselytizing, the rulers of Saudi Arabia have
supplied its global allies with hardened zealots who were ready to fight and
die for whatever cause they were able to manufacture. Often times, the
interests of Western governments and the ambitions of the Saudi-Wahhabi
alliance intersected as was the case in Afghanistan in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
In this particular case, Western governments, especially U.S. administrations, embraced
the so-called mujahidin and they worked together to counter the real or
perceived threats posed by the Soviet Union. The same alliance was revived in
Syria in the last four years to counter the real or perceived threats posed by
Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wanted to use this alliance in Yemen as well but
the Obama administration hesitated. There are signs however, that this
freakishly strange union between the U.S. and the Saudi-Wahhabi cabal is about
to expire.
First, the so-called Arab Spring uprisings has forced
Western governments in general, and this U.S. administration in particular, to
realize that the business of protecting unpopular regimes has become very
risky. The sudden fall of two “moderate” Arab leaders in Tunisia and Egypt
almost left Western countries on the wrong side of history. They were forced to
retroactively overreact calling these former friends and allies dictators. The
breaking of the wall of fear that kept Arab masses under check for so long
produced a level of political unpredictability never seen before. The Obama
administration reaffirmed this reality when it warned the rulers of GCC that
their real threat is from their own people not from outside. In other words,
U.S. administrations will no longer protect regimes that do not enjoy a popular
mandate. They remain, however, interested in protecting countries, especially
the ones with clear commitment to representative governance like Tunisia. This
distinction between regimes and countries and lack of commitment to protect
specific regimes kept four out of the six rulers of the GCC out of the summit
at Camp David. Interestingly, the Obama administration also extended NATO’s
protection to Tunisia after it denied it to GCC States.
On May 12, the self-declared caliph and leader
of the “Islamic State,” al-Baghdadi, declared the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance nulland void. In a 34 minute long rant, he accused Aal Salul (the group’s
diminutive label for the Saudi family) of attempting to regain its standing as
the protector of Sunni Muslims by launching “Operation Fancy” in Yemen. He
called on Saudi Sunni Muslims not to fall for this trick. He explicitly asked
them to rise up against the rulers of the kingdom and join the “Islamic State,”
which is, in his determination, the true representative of pure Islam and the
real “protector” of Sunni Muslims. The fall of GCC regimes will be internal.
Specifically, it will come on the hands of the adherents to the brand of Islam
they manufactured over the past eighty years: Wahhabism.
Importantly, al-Baghdadi’s statements confirm what some
scholars have been saying about the link between Saudi Arabia and ISIL. Al-Baghdadi
reaffirmed that his version of Islam was in fact inspired by the same Islam
preached and practiced in Saudi Arabia. The difference, however, is that he and
his “Islamic State” are living the true faith and practice, whereas the Saudi
ruling family support it only in name and form.
These two important developments, the downgraded
Saudi-Western alliance and the rise of the Islamic State as the exemplar of
Sunni Islam, are terrifying for the Saudi ruling family. The ruling family’s
precious investment in religious extremism—as an ideology—and dependence on
Western governments—as a national security strategy—are spent. Wahhabism, the
brainchild of the family of Saud, has now outgrown its masters and has established
its own political and military entity: the “Islamic State.” Western countries
are no longer dependent on Saudi oil. Preserving regimes that are rejected by
the peoples they are supposed to represent is now very risky. For the rulers of
GCC, as it has become for most Arab rulers, the options are very limited:
reform or perish.
____________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. His
most recent book, Anatomy of Dissent in Islamic Societies, provides a historical and theoretical
treatment of rebellious movements and ideas since the rise of Islam. Opinions
are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the
university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...