The House of Saud Under Pressure

The castle of sand looks pretty impressive on the surface. They control vast amounts of Oil, a Trillion dollar Army, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Their elites have huge personal fortunes and lots of flashy luxury goods.

They’ve also had the unconditional support of the United States, and before them the British, for almost a hundred years.

Unfortunately their system is starting to break down. It starts with Oil, the commodity that has financed it. Today the global economy is flooded with the stuff and as a consequence prices have dropped like a stone. Marginally profitable sources like Tar Sands, the Arctic, Deep Sea Drilling, even Fracking are becoming economically unsustainable. Unsubsidized production and exploration has virtually ground to a halt in favor of proven reserves which are not only large enough to meet world wide demand, but also to burn out civilization (as we know it) in a hot hell of catastrophic climate change.

Saudi Arabia used to be able (through the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC) to control supply because they had the lowest cost of extraction and large reserves. This is no longer the case. Other nations, motivated by their own self interest, are ignoring OPEC quotas and while low cost used to be able to curb price increases it’s much less successful at raising them. Basically (from a monopolist standpoint) you have to counter-intuitively lower prices still further and drive your competition out of business.

Saudi Arabia is less able to do that for the same reason that many Oil Producing States are- they need the revenue to mollify their population and suppress dissent.

Another method Saudi Arabia uses to control its restive people is Fundamentalist Islamic Extremism in the form of Wahabism, which they export aggressively. I’m not anti-Muslim any more than I’m anti-Mormon (I’m an atheist and think they’re both pretty silly), a United States “Christian” sect with aggressive proselytizing that is also quite capable of acts of extreme violence (Ted Bundy, Mark Hackling, Glenn Helzer, Jodi Arias), but there is no denying that Sunni (one of the two main branches, the majority one, to which Wahabism belongs) is a little less historically justifiable than its main rival, Shi’ia. Shi’ia claims direct descent from Mohammad himself (kind of like Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church) whereas Sunni comes from the Warlord who chased them out of Mecca and Medina. Sunni Islam is a mite sensitive about this fact which probably explains why they have such visceral antipathy toward the Shi’ia Heretics.

This puts them at odds with Iran, the epicenter of Shi’ia, whom they have been at war with for 1400 years or so. If you look at the areas of greatest repression in geographic Arabia (Yemen, Bahrain) you’ll find almost universally that Shi’ia majorities in places that were once Iranian are being subjugated by a Sunni ruling class supported by Saudi Arabia. They don’t even make a pretense of avoiding responsibility for Hospital Bombings and using Cluster Bombs against civilians in Yemen.

Needless to say the Sauds were deeply disappointed by the lifting of sanctions on Iran, not because Iran has a nuclear weapons program (it doesn’t) but because it opens the way for Iran to export more Oil (making Saudi Arabia even less able to control prices) and import conventional arms. It’s really about the best deal we could get. Support in Europe was crumbling and among our non-allies (Russia, China) hardly existent at all.

So to assuage our bestest buddies, the Sauds, Obama inked an unprecedented arms bill, hundreds of Billions. Unfortunately for him (and the House of Saud) there is considerable resistance in Congress and it could well be defeated by veto-proof margins.

Recently released, the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional report on Saudi involvement in 9/11 don’t prove complicity, but they certainly do nothing to quash speculation that Saudi Intelligence participated in the attack, at least passively. 15 of the 19 were Saudi nationals after all and to this day Saudi Arabia has refused interviews with persons of interest.

And then there is this-

Obama’s huge Saudi 9/11 dilemma
By Jordan Fabian and Katie Bo Williams, The Hill
09/09/16 06:00 AM EDT

President Obama is facing a dilemma over legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts.

The House is expected to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation on Friday. The Senate has already passed the same legislation unanimously.

Obama has fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia and also lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens. The Saudi government has led a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation.

Those efforts have been fruitless in Congress, however.

The legislation has broad support from both parties, and Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time if he rejects the legislation.

Such an outcome would undoubtedly embarrass Obama and divide Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections and a crucial lame-duck session of Congress.

Friday’s vote is heavy with symbolism; it will take place on the eve of the 15th anniversary of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If the House vote is as resounding as expected, supporters hope, coupled with the unanimous passage of the Senate version in May, the White House may reconsider its concerns.

“I think the pressure is the vote,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), an original backer of the bill and one of its 29 Democratic co-sponsors.
…
“I presume they would have to think very carefully about a veto because it might very well be overridden,” said Nadler.

To override the president, supporters would need a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

“I think the votes will be there to override it,” said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the House.

The White House is clearly aware of the dicey political waters in which it is sitting.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports the bill, as does Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is expected to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress.
…
Obama has rarely been more alone than he is now in a policy debate.

Vetoing the legislation would underline a disagreement with congressional Democrats and Clinton, who Obama hopes will succeed him in the White House.

“It would [surprise] me if she and the president found themselves at odds on this important anti-terrorism legislation,” said Quinn.

The White House hoped to have Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in its corner after he expressed reservations over the measure this spring. But pressure from bill supporters has mounted on Ryan and other GOP leaders to move forward.

Under Obama, U.S. foreign policy has pivoted away from Saudi Arabia, straining ties with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia fiercely opposed the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

The Saudis have warned of further strain on its relationship with the U.S. if the 9/11 legislation becomes law.

Officials have reportedly threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets in order to protect them from being frozen by court rulings, although economists doubt they would follow through.

Victims families have long sought to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and there have long been rumors about ties between al-Qaeda and the government in Riyadh.
…
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom served under President George W. Bush, this week warned that the legislation “is far more likely to harm the United States than bring justice against any sponsor of terrorism.”

“There is already a law that permits U.S. citizens to sue any country our government has designated a state sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran,” they wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “JASTA, however, does not require a prior U.S. government designation, bypassing a critical safeguard to allow plaintiffs to get at the Saudis—and also setting a precedent for suits against other countries.”

If Obama vetoed the bill, he’d be going to bat for the Saudi regime — while taking on 9/11 victims’ families and large majorities in both chambers.

“I don’t think they’ll veto it — but they may veto it on the idea that they could say to the Saudis, ‘We’re in good faith and Congress is crazy,’ and do that as a basis to keep their relations with the Saudis,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), another original co-sponsor.

Drip, drip, drip.

In the short run the collapse of the House of Saud will undoubtedly result in severe economic and political dislocations. Despite that I think they have to go. They are particularly pernicious tyrants to their own people and aggressive Internationally. Individually many of them are reprehensible criminals hiding behind Diplomatic Immunity. Should you believe in divine morality they are sinners of the worst sort and hypocrites to boot.

Besides, as we have recently seen in our militaristic misadventures and failures, arms alone can not withstand the popular will.

The Sand Castle of Saud is already drying up, cracks are appearing in the facade, and it will soon be swept away by the tides of history.