What could a brave king do?

One way in which geopolitical analysts attempt to predict the future is a method known as ‘scenario planning’. According to this method you think up as many possible scenarios as you can, within reason, and then you try and estimate the percentage chance of them coming to pass.  This is a fun task for analysts because it is one of the few times where they are seriously asked to plan out the most dramatic and extreme scenarios.  In this short article we will not attempt to set out a range of scenarios and estimate their chances of coming to pass.  What we will do though is endeavour to give you an idea of what the potential consequences of having a ‘brave king’ in Saudi Arabia really are.

Saudi Arabia’s potential for expansion

Point One:

In this world of nation states the Arab lands are an anomaly. From Morocco to Oman you have a great string of countries that are all inhabited by a people who speak the same language and define themselves as being from the same culture; they are Arabs. Consequently, most of the nations which the Arabs inhabit have few natural borders with their neighbours. On both sides of the border the people speak Arabic and call themselves Arabs and there is a past history in which the border did not exist and the inhabitants of both countries lived happily together either as part of the Ottoman Empire or one of the earlier caliphates. Not surprisingly, therefore, there have been many political leaders in the Arab World who have been advocates of Pan-Arabism and have dreamed of uniting the Arabs into one super state.  Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt briefly united Egypt and Syria in the United Arab Republic and Saddam Hussein tried to present himself as a Pan-Arab unifier in his invasion of Kuwait.  Given this unique circumstance of the Arab nations, whenever a strong leader emerges in one of their countries there are always some who will ask, “Could he be the one?”

I do not raise this matter in order to discuss whether  Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud could be the man to reunite all the Arabs, but to simply emphasise that the borders surrounding most Arab countries are more easily shifted or dissolved than those that correspond to real ethnic and cultural divisions; and that consequently Saudi Arabia would have less barriers to expansion than most countries simply by virtue of being Arab.

Point Two:

I said in the previous article that Saudi Arabia is the strongest state in the Arab world, one might argue that Egypt with its massive population is the strongest, but due to its poverty and Saudi Arabia’s wealth it is Saudi Arabia which influences the Egyptian government at the moment and not vice versa.  Egypt has been a heavily populated behemoth throughout recorded history, but it has often had outsiders come in and take over the running of its political structures.  Simply having a larger population than Saudi Arabia does not make it immune from being influenced or even dominated by Saudi Arabia. Egypt is currently part of the Saudi led coalition which is attacking Saudi enemies in Yemen.

Egypt is large, but it does not currently have the power to exert much influence on other countries.  Saudi Arabia by contrast, through its money, and increasingly through its military capabilities, does have that ability.  It is by far the most influential Arab state in today’s world.

Prediction:

The above two points being made, my prediction is that, under a brave king, Saudi Arabia will be the state to occupy the space currently occupied by the Islamic State.

Why?

1.       The Sunni Arabs of this region will prefer Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia to Shia dominated Iraq or Alawite controlled Syria.

2.       Saudi Arabia is a very traditionally Islamic state and is the keeper of Islam’s two most holy sites so to those locals who previously used religious rhetoric to support the Islamic State, Saudi Arabia will be an acceptable (even supportable) replacement.

3.       Saudi Arabia has the necessary internal and institutional strength for conducting an annexation of territory.  It has a compliant population who like to see their nation acting strongly and their military institutions are working well enough to conduct a sophisticated air campaign against Yemen and lead a 10 country coalition.  King Salman also  has particularly good support within the country’s power hierarchies after 48 years as the governor of Riyadh, during which time he was frequently used by the monarchy as the main man for healing rifts between factions and disciplining minor royals.  Tasks which show the high level of respect with which he was and is regarded and the great position he has enjoyed to build personal relationships and alliances within Saudi Arabia’s power structures.

4.       Saudi Arabia’s domestic policies make them particularly capable of dealing with the Islamic State zealots once they capture the area.  Saudi Arabia has already, in the time of its founder Ibn Saud, eradicated ultra-intolerant religious extremists by wiping out entire villages where some violently extremist forms of Wahhabism (a strain of Islam) had taken route.  Saudi Arabia can still act in this sort of dramatic but effective way as it is not accountable to any liberal/human rights focussed discourse within its political structures.  It is not a democracy. Its king is not accountable to any western notions of human rights and for the most part the Saudi population would probably view clemency for such violent enemies of the state as Islamic State as weakness.

5.       Saudi Arabia is made more acceptable to the local population by virtue of its proud history of creating itself through a process of tribal warfare rather than being a country created by western colonial powers.

6.       The area now controlled by Islamic State is a very attractive target of annexation to Saudi Arabia for a number of reasons: firstly, it has two major rivers running through it, the Tigris and the Euphrates, and Saudi Arabia is very water poor and in need of both water and arable land; secondly, the area currently occupied by Islamic State does not possess any major cities, thus if annexed it would not significantly change the power balances within Saudi Arabia.  If Saudi Arabia annexed an area with a city like Damascus in it, for example, that city would soon begin to exert an influence on the internal political dynamics of the country simply by virtue of its population and economic clout.  And given that cities tend to produce more liberal, secular and cosmopolitan views, the influence of a city like Damascus within the country might cause problems for the monarchy and their current ruling institutions.  By comparison the area currently ruled by Islamic State would be an ideal addition to the country possessing as it does a more traditionally minded rural and small town population along with the resources of water and arable land that Saudi Arabia would dearly like to possess.

7.       Although generally speaking the United States, and the western world, do not like the idea of borders changing and states expanding, they will nonetheless find very little to say against such an annexation by a former stalwart ally, particularly given the nature of the regime they will be replacing and the difficulty that any western liberal democracy would have in eradicating the Islamic State zealots from among the local population.

So, it can be seen that Saudi Arabia is essentially ideally constituted to annex the current territory of the Islamic State, so long as they are led by a brave king who is capable of seizing the opportunities that are presented to him.  If he plays his cards right he might even be welcomed in as a liberator by a significant proportion of the local population and hailed as a hero by the rest of the world.

Keep an eye out for ‘A Brave King - Part Three’

Apparently Saudi Arabia has just reached an agreement with France to send three billion dollars worth of military equipment to Lebanon to fight Islamic State.  This follows on from the events of March in which Saudi Arabia put together a coalition of 10 countries to launch airstrikes on Yemen; an engagement which is ongoing and reported to include artillery bombardments over their shared border. It appears very possible that Saudi Arabia could even send troops over the border to engage in conventional ground-based warfare.

It is without doubt that Saudi Arabia has pursued a much more aggressive foreign policy since the accession king Salman Saud on January the 23rd.  Is this simply a coincidence of timing or do we have a much more adventurist king now in charge of the Arab world’s strongest state?

There is no doubting that at this time there are many geopolitical currents that are aligning to push Saudi Arabia into a more assertive role in its region. To begin with the price of oil has dropped and there are many analysts who would say that we are at the beginning of an energy revolution which will increasingly move the world away from using oil as a source of energy.  Many in Saudi Arabia therefore must be aware that their years of fantastic wealth are coming to an end and that they can no longer sit back and rely on their financial power to buy them out of any problems they may have.  Previously the Saudi’s have not had to engage in much political argy-bargy with their neighbours because their oil wealth ensured that the United States (US), the world’s pre-eminent military and political power, was always willing to defend their borders and forgive them any domestic actions which might have caused them international problems either with their neighbours or other nations. Right now, however, one very clear sign that Saudi Arabia is quickly becoming less important to the US is the fact that the US appears to be on the verge of ending its decades-long hostility to Iran, Saudia Arabia’s main regional rival.  Indeed, no clearer sign that the tides are turning is needed, however, there have been many other currents and events that seem be pushing the Saudi’s toward a more interventionist foreign policy. One might say that the Arab Spring and the vast instability it has brought to the Arab world, particularly including the Islamic State on Saudi Arabia’s northern border, signals to the Saudi royalty that just sitting back and allowing events to take their course may not be a wise choice.  And then there is the fact of the civil war in Yemen, which is happening now and appeared to be on the verge of being won by forces antagonistic to the Saudi’s.  This also presented the Saudi’s with the possibility of several undesirable outcomes if they did not become actively involved to try and shape events more to their liking.

So, it cannot be denied that there is a coincidence, or convergence, of forces at the moment that are pushing Saudi Arabia towards a more interventionist foreign policy.  With their declining importance to the US it certainly behoves Saudi Arabia right now to show the neighbours that they have their own weight to throw around and that even without US backing they are a force to be reckoned with. And these changed circumstances appear not to have come as a complete shock to Riyadh because there are certainly signs that the Saudi’s have in recent years been quietly preparing for a less secure place in the world.  Their current spending on defence, for example, is the fourth largest in the world, ahead of such traditional powers as France and the United Kingdom and behind only the US, China and Russia.  This certainly suggests that the Saudi’s have decided to convert their financial power into military power whilst they still can.

It is certainly the case that Saudi Arabia is surrounded by forces pushing it to become more interventionist within its region, but all the same it is fair to say that Salman is a king who is willing to take bold actions.  In everyday life most people are surrounded by opportunities, some take them others don’t.  The fact that since the accession of Salman Saudi Arabia has taken some very bold moves and made significant demonstrations of its power within the region do tell us that we are dealing with a leader who is prepared to take such actions and that alone is a significant fact.

Keep an eye out for ‘A Brave King – Part Two – Speculation’

The Islamic State (IS) is not a nationalist entity; it wants a Caliphate that will incorporate all the world.  The Islamic State recognises no national boundaries and intends to unite humanity under Islam.  In professing and promoting a religious identity they are in many ways antithetical to any nationalist identity.  This being said, it still appears to me that IS’s success in Syria and Iraq has been another one of history’s many examples of what happens when you put national borders in the wrong places.

The territory that IS has managed to conquer in Syria and Iraq corresponds in broad outline to what would make a sensible nation state.  The area that they now control (with the addition of Tikrit and the regions that they have only recently been pushed out of) fairly accurately corresponds with the areas of Iraq and Syria that are inhabited by Sunni Muslim Arabs.  The areas of Iraq and Syria that IS has been unable to make significant gains in are the areas inhabited by Kurds, Alawites, Druze, and Shia Arabs.  Consequently the border of IS territory has essentially stabilised along a line which would make a sensible border between a Sunni Arab nation and the neighbouring national groups which surround them.

The leaders and evangelists of the Islamic State believe in a religious identity which subsumes all nationalist identity but the shape of their territory suggests that the general population of that area of the Middle East are still strongly attracted to an ethnic/nationalist identity.  The Sunni Arabs of both Iraq and Syria have been existing in states where they have been ruled over by other ethnic groups.  It is not extraordinary therefore to surmise that part of the appeal of the IS for the people within its territory is that it has finally united all of the area’s Sunni Arabs in one cohesive, self-governing and powerful state.

Perhaps the easiest way to defeat the Islamic State ideologues would be for the international community, led by America, to simply abandon the formal borders of Iraq and Syria as they were drawn by the French and British during their colonial occupation and promise the Sunni Arabs their own nation state with borders that correspond to the demographic reality.  Perhaps then many of the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and Syria would stop supporting the aggressive and extremist IS and the region could look forward to a greater degree of peace and stability.

Greece has found some cards to play.
It is no secret that the world has been watching Greece since the beginning of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).  'Can they avoid falling out of the  Euro?' has been the question everyone has been watching to see answered.  Initially the European Union (EU) put all efforts into keeping  them in, but as the years have ground by and the EU has built greater resilience into its financial institutions (or at least believes it has) the efforts have gradually changed to trying not to let the Greeks get away with too much unearned credit.  It was a story which promised dramatic events, but had become a rather slow and repetitive melodrama.
With the recent election to government of a 'non-establishment' party, however, Greece has once again become more interesting.  The new government, no longer bound by the old establishment alliances, has found that despite the country's dire situation they have some cards to play.

CARD ONE - THE ACE - RUSSIA
The overthrow of the Ukrainian Government and the subsequent developments, including sanctions against Russia, have made Greece far more strategically important to Russia now than it was at the start of the GFC.  Now, with Russia looking to break the unanimity of EU sanctions against it and also to break the unanimity of the NATO alliance, they would be willing to pay a high price for the defection of Greece, most probably including the economic support of the country after a default on its debts to western nations.  The EU and the Americans are well aware of the political consequences of a Greek re-alliance with Moscow and so this is a strong card to play in getting further concessions from them.  If this card alone is not good enough to convince the Europeans to bail out the Greeks then it could indicate that many Europeans are less worried about the political consequences of a  Grexit at this point than the Americans.

CARD TWO - THE JOKER - NAZI COMPENSATION
Another card that the Greek Government has suddenly played is the claim for compensation for the Nazi occupation.  Predictably, this request has met with a cold reception from many in Germany who cite previous payments as appropriate compensation, but there is a considerable portion of the German Bundestag which is viewing the claim more favourably than many would have predicted.  
In the negative, some are arguing that if they grant this claim to Greece then they will be left open to claims from other formerly occupied countries.  This is true, but if the EU just bails out Greece to keep it in the Euro then they (read mostly Germany) will be opening the door to all of the other indebted EU countries.
At this point in time the compensation for Nazi occupation would amount to a smaller sum than the GFC debts.  Notably, Spain, Portugal and Ireland were never occupied by the Nazi's and Italy, although briefly occupied, was originally an ally of the Nazi's so any claim made by them would be in a different category.
The Germans might just find it expedient to pay Greece's compensation claim and consequently bail it out in a way which will not let the other major GFC debtor nations off the hook.

In conclusion, a Nazi occupation compensation payment could well be a blessing in disguise for the Germans.  However, the Germans may yet weigh their interests and decide that the Euro has outlived its usefulness, or that they are not that scared of the Russians.
What is sure, though, is that Greece is once again an interesting country to watch.