Kings, Emirs, and Shaykhs: The Survival of Traditional Regimes.

By Barry Rubin*

During the early 1980s I was asked to give a briefing for the head of the Toyota auto company and other enterprises. It was just after the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and during the height of the Iran-Iraq war, so regional instability was much on the mind of everyone.

After I finished my talk, Mr. Toyota asked a question in Japanese which was quickly translated. "This is all very interesting," he responded, "but what we really want to know is the date on which the Saudi monarchy will fall."

Before I could answer, the head of the delegation said, "We know the date and are willing to tell you but first we would like to renegotiate our fees." I think he was joking, though it was not the most tactful thing to say.

When I did answer, I explained that the Saudi monarchy was very strong and likely to survive for a long time to come. Almost 30 years later, I see no reason to change that assessment.

If you had told experts in the mid-1960s that a half-century later every king and emir then ruling in the Persian Gulf would still be there, most would have been astonished. After all, these regimes seemed representative of a bygone, even medieval, era. Surely, modernity would sweep them away. Certainly, militant Arab nationalists-backed up generally by the regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq-were eager to do so. After 1979, the radical Islamists in Iran and their local sympathizers worked hard to foment revolution.

Yet all these regimes are still in power, in Bahrain and Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, in broad terms, these regimes are flourishing and none of them faces the threat of imminent overthrow. They have joined together in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) so it is possible to refer to these six countries collectively as the GCC states.

It would be easy to say, of course, that this political stability is due to wealth from petroleum and natural gas, a treasure even more precious when one compares the large amount of income to the relatively small population of these states. But that is misleading.

First, this very wealth has made these countries the target for blackmail, direct assault, and internal subversion. After all, they have weathered the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian attacks on tanker traffic, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S.-led overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the challenge from al-Qaida, and much more. No region of the world has been through more upheavals than this one.

Second, wealth does not merely promote stability; it also undermines tradition and the status quo. This is especially true when vast amounts of money, material goods, as well as modern ideas and methods pour into these countries. Nothing could be more destabilizing to such conservative, religious, and traditionalist societies than an extremely intense dose of modernization, probably stronger and more intensive than that faced by any other countries in history.

Third, at times oil prices dipped far lower thus turning the GCC states' surpluses into deficits when their high internal spending is taken into account. Not all has been rosy economically for them by any means.

Thus, these regimes deserve high marks for managing their situations well and, of course, these rulers know their societies far better than foreign observers who would advise them to do things differently. The price, certainly, has been an absence of democracy, a failure to expand rights, and the continuation of women's status as second-class citizens generally. In exchange, the citizens of the GCC states have gained much higher living standards, though that doesn't mean that poverty has been altogether banished, especially in Saudi Arabia.

In addition to all this, the GCC states have to handle a difficult diversity in their populations. This is of two types. On the one hand, each of these countries has a very large proportion of non-citizen foreigners living on their territory as "guest workers." This sector is kept docile by rotation, sending out longer-term residents and bringing in new ones; of course by the rich financial rewards in comparison to what they'd be earning at home, and repression.

There has never been a single instance in which this large population has threatened the host country's political stability. Perhaps the closest was when the large Palestinian minority in Kuwait was accused of collaborating with the Iraqi occupation army and was almost totally deported with little trouble. Palestinians have never been allowed into Saudi Arabia in very large numbers, presumably to forestall trouble from radicals among them.

On the other hand, and more problematic, has been the different groups among the local citizen population. Bahrain has a Sunni ruling group and a much larger Shia majority, which has led to friction in the past. Kuwait boasts both Sunni and Shia communities which have gotten along in relative peace.

The Saudis, whose Wahabi faith is austerely Sunni and explicitly hostile to Shiism, have a Shia minority of about 15 percent, concentrated in the strategic Eastern Province. There have been attempts to appeal to this group by Tehran-connected Islamist radicals, featuring the fact that Iran is a country where Shias rule.

While the other GCC states have seen only sporadic terrorism-Oman defeated a Marxist revolutionary war back in the 1970s-Saudi Arabia defeated a serious threat from al-Qaida. That group, it should be remembered, was created by Usama bin Ladin for the purpose of overthrowing the monarchy. At times, Saudi counterterrorist forces have evidenced considerable incompetence but overall they performed effectively and stamped out the attempted insurgency.

Since 2003, the GCC states have had to deal with a new set of problems. The overthrow of the Iraqi regime removed the old Iraqi threat but also augmented the Iranian one, made even worse by Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. In addition, the sight of another Shia-led state next door worried the Sunni-dominated states lest revolt spread or Iraq would become an Iranian client.

How did the monarchies deal with this situation? Most immediately, they exported some of their own extremism to Iraq, encouraging young men to go there to fight against the Shias. This got rid of potentially troublesome Islamist-oriented youth while also undermining the Shia power which seemed to them to be so dangerous. Ironically, of course, this put the GCC states on the same side as Iran's ally, Syria, providing funds and fighters to kill American soldiers in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi Shia civilians. From their own standpoint, however, it worked rather well.

Another way of exporting terrorism, albeit less deliberate, was the decision of Saudi terrorists to attack Western targets, most symbolically demonstrated by the fact that almost all the September 11, 2001, terrorists were Saudis. Al-Qaida, as mentioned above, was originally an organization designed to foment revolution within Saudi Arabia but which has directed almost all its energy elsewhere.

Finally, Saudi doctrine has encouraged the idea that terrorism against Muslims is bad but terrorism against non-Muslims is quite acceptable, almost recommended. These stratagems may have done a bit of damage to the kingdom's international image but have not had any significant costs.

Regarding their own security, GCC states have pursued a balanced approach. Here, it is useful to recall the history of how the kingdoms have maintained their security. Gulf regional politics functioned as a triangle in which two powerful states-Iraq and Iran-confronted the half-dozen weak ones.

Before the Iranian revolution, when the Shah was in power and a radical Arab nationalist Iraq wanted to overthrow the Arab kingdoms, Iran was their protector. Once the Islamist revolution happened in Iran in 1979, Iraq became their protector against that country and doctrine, most obviously during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Increasingly, since the 1970s, the United States increasingly entered the picture as an external protector.

Once Saddam decided to attack Kuwait in 1990, it was clear that neither Tehran nor Baghdad could be counted on and the United States became even more important. True, there were negatives to dependence on a non-Muslim state whose policies often made it unpopular, but the GCC states did not hesitate when their survival was in question, as seen in the 1990-1991 Kuwait crisis.

In theory, during the post-Saddam era, the United States, with European help, should have been a satisfactory pillar whose power could balance off the continued Iranian threat. The GCC states also opposed Iranian ambitions to a degree which, given their usual caution, was relatively high. The willingness of Saudi Arabia to confront Iran's ally Syria, over Lebanon, was notable. It might be noted that Syrian and Iranian backing for Hizballah was seen in Riyadh as another example of Shia expansionism.

The strategic problem for the GCC states, however, is that the United States has shown itself to be weak, both in general and in confronting Iranian-Syrian influence, especially under the administration of President Barack Obama. The president spent his first year seeking engagement with Tehran which, whatever its other implications signaled to the GCC states that they were partly on their own. They adjusted their strategy to include a larger measure of getting along with Iran and appeasing it. After all, Iran was much closer to America and much more willing to use violence. If Iran was going to emerge as the leading-and nuclear-power in the Persian Gulf they would have to adjust to that situation to ensure their own survival.

Thus, on one hand, the GCC states would be delighted to see the United States block Iran from getting nuclear weapons or even to see Israel attack and destroy such facilities, but they will keep a low profile publicly to avoid trouble. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Saudis might try to get some of their own though the likelihood of a serious Saudi effort to buy such weapons is often exaggerated.

Consequently, given all these problems, the question of how these regimes have survived with such apparent ease a modern world and regional atmosphere that is so hostile to them should be one of the most-studied issue in contemporary political analysis. The foundation of this success is their considerable traditional legitimacy and their massive financial assets. But that's not all.

Internationally, as has been noted above, the use of a balance of power has been central. They have sought a protector against the most threatening force while also employing appeasement of the most dangerous local power in order to reduce the size of the threat. What is most notable about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in this regard is that it came in the face of strenuous GCC, especially Kuwaiti but also Saudi Arabia, efforts to keep Baghdad happy. This factor made the attack all the more enraging for the GCC countries, and most of all the Saudis.

What is the secret of the kings and emirs in terms of domestic survival? The use of money to satisfy and co-opt people plus the calculated use of repression have been mentioned. In addition, however, a very important choice has been to slow rather than accelerate reform. A conventional analysis by Western observers would be to urge more rights, change, and democracy in the belief that these would be stabilizing forces.

But the contrary is true. To go too fast-to go even at a moderate speed-would antagonize the powerful conservative forces in these societies, most notably Islamic clerics who mostly support the regimes but who would switch to the revolutionary Islamist side if they thought their rulers to be impious.

Going too fast would have been the main domestic danger to these regimes and even though their rejection of reform entails more oppression, from a regime interests' standpoint they have been clever to do so. (One might have an interesting discussion on whether they learned from the Iranian shah's eagerness to bring social change to his country as a cause of the revolution there.)

Hand in hand with that approach was the continuation of the traditional foundation of the regimes' power. Of course the Saudi and other royal families have often provided an example of corruption and dissolution that runs quite contrary to their desired image of piety and traditional tribal virtue, yet enough family members have behaved properly-or at least have kept their vices fairly secret-to avoid undermining their prestige irreparably.

It should also be emphasized that none of these are "one-man" dictatorships, in contrast to many nominally left-oriented dictatorships in the Third World. The royal families are large, members are distributed as watchdogs to many key posts (including in the military), and enough commoners are brought into the power elite (albeit in subordinate roles) to provide a lot of safeguards against a coup or revolution.

Some of these royals are very capable people and so while it certainly happens that incompetents are put in place due to their lineage, this problem is kept limited. Similarly, the family has some autonomy in choosing the monarch, allowing for the most feeble or incompetent to be discarded despite their seniority.

The regimes have also made good use of both repression and corruption. As Machiavelli taught, these tools can be well or badly used.

Repression, to be most effective, must focus on real threats rather than a generalized intimidation which increases social resentment to the point of revolt. (This is another mistake made by the shah.) Moreover, oppositionists must be given an escape valve that allows them to change sides, an action which is a most profitable one in the GCC states. At the same time, though, punishment must be severe enough to intimidate any but the most determined revolutionaries prepared to sacrifice their lives. The GCC states have been very effective in adjusting their blend of repressive and cooptive policies.

A similar point can be made regarding corruption. If corruption is used to the benefit of too narrow a group, it provokes tremendous resentment. But if it is spread widely, then it will be a positive force for stability, not only buying off key elements yet also giving many others the hope that if they support the regime and behave such riches could come to them also. It should also be noted that business is largely tied to the ruling family while intellectuals and professionals are largely tied to the state bureaucracy, limiting the growth of a completely independent class which sees its interest in conflict with that of the rulers.

The bottom line, then, has been that the GCC rulers have shown a strong sense of survival and maneuverability which has allowed them to survive well into the twenty-first century. There is no strong reason to believe that they will not continue to do so in decades to come.

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.  You can read and subscribe to his blog at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Gloria Center depends on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card, click the Donate button in the upper-right hand corner of this page. To donate via check, make it out to "American Friends of IDC," with "for GLORIA Center" in the memo line. Mail to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003.

G-d Bless Earl krugel

I miss Earl Krugel every day.
As the media and the ill-advised, and the anti-Jews, continue to harass the Yehudim, we need a man like Earl Krugel, with his wit, his decency, and his courage.
To paraphrase an old saying, Earl's fault was not that he didn't love, but that he loved too well.
When everyone turned on him, he didn't cry or worry about himself.
He gave up his life for us like it was a trifling matter.
I pray that his dear wife, Lola, and his children and his Grandchildren are well and thriving.

G-d bless Earl Krugel.

From My Mouth....

Two Photos That Express Obama Middle East Policy? Well, Yes and No

By Barry Rubin*

April 18, 2010

By Barry Rubin

Let's begin with what's most important. This may be the most important single point about the world's most important issue and, consequently, the most important thing I write during this decade. In fact, it's so important that I'm going to put it in bold. Read this even if you don't read the rest of the article:

Consider the Obama Administration's concept of how it will cope with a nuclear Iran.

The plan is to contain Iran by scaring it. The rulers of Iran must think the American president is a man of immense power and daring who will smash them if they try any funny business. At the same time, the relatively moderate Arabs must feel secure, like Lois Lane standing behind Superman as the bullets bounce off him. 

So clear must this be that someone like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who thinks the deity is on his side and is not easily intimidated, can be deterred from firing missiles, attacking neighbors, sponsoring massive terrorism, transferring nuclear weapons, or subverting other countries because he fears American strength and believes with near-certainty that the United States is ready to go to war and crush his regime if necessary. 

Clear so far? 

But wait a minute! How can the current U.S. government do that when its whole theme has been proving itself a nice easy-going fellow, eager to get along with enemies, reluctant to use force, and obsessed with popularity? 

What does it signal when a president acts ashamed of past American willingness to impose its will? How does this match up with the necessary posture of a fearless giant ready to face down the most ideologically intoxicated, risk-taking, prone-to-miscalculating, ruthless regime America has confronted since Berlin fell in 1945? (Sure, the USSR was far more powerful than is Islamist Iran, but it was also far more reliably rational and cynical as well.) 

You cannot have it both ways. The U.S. government will not be able to have it both ways. Is that clear? Your enemies either tremble with fear, at your scary power, or with laughter, at your diffident desire not to offend anyone. 

How you can bow down, disclaim your leadership role, and let everyone push you around one day, but then face down a nuclear Iran the next day? Answer: You can't. 

What does that mean? Iran acts aggressively and then either you don't deter it--which means strategic disaster--or you surprise it by doing what you've threatened after the failure of a low-credibility deterrence effort--which means war.

Now for the background to demonstrate why the above is true.

On one level, the two pictures above tell the story of the Obama Administration Middle East policy; on the other hand, they are very misleading.The most obvious interpretation is that the president's position is one of antagonism toward Israel and servility toward Saudi Arabia. But let's look more deeply and see why that's not completely right.

The photo on the right was taken at the King David Hotel before either Obama or Netanyahu were elected to their current offices. It was snapped during Senator Obama's only trip to Israel, before he was running for president.

What precisely led to this apparent confrontation isn't clear. Obama looks aggressive and angry, putting his finger into Mr. Netanyahu's chest in a configuration that makes it appear something like a revolver. This is neither good manners nor the usual posture of statesmen discussing international affairs. Behind Netanyahu stands Zalman Shuval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States [you can't see him in the photo very well], and Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. Understandably, Shuval appears astonished at the kind of behavior he isn't used to seeing from a U.S. senator toward Israel.

Some would comfort themselves by saying that it is Netanyahu's chest and not that of Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres. But, then, Barak is defense minister and a partner in this Israeli government and Peres--while technically not part of this government since he's president--is a full supporter of its policies. (At this point I'm torn between using the John Donne reference--ask not whose chest is being jabbed--and the Martin Niemoller one--they came for Netanyahu's chest....) The problem is not one of Israel having a "right-wing" government (which it isn't, it's a national unity government) but of basic Israeli national interests.

What serious analyst can doubt that this is the least friendly administration to Israel in a half-century? Can one imagine Obama doing to any other foreign dignatary what he's doing to Netanyahu in this photo? Would the man who hugged Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a real anti-American demagogue, possibly act this way anywhere else? He knows that Israel cannot or will not retaliate. It is a safe target that won't bite him.

Nevertheless, one must always remember that the frictions in U.S.-Israel relations so far amount to a big zero in practical terms. The new president hasn't taken any material steps to punish or pressure Israel. I predict that this will continue. There are reasons for this constraint, including Congress, public opinion, and part of the administration's officialdom.

But this real passivity also fits a wider pattern. The Obama Administration has basically eschewed toughness against anyone. Aside from some harsh words toward Israel and, grudgingly, against Iran, the government has not criticized any foreign country at all. (Actually, the State Department briefer made fun of Libya once, for declaring jihad on Switzerland, but he apologized so that doesn't count.)

The rejection of toughness is conscious, based on a distaste for force (despite Afghanistan) and an allergy toward taking international leadership in a real way, along with an apologetic rejection of past U.S. "bullying" and "unilateralism."Meanwhile, it is starting to be conceivable that Obama will get through his entire first term without exerting real pressure anywhere in the world. Doubtless, that would please many Americans though they may end up paying for it later.

A man who is nice to enemies and nasty to friends is likely to find himself with steadily more of the former and increasingly fewer of the latter. (See below my anecdote about what a veteran U.S. policymaker told me regarding Arab attitudes toward Obama.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has fallen prey to all the old myths about the region, as if these hadn't been disproved over and over again already. Among these myths have been: it is easy to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict; the lack of a resolution is Israel's fault; past U.S. commitments (and even the ones this administration makes) to Israel need not be kept; the fate of the region-even in such unlikely locales as Afghanistan and Iraq-are closely linked to Israel and the conflict; and that by resolving the conflict the region can be stabilized and anti-Americanism (including terrorism) made to vanish. Then there's the belief that radicals can be moderated by kind treatment.

Now contrast this with the administration courting and flattering Arab and Muslim opinion. What was Obama doing in the photo with the king of Saudi Arabia, the picture on the left? Presumably, he thought that a bow was proper courtesy for a commoner meeting a monarch. In Arab and Muslim culture, though, it symbolizes servility, the weaker bowing before the stronger.

The one who bows does not do so to show he is a good person but because he has to do so yield before greater power.If so, the king should be very happy about seeing so vividly enacted an Arab or Muslim fantasy of victory over America. Yet neither the king nor Arabs generally-those friendly or unfriendly toward the United States-is rejoicing at such behavior nor is it changing their behavior. Why?

Before answering that question, note that it was reliably reported that Obama's gave a bow but got no gift-wrapped present in return. The Saudi king apparently went into a long diatribe and refused to cooperate with Obama's then-initiative (remember that one?) that if Israel froze construction on settlements the Arab states would make some big step to show their eagerness for peace. In other words, bowing doesn't work.

But back to the related question of how Arabs relate to Obama's behavior, Their first reaction is bewilderment. An easy way to look at it is that those wacky Americans are just too inscrutable to comprehend. After all, that is a traditional U.S. view of other cultures, and they reverse it more often than Americans know.

How can an American leader act this way? Such behavior is outside all of their norms. To quote an old Ottoman proverb, politics in these societies often consists of kicking the one below you and licking the boots of the one above you. In their view, nobody gives up power; no one acts weak when they are strong; nobody apologizes.

It is just too weird.

So how can they explain it? For America's enemies, a common conclusion is to consider it as a trick. For them, Obama is just another imperialist, Zionist enemy but he's smarter in pretending to be something different. This makes them angry-lest America "fool" Arabs and Muslims. Yet such cynicism is the best conclusion from the standpoint of U.S. interests since it makes them still a bit scared. If Obama is just faking and is no different from George W. Bush, maybe he'll suddenly throw off the mask and bash them.

An alternative, more dangerous, conclusion for the radicals has been that America really is as decadent as they've been saying. It's the old "we love death and you love life" trope. Caught up in materialism, alcohol, sex, drugs, and rock and roll, the United States is going to collapse and is begging for mercy to draw out its life a bit longer. The radicals take this as a signal to step up terrorism and revolutionary activity because the paper tiger, trembling Americans are no threat any more.

What gives joy to the radicals terrifies the moderates. If their protector has gone soft they better appease the new bully in town.

One veteran, Arabic-speaking American Middle East expert had a fascinating way of putting it. The Arabs, he said, view the United States and Israel as close allies sharing a common (non-Muslim) civilization and set of interests. So, he continued, the moderate Arabs he speaks with say, "If they treat Israel, virtually a member of their own family, like that, what are they going to do to us!"

In other words, they don't exclaim: "Hooray! Finally the United States is moving away from Israel and will be our friend," which is what Obama and his colleagues expect. They say: Oh no! The United States is moving away from being a superpower and from being our reliable protector! The winners aren't us--the Egyptians and Saudis--but them--the Iranians and Syrians.

Thus, for the governments of Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and a number of other Arabic-speaking countries, Obama is the scariest president ever. On one hand, they don't understand him and don't know what he's going to do next. On the other hand, he is friendlier to their enemies than he is to them. A weak protector is no asset.

They are themselves--and have to cope with--ruthless men who don't flinch at torture, murder, deceit, bribery, and massive repression. An anecdote: during the 1980s, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a video widely distributed in the Gulf Arab states showing him picking out men as traitors who were then tortured and shot. He wanted his neighbors to see these videos and tremble.And so, if you're going to have a superpower protector, the relatively moderate Arab rulers prefer Arnold Schwarzenegger to Arnold Stang (an actor specializing in playing wimps, who made Woody Allen look husky by comparison). They want John Wayne, not Wayne Newton; Humphrey Bogart, not Humpty Dumpty; Indiana Jones, not Joan Rivers. OK, you get the point.

Or, as one Gulf Arab put it eloquently: We don't want an American president who is an imitation Arab. We want one who acts like an American. I think the image he had in mind was of a cowboy, not of a man easily cowed. And unless they get a man like Gary Cooper in "High Noon" they are going to suffer from High Anxiety.

What is Obama thinking? One can only speculate but the alternatives are limited and, given everything else the president has said and done, figuring this out is not so difficult. For him, the bow to the Saudi king (and others) symbolizes Obama's commitment to show that America is "just one of the guys" among countries, emphasizing respect for others with an eagerness not to be number-one anymore.He also has a strong desire to win over Arabs and Muslims as a way of defusing conflict. After all, once he shows he can hang out with the Third World, Obama seems to reason, why would anyone hate America any more?

Thus, while Obama is tough on Israel by not being tough on the radicals he is also tough on Saudi Arabia and the other relatively moderate Arab regimes. Indeed, his weakness is more likely to bring down the Saudi kingdom, which is on the frontline with Iran and dependent on U.S. protection, than it is the Jewish state, which can take care of itself. The Saudis know this very well.

Thus, Obama has achieved something that no one would have thought possible: He is simultaneously, in real terms but without any understanding of what he's doing, both anti-Israel and anti-Saudi! [If this seems strange to you, recall President George W. Bush--let's leave aside your dislike of him for a moment--and President Bill Clinton managed to be both pro-Israel and pro-Saudi.]

To succeed, Obama should instead be poking his finger at Ahmadinejad, showing strong leadership and a readiness to defend both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

After all, by the time this is all over, perhaps decades hence, one side is going to be bowing to the other for keeps.