Saudi Succession Shuffle
Saudi Succession Shuffle
A not unexpected event has just been announced: 31-year old Prince Muhammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Sa’ud has been elevated from Deputy Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia by his father, 81-year old King Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul-Rahman al-Sa’ud, to replace his 57-year old cousin, Prince Muhammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Sa’ud. The former Crown Prince is Minister of the Interior, a position he inherited from his father, the late Prince Nayef, who was Crown Prince prior to current King Salman, but died before the most recent king, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul-Rahman al-Sa’ud died at age 90 in 2015, so Salman got to be king and now has moved his younger son up ahead of his somewhat older nephew. Muhammed bin Salman (MbS) is also Defense Minister, the position his father had taken in 2011 on the death of Prince Sultan, who was then also Crown Prince, with Salman prior to that serving as Governor of Riyadh province for 40 years. MbS has by all accounts been running things in Saudi Arabia recently, being behind the aggressive war in Yemen that has gone badly and also probably the main orchestrator of both Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and the move to diplomatically and economically isolate Qatar. Juan Cole describes MbS as being “sloppy” and “unwise,” but he may be in position now to rule Saudi Arabia for a long time to come if this appointment is not reversed somehow by other members of the Saudi royal family.
It is possible that the trigger for this elevation has been reports in the last few days of the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense, Mad Dog Mattis, turning increasingly against the campaign against Qatar pushed by MbS, despite Donald Trump’s repeated support for it via Twitter. Not only did Tillerson sell Qatar a bunch of F-15s a few days ago, but yesterday Tillerson demanded that the Saudis and Emiratis (from UAE) present their specific demands of the Qatar regime. It has been two weeks since they initiated this campaign against Qatar, with the clear support of Trump, but indeed they have neither issued specific demands that by satisfying them Qatar could bring about an end to this diplomatic and economic embargo, nor have they presented a shred of evidence of the Qataris financing terror groups, the supposed justification for all this, although pretty much everybody knows that it is a more general annoyance by the Saudis with their not just going along with whatever the Saudis want as well as in particular the Qataris being too friendly with Iran, although even the anti-Iran Tillerson and Mattis realize that the US is allied de facto on the ground in the war against ISIS, which the Saudis have done near zero to support, not to mention Qatar hosting the US major air base that is being used in the campaign against ISIS/Daesh.
Regarding the tangled relationships in the Saudi royal family, all these current players are descendants of the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz, who died in 1953 after uniting Saudi Arabia and having 43 sons and over 100 wives, although never more than 4 at a time. Certain wives were more important than others and produced more important sons, with basically only three in play here regarding possible future succession to the Saudi throne. Currently in charge and looking to cement their hold are the 7 sons of Abdulaziz’s favorite wife, his cousin, Hassa bint Ahmed al-Sudairi, the so-called Sudairi Seven, of whom only two remain alive, Abdul-Rahman who was once Deputy Minister of Defense but was removed from that position and the succession by arguing with other members of the family, and the current king, Salman. Of the others, the most important was Fahd who was king for over 20 years prior to Abdullah, dying in 2005, Sultan who long served as Defense Minister, and Nayef, father of the just deposed Muhammed from being Crown Prince. This current shuffle amounted to an intra-Sudairi Seven switch, with the Sudairis appearing to nail down a strictly hereditary line that is theirs.
The main potential rivals would be the sons of late King Abdullah, the most important of whom, Mulab, succeeded his father as Commander of the tribally based Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG). He might have the potential for pulling off a military coup, although the official military under the control of the new Crown Prince is probably more powerful, if push were to come to shove. However, it seems that he does not have all that much support from other top Saudi royals.
More competent would be one of the sons of the late King Faisal, viewed without question as being the most competent and revered of the 43 sons of Abudlaziz, whose mother came from the al-Sheikh family, descendants of Muhammed bin Abdel-Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi doctrine that the Saudi royal family has followed since 1755. At age 16 in 1919, Faisal represented his father at the Versailles conference. He would later serve him as Foreign Minister and continued to do so even as king until his assassination in 1975 at the hands of a nephew. The most competent of the second generation was his son, Sa’ud, educated at Harvard, who served as Foreign Minister from 1975 until just before his death in 2015, then the longest serving foreign minister in the world, but he is not available being dead. Another candidate might be his 72 year old brother, Princeton-educated Turki, who ran Saudi intelligence from 1977 to 2001, when he stepped down 9 days before 9/11, with it being convenient that he had been the one who selected Osama bin Laden to go to Pakistan and fight the Soviets in 1979. Turki has since served as ambassador to both the US and UK and is now Chairman of the King Faisal Foundation, a very powerful body, but he has reportedly angered family members by being too vocal in criticizing certain policies publicly. More serious and reportedly a candidate for the succession when Abdullah died in 2015, is another Faisal son, Khalid, now Governor of Mecca, also educated in Princeton. He is widely respected, but at 77, well, the Faisals are just too old, and quite a lot of commentary about the new appointment of MbS is that he is a millennial, and this is the moment of the millennials taking charge there, even if it is a “sloppy” and “unwise” and highly aggressive one that is doing so.
Frankly, this does not look good. Having a hot head running Saudi Arabia rather than a cool son of the late King Faisal could end up leading to a lot more bad things in an already much troubled Middle East.
Barkley Rosser
Addendum: One should be wary about Wikipedia information regarding members of the Saudi royal family. Some of it is inaccurate. Thus Wikipedia claims that Hass bint Ahmed al-Sudairi died in 1969, but she was not only still alive more than a decade later, but was for all practical purposes running the kingdom from a hospital bed through her powerful sons.
Addendum, 6/22: Apparently Muhammed bin Nayef has made a recorded TV statement supporting his replacement as Crown Prince by Muhammed bin Salman. He has also been deposed as Minister of the Interior, no word on what else he might be doing, although no reports of jail or exile. Presumably they will treat him semi-decently if he continues to play along. Also, MbS is being portrayed as a sort of authentic “real Saudi,” whom youthful Saudis really like, and who has this dynamic vision of the future (women will get more jobs, even if they still do not work with men). He was educated inside Saudi Arabia and apparently does not speak English very well, unlike all those snobby Faisals with their Harvard and Princeton educations. Also, he wears sandals, presumably the distinctively Saudi kind, rather than loafers. So, a real man of the people, even if he is a sloppy hothead.
“hosting,” not “hosing,” hah!
I suppose this information on the House of Saud’s internal gov’t royal hierarchy has some relationship to US foreign policy in the ME … vis-à-vis
1. Our oil interests in the ME
2. Our extreme hatred of the Iranian regime.
3. Our hegemony in ME relative to Russia’s wanna-be interests.
Take a quick look at a map and demographics of the ME. What it tells me is that the Saudi’s have the manpower, oil wealth, and military power in ME that the US must cater to if items 1, 2, & 3 are to remain prevalent in US interests.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are tiny, tiny little enclaves (redundancies intended) run by other hereditary royal dictatorships on the peninsula. The continue to exist only at the Saudi’s pleasure.
GDP, billions of US dollars , 2014
$798.3 Saudi Arabia
$399.4 UAE
$210.1 Qatar
$172.6 Kuwait
$ 33.9 Bahrain
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Middle_East
Military Strength, 2014
State……………..Active Duty(k)…..Tanks…….Air Craft
Saudi Arabia…..233.5………………1095………652
UAE………………..65.0………………. 545………444
Kuwait…………….15.5………………..368……….101
Bahrain…………..13.0………………..180……….105
Qatar………………11.8…………………90………….72
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-most-powerful-middle-east-militaries-2014-12
And Qatar has a strong military alliance with Turkey…which is ranked as the strongest military power in the ME by all sources (2017)..
Active Duty…. 405k
Tanks…………2,445
Air Craft………1,018
Source: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=turkey
So I don’t think Qatar is at risk of a military invasion by the Saudi’s but and the rest of the tiny principalities are sidled up closely with papa bear… no doubt because they need papa bear’s support I’m not really sure about the UAE…. they may be more or less independent economically from the Saudi’s.
The importance of Saudi Arabai is its oil production and position as the world’s largest oil exporter, not its population or military power, the latter only amounting to something because of all the arms we have sold them over the decades since FDR shook hands with Abdulaziz, known as “Ibn Saud,” back in 1945, when it was US oil companies that owned and ran ARAMCO. Its population and arms look impressive compared to the Gulf sheikhdoms, but not compared to Turkey, Egypt, or Iran.
Funny that you left one of the GCC nations off your charts, Oman, who is the silent partner. It shares control of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran. It is small, but it has a pretty serious military. It has not joined the Saudi-led alliance against Qatar, but it has kept completely quiet, in contrast wtth Kuwat. Part of why it behaves as it does is that it is neither Sunni nor Shia, unlike the others, and so out of that quarrel, maintaining decent relations with both sides. They are Ibadi Muslims there. The Saudis would love to make them heel like they are trying to do with Qatar, but they know they cannot mess with Oman, and the US has a lot of military there, but everybody just keeps quiet about it.
BTW, for all the arms and men the Saudis have, their performance in the war in Yemen has been a pathetic flop. But then they have long wanted to make Yemen heel also, but they have never been able to get them to do so, and now is no different, despite their bigger and better arms, although they have managed to induce a cholera epidemic and famine with their intervention.
Barkley I appreciate your post, good information!
As to Mohamed bin Salman, he is quoted to have said “we will not fight Iran in the kingdom” or such and is linked to an al Qaeda explosion of a bus with Iran Republican Guard troops in the Baluch district which has less than 2% of Iran’s population.
As to failure in Yemen, Saudi follows US doctrine, since when I shared tech school with them in the early 70’s. The excuse for bombing not working is royals get first shot at flying F-15’s…… Reality is bombing don’t work, see Vietnam and Galbraith’s minority opinion in the WW II Strategic Bombing Study. Yemen was Nasser’s Vietnam and now Yemen is the kingdom’s Vietnam.
And the Saudis are on the side which the Egyptians defended in 1964!
As to Oman when the colonies were breaking up after WW II and India gaining separation Oman ceded its Baluch holdings on the north shore of the Indian Ocean/gulf to Iran and what became Pakistan.
Long tooth,
Saudi military is an enigma, a lot of its armor is in the “national guard” which is of dubious “value.” Qatar aligned with Turkey with logistics support from Iran is impervious to enduring Saudi invasion like the one invited in to Bahrain to suppress their Shiites in 2011.
Iran: 80m people mostly Shiite. GDP ~$1.9 T, Iran has land links to Russia and soon India and China! MbS mess there any more and the kingdom is in trouble!
Iraq has about 25M Shiites of 36M total. Why no one worry about the Saudi royals wants it broken up by sect too few Sunnis! when the Kurds are discounted!
There are over 100m people from which to recruit aid for Syria all much closer than the few Saudis.
Turkey 80m people, GDP about $2.1T mainly secular Muslims. Have Kurd issue, and need to accommodate Iran and Russia in Syria.
Saudi Arabia: 30m [runby Wahhabis nut cases], GDP 1.8T, can buy a lot from Lockheed, but their style is royals!
SA is an example of where Jefferson said ‘the tree of liberty needs to be manured with royals’ blood! US support the Wahhabi side in SA because US oil magnates and arms dealers (much lesser extent) are skimming off the $1.8T!
US needs to stop fixing foreign policy on bribes from King Salman!
Barkley & ilsm
I intentionally omitted Oman due to it’s relative size and length with Saudi Arabia… similar in size and border to Yemen. I also omitted Oman because it has traditionally since the 1980’s at least remained equally aligned with Iran as with the Saudis… a kind of independent “neutral” entity of sorts.
As has been illustrated in Yemen the Saudi’s aren’t able to bring the to task and I assume it would be more difficult to bring Oman into the fold for the same reasons, as well as Oman’s links with Iran… I doubt the Saudi’s are willing to provoke Iran directly by invading Oman.
The tiny enclave kingdoms of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE are are a different sort of Saudi “child” however. Their size and border length with Saudi Arabia is tiny thus far more easily invaded and put under direct Saudi control. As long as they remain dutiful children, however, they have nothing to fear.
That brings in Qatar, however … who can be called the “belligerent child” in this analogy. The goings on of late between the Saudi’s and Qatar with their now united blockade and sanctions thereof, is interesting but still an internal issue.
The U.S. is only concerned that it retain it’s military outpost in Qatar (and Naval base in Bahrain) and that it not be drawn into a serious conflict while the Saudi’s are basically trying to force the US to take sides (with the Saudi’s)… the US is thus potentially between a rock and hard-place in that regard. In reality the Saudi’s can do little to nothing to force the US either way (other than propaganda style tweets and rash statements by our fearless leader). Qatar has a NATO ally on it’s side so effectively has no real jeopardy from any military action from the Saudi’s and apparently the economic sanctions imposed on Qatar aren’t a a serous threat .. a temporary inconvenience at most I would guess.
The Saudi internal gov’t shake-up with the new heir apparent is purely internal politics and unless it makes any overtures to the Russians there’s nothing the U.S. need be concerned with.
The entire peninsula is run by raw dictatorships, with Qatar being somewhat (apparently) more prone to push the boundaries toward a more open style than the other kingdoms.. Al Jazeera an example, even if sometimes muzzled on specific. And from what I can determine as a raw outsider is that if Qatar is able to shift to a more open type society then it’s probably a serious enough threat as a sharp thorn in the other kingdom’s abilities to maintain civil order in their own span of control.
As to the size of these tiny sheikdoms (square miles):
Kuwait…..6,880…(80% the size of New Jersey or a little smaller than Riverside Co. in CA)
Bahrain….. 300… (~ 50% the size of American Samoa or 2/3’s the size of San Mateo Co. in CA )
Qatar…. .4,468….(80% the size of Connecticut or ~ the size of San Diego Co in CA)
UAE……32,278…(~ same size as South Carolina)
Oman and Yemen not so tiny:
Oman….. 119,500 (same size as New Mexico)
Yemen….194,553 (18% larger than California)
Barkly, I do enjoy your posts on the topic so don’t get me wrong. What I find wanting in those posts, however, and from my point of view only, is their relevance(s) to world or even just U.S. affairs of any significance, real or potential. I just don’t see any real or significant or potential relevance… and maybe that’s because I’m not learned enough.
Did not think you were gazing for lint so I changed Navel to Naval. I do not believe anyone would doubt your knowledge on a number of topics. So little to prove. Some times a general conversation works devoid of numerous facts.
Gosh, Longtooth, you are right. It is of no interest to anybody in the US or elsewhere that the main architect of a newly aggressive stance by Saudi Arabia against Iran, wanting to “take the war to Iran,” as well as against Yemen and Qatar, and who appears to have the strong support of our president and his son-in-law, has just been elevated to being next in line to become king of Saudi Arabia. I should have not bothered with this, completely unimportant.
Barkley:
I was asked by someone unnamed whether I thought AB would benefit from your words. Mostly I am a quiet reader and do not say much on topics. Some people provoke me to words. Much of my life has been in manufacturing and I went to one of those schools for my Masters where they had a lot of bankers running around. Talk about odd man out . . . especially when talking of my experiences. When I was asked if I liked having your posts around, my answer to the party asking was “f*ck-yea” in pure shop-floor language. I like reading your stuff. Don’t you go anywhere.
Barkley,
There are a number of leaders who will become more known for those in the US…we are myopic in not considering the rest of the world as important. I think the topic quite relevant.
Barkley, I believe in fact that you are absolutely right… there are millions of people in the US who love to watch a good shooting match, especially when it doesn’t involve their own direct participation. I get that part, I really do.
What I don’t get from your posts is anything resembling significance.
Let me illustrate with your latest statement:
“… main architect of a newly aggressive stance by Saudi Arabia against Iran,….. has just been elevated to being next in line to become king of Saudi Arabia.”
So? What do you think about that? Do even remotely think the Saudi’s will attack Iran?????
“Aggressive stance”???? I think you mean “talk and more talk and the more talk”. If you consider talk an “aggressive stance” then every Sunni royal run nation in the ME has been making “aggressive stances” against Israel and Iran forever…. and after three major defeats against Israel they still use lots of talk against Israel…. funding any anti-Israel group that exists to keep the rhetoric sounding like it has teeth.
If you really think Saudi talk against Iran is “aggressive stance” then do you mean there’s some real likelyhood > 1% or 2% that the Saudi’s will use any kind of military aggression against Iran?????
If so please let the rest of us know why you think this is a likelihood.. .that might be something of significance to your posts.
.
Run …
Your statement is precisely why I post responses::
“Some times a general conversation works devoid of numerous facts”
.A general conversation has to have a point to make… other wise it’s like saying “oh, the sky is grey today and it was blue yesterday”. So what? Make a point. Even if it’s just “I prefer blue sky’s because…..”
Run… continuing (I hit return accidentally too soon)….
I point out with facts that which makes something plausible or implausible, likely, or unlikely. I make a point and then use facts (as best I can find or deduce them) to support my point. I subject my facts to other’s scrutiny so they can refute them with better facts or other relevant facets related to those facts which may or may not support or refute my point… or “opinion” supported by some relevant facts.
As best I understand “shooting the bull” (aka “general conversation”) it’s normally done among a small group in a relatively confined setting… not open to every tom, dick, and harry that happens by.
In contrast, Angry Bear is an open forum… every tom, dick, and harry that happens by is free to join the conversation, argue, implore, add to it, change the topic even, … so unless I’m mistaken, when somebody posts something anybody is free to comment on what they like or dislike, agree or disagree about the posted commentary or subject. And each such person does so in their own way… which is sort of the whole idea of an open forum.
I like the stuff Barkley posts about things… but simply ask him why he thinks the stuff is relevant to something… he provides information based on his knowledge of things which is great… but I have to ask so what about that information. Yes, the sky is grey today. So what? Is there something about that information that makes it relevant to something?
I surmise his information relates to a potential new conflict in the ME, or a change in balance of power in the ME, or some policy change that will affect world order or the US or its other allies, or the price of oil, or something. From where I sit I see no such potential… and so I say so and then ask obliquely or pointedly what point he’s making.
I think Barkley’s posts are just fine and provide information which perhaps others aren’t aware (even some things of which I wasn’t aware)… i.e. “news” as it were… but I think he has a reason for posting that news (on ME) than just the “news”. All I’m asking him is to tell others, including me, what the relevance of his “news” is to anything.
Wow, Longtooth, you are really worked up about this. Salman is 81. MbS is crazy. This is not important? Look at Yemen and Qatar.
Ok Barkley, now tell me why this is important?
Oh, I already agreed with you, Longtooth. It is of no importance whatsoever that an aggressive madman backed by the US president might soon become the ruler of the world’s largest oil exporter and be in that position for a half century, a man engaging in an unwarranted and bizarre aggression against the world’s largest natural gas, who is partially allied to Iran. This is completely unimportant. Of much more importance is whether you have recently laundered underpants or not.
Barkley,
I sincerely mean no offense but you continue to steadfastly refuse to provide any significance of importance to the news that the “sky is grey” today. I honestly don’t understand why you refuse.
In your latest response you simply said:
“…an aggressive madman backed by the US president might soon become the ruler of the world’s largest oil exporter…..”
Let me rephrase that part of your statement in objective terms: ‘The Saudi royal family has decided upon a new heir apparent to rule Saudi Arabia.’
You use subjective adjectives “aggressive” & “madman” to describe the characteristics of the new heir apparent. But the you fail utterly to say what difference this makes if he’s “aggressive” or toward what ends? As to “madman” … we have one of those presently leading the US, freely elected in fact and though you and I are concerned and alarmed by what that particular madman may do we cite our specific reasons and concerns. You have not done so with respect to the new Saudi royal heir apparent.
Next in your statement you say:
The heir apparent will be “….engaging in … aggression against the world’s largest natural gas [exporter], who is partially allied to Iran.”
[Qatar is the NG exporter partially allied to Iran]
Again you use the term “aggression” but without a shred or any basis or foundation to support what you mean by “aggression”. Do you mean invade rule?
The present regime has already taken economic sanctions against Qatar which by most interpretations is not an act of aggression but of non physical coercions… the US use this same method frequently as well to serve it’s own interests (or so it is said)…. and we don’t refer to it as “aggression”.
And you speculate that Saudi Arabia will invade, overtake, and rule Qatar, in spite of the fact that Qatar is also aligned with the NATO nation Turkey (which is by far the largest and most powerful military in the ME).
Do you have any basis for your speculation of some as yet completely undefined form(s) of “aggression” you can support with any rational reasoning? And more than that even if the Saudi’s DID invade, overtake, and rule Qatar, or install their own selected Qatar royal to do so, then so what? You fail utterly to provide any significance of import to even that speculative thought.
It seems to me, from where I sit and what I have observed, presently and historically, you are using an implied and inferred FUD with zero foundation to support it… but refuse steadfastly to give any rational foundations for what you may be trying to infer or imply… much less tell us of what we should be afraid.
Parenthetical thought:
Barkley describes a royal decree by a dictatorship of installing an heir apparent to serve the royal’s best interests, in their opinion, who in Barkley’s opinion (and I’m certain in many othes) is an “aggressive” and a “madman” .
The U.S. installs a present leader (not an heir apparent) who is an “aggressive” and who is also characterized as a “madman” to serve the U.S.’s own best interests, in the opinion of a majority of electors in a free and open “democratic” (not a royal dictatorship) election,
Is there any reason the Saudi royals should be chastised for their selection while the “free democratic” election process should not be chastised for their own selection?
In both cases the selection was in the opinion of those doing the selections in their own best interests. What’s the difference?
Wow, Longtooth, you have completelyi gone off the deep end. I suggest you get a new brand of toothpaste. What are your standards of what is important to post, and why do you not get all incensed and make repeated demands of others that they justify their posts?
This is the last I am going to post on this now aging thread. Both Trump and MbS are asshole aggressors and jerks, and they are feeding off each other. KSA may not invade Qatar, but this action against Qatar is unjustified nonsense and making a mess of a lot of things, including the world market for helium, which Qatar supplies a third of. Without Trump, MbS would not have done this. Worse still is Yemen, where thousands are dying because of MbS policies backed by Trump. The story here is that both are bad, but I suspect that Trump is supporting this move to upgrade this no good Saudi.
So, that is all there will be from me. Have fun brushing your teeth, Longtooth.