4 ms·

We could have done regime change in Saudi Arabia and still had petrodollars Sometimes its useful to think inside the box But yeah current Saudi Arabia is a go

We could have done regime change in Saudi Arabia and still had petrodollars Sometimes its useful to think inside the box But yeah current Saudi Arabia is a good deal for the US, hard to get others so heavily intertwined financially. Might as well not touch it.

yyyk 5y ago
>We could have done regime change in Saudi Arabia and still had petrodollars Very unlikely. Any military involvement anywhere near Mecca and Medina is off the table barring being invited or some utterly insane scenario.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "...barring being invited or some utterly insane scenario." I think you're being redundant there. US troops anywhere in Saudi Arabia is kind of a big deal.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I don’t really understand what US/allies get from maintaining a theocracy in SA, chevron and british petroleum predate the modern kingdom, right? why is it good business sense to let the royal family siphon cash like there’s no tomorrow? seems to me a political explanation is more likely, probably related to the holy war with Iran. In that case I never really understood why we took an anti-theocratic stance there.
- vmception 5y ago
  taking over places is more expensive than letting people have their own self determination. distributes the load, still gets the resources and influence. greater levels of animosity avoided, sometimes completely.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Saudi Arabia broadly respects western wishes, they let the western companies make billions of dollars off their oil while the monarchy also makes billions of dollars. The West worries that if they rock the boat, a situation like Venezuela or Iran will happen, where the state tries to cut out the western companies from getting a cut. Iran provides the perfect example of why we tolerate Saudi Arabia. From 1901 to 1951, Iran's oil was controlled primarily by the British. In 1951, a democratic movement lead to the nationalization of the oil industry, which quickly led to a CIA backed coup. For the next ~30 years, a Western backed dictatorship ruled and their violent rule lead to the 1979 revolution being overtly hostile to the West. The West fears any other Saudi government would end up hostile to the West, given their decades of support for the monarchy.
- dylan604 5y ago
  The devil you know... If you hold an election after toppling a non-democratic government, you never know if that's going to be the last election or not. Also, you just can't trust that the people will elect your "guy". If you're already "controlling" the current leadership, no need to turn over the apple cart.
- creato 5y ago
  My relatively uneducated impression: it seems like the current leaders of Saudi Arabia are the most liberal (in the classical sense) option. Other candidates for leadership are even more hardline religious conservatives (and when people think of the 9/11 hijackers coming from SA, it's from these groups). Pushing against the current leadership is unlikely to result in an overall improvement in the situation.

yyyk 5y ago

>We could have done regime change in Saudi Arabia and still had petrodollars Very unlikely. Any military involvement anywhere near Mecca and Medina is off the table barring being invited or some utterly insane scenario.

mcguire 5y ago
"...barring being invited or some utterly insane scenario." I think you're being redundant there. US troops anywhere in Saudi Arabia is kind of a big deal.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

I don’t really understand what US/allies get from maintaining a theocracy in SA, chevron and british petroleum predate the modern kingdom, right? why is it good business sense to let the royal family siphon cash like there’s no tomorrow? seems to me a political explanation is more likely, probably related to the holy war with Iran. In that case I never really understood why we took an anti-theocratic stance there.

vmception 5y ago
taking over places is more expensive than letting people have their own self determination. distributes the load, still gets the resources and influence. greater levels of animosity avoided, sometimes completely.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Saudi Arabia broadly respects western wishes, they let the western companies make billions of dollars off their oil while the monarchy also makes billions of dollars. The West worries that if they rock the boat, a situation like Venezuela or Iran will happen, where the state tries to cut out the western companies from getting a cut. Iran provides the perfect example of why we tolerate Saudi Arabia. From 1901 to 1951, Iran's oil was controlled primarily by the British. In 1951, a democratic movement lead to the nationalization of the oil industry, which quickly led to a CIA backed coup. For the next ~30 years, a Western backed dictatorship ruled and their violent rule lead to the 1979 revolution being overtly hostile to the West. The West fears any other Saudi government would end up hostile to the West, given their decades of support for the monarchy.
dylan604 5y ago
The devil you know... If you hold an election after toppling a non-democratic government, you never know if that's going to be the last election or not. Also, you just can't trust that the people will elect your "guy". If you're already "controlling" the current leadership, no need to turn over the apple cart.
creato 5y ago
My relatively uneducated impression: it seems like the current leaders of Saudi Arabia are the most liberal (in the classical sense) option. Other candidates for leadership are even more hardline religious conservatives (and when people think of the 9/11 hijackers coming from SA, it's from these groups). Pushing against the current leadership is unlikely to result in an overall improvement in the situation.