Rangudu wrote:Rudradev,
Interesting thesis but you've massaged some facts to fit your theory. Mubarak's Egypt or Abedin's Tunisia weren't anti-West or Russia-leaning, quite the opposite. Also, the Saudis were pissed at the US "betrayal" of Mubarak but they have patched it up with Washington because they loathe and fear Shiite Persian Iran more than the MB types. Another canard is that Al Qaeda was a US proxy.
There seems to be a general tendency to weave a grand Western conspiracy against India in every scenario, but the reality is more likely a function of chaos theory combined with "Roti, KapRa, Makaan" economics. The so called Arab Spring would likely not have happened had there not been this severe an economic stagnation at a time when old style dictators were getting long on the tooth.
Rangudu,
I will gladly accept that there exist people who see conspiracies (implicating the West or whomever) everywhere; if you, likewise, accept that there exist other people who see conspiracy
theorists everywhere, and a conspiracy theory in every post.
No offense to you personally, but a point of view that likens reality to a "chaotic function plus roti-kapda-makaan" is one that implicitly exonerates deliberate interference on the part of the West or other powers in shaping events to suit themselves. In its own more comfortable way, this seems to me as delusional as a theory which blames America for every nasty thing that ever crawled out from under any rock. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
That being said, I categorically refute the charge that I've massaged any facts in my post, as follows:
Mubarak's Egypt or Abedin's Tunisia weren't anti-West or Russia-leaning, quite the opposite.
So?
From Ngo Dinh Diem to Manuel Noriega, how many pro-American leaders of other nations has the US happily thrown under the bus, when it became convenient to do so?
Indeed, if you count sundry Juntas in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, or even our own dear Jernails Zia ul Haq and Mushyrat... it seems to me that the US has actually thrown more pro-US leaders under the bus for reasons of political expediency (or because it wanted to explore "better" options) than it has successfully deposed Russia-leaning leaders.
The US doesn't waste effort and resources swimming against the tide of events, but seeks rather to shape the outcomes of opportune events. In times of momentous political change, it is content to let the chips fall where they may,
and then immediately rearrange the positions of fallen chips on the ground to suit itself; this makes much more sense than trying to control the flight paths of chips in mid-air, or defy the law of gravity for that matter.
The main point of difference, of course, is that the US acted through "omission" in its abandonment of Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia's leaders... by not bailing out these stalwart allies at their moment of greatest need. By contrast, the US invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, was actively involved in militarily subverting the Gaddafi regime's control of Libya, and is certainly on that course in Syria... all of these being, of course, traditionally Russia-leaning regimes.
In Egypt and Tunisia the US saw an opportunity in the rising tide of public dissatisfaction with the pro-US leaders of those countries. The opportunity was to consolidate control over NAWA through a new Islamist proxy ally, the MB. Earlier public evidence of America's friendly engagement with the MB, of course, arises when you look at the pacification of Iraq's Sunni Triangle.
If you believe the US version, the Sunni Triangle was pacified because ordinary Sunni Arab tribesmen decided that "enough was enough" with the insurrection led by AlQ affiliate Zarqawi, and decided to form militias to fight against the AlQ insurrectionists, throwing in their lot with America's "clear, hold and build" instead. That's a likely story.
Who were these Sunni militias who aligned themselves with the US occupation and against Zarqawi's insurrection? Ordinary accountants, cab drivers and farmers? Fat chance. It takes indoctrinated Islamists of one stripe or another to take up AKs and RPGs against other indoctrinated Islamists. In fact, these were Sunni Islamist militias of an ideological persuasion hostile to the Salafi/Wahhabandi doctrine of Al Qaeda; as we see now from their overt support for Syrian al-Ikhwan insurrectionists, these characters were Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to the core.
Egypt and Tunisia were simply the first bones thrown to these guys by the US as reward for their proxy service against AlQ in the Sunni Triangle. The pro-US leaders of those nations, of course, had to be thrown under the bus. In Syria Unkil gets to kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the Russia-leaning Assad AND throw another bone to his MB allies.
Also, the Saudis were pissed at the US "betrayal" of Mubarak but they have patched it up with Washington because they loathe and fear Shiite Persian Iran more than the MB types.
The Saudis don't have a lot of options. They are hemmed in on three sides. One, by the Shia Iranians as you note. Two, internally and externally by Al-Qaeda Wahhabandis opposed to the monarchy. Three, internally and externally by MB affiliates (cf. Sheikh Bakri of the al-Muhajiroun) also opposed to the monarchy.
Which of these threats does Riyadh necessarily perceive as the greatest? Again, if you believe the Americans it is Iran. But one thing about Iran; while it has meddled by supporting Shia insurrectionists in third nations (like Yemen and Bahrain) peripheral to KSA, it has never actually tried to foment trouble within KSA itself (which it very well could, since many of the richest Saudi oilfields lie in provinces dominated by Shia arabs.) This may indicate that there exists, if not detente, at least a mutually respectful understanding of redlines between the Saudis and Teheran.
Meanwhile the (non-state) Sunni Islamist groups, both MB and AQAP, are fiercely opposed to Riyadh... and also have no regard for the sort of redlines underwritten by norms of state-to-state diplomacy.
Between these two threats, Riyadh can at least be assured that Washington would firmly back their struggle against AQAP and its Salafist/Wahhabandi mob.
Against the MB, though, it's a different story. Note once again that Bakri of the al-Muhajiroun resided safely in London pursuing MB's political agenda until 2005. In 2006, following popular pressure over the 7/7 militant attacks, Bakri left the UK for Lebanon; but in 2007,
he intervened on behalf of Western governments by appealing for the release of an American hostage in Iraq.
Riyadh can by no means be certain that the West would support the Monarchy against an MB putsch, given the apparent willingness of Western nations to use high-profile MB figures as proxies even before the "Arab Spring" began.
When they saw the US pulling the rug out from under Mubarak, the Saudis must have $hat bricks. After all, they could very well be next! Mubarak was in many ways *exactly* like the Saudi regime in terms of his complete dependence on the US for security, from M-16s to F-15s. If the US decided to play some other card in Saudi Arabia, the Monarchy would have nowhere to turn to.
Recognizing that they had nowhere else to turn to, the Saudis (at least openly) went along with the US agenda in the NAWA "Arab Spring." What else could they do? They had to make the best of a bad situation. If they became recalcitrant against the US, they might find their own MB affiliates being supported in another twitter-fed "popular uprising" no?
To their credit, the Saudis *are* attempting to hedge their bets, by trying hard to improve relations with India for instance. Too early to say where this will go, but it's a clear recognition on Riyadh's part that their naan isn't buttered on either the Western side or the Paki/Wahhabandi/Salafi side.
There is hence no conclusive evidence, other than American propaganda, that the Saudis prefer the MB to the Iranians. They have no love for Iran but it's a very good bet that they're more afraid of a Western-backed MB with growing ambitions; and their only way to avert this threat is to go along with whatever the West demands.
Another canard is that Al Qaeda was a US proxy.
Oh come on, Rangudu. Maybe once they hung out the shingle and established the "Al Qaeda" brand they were no longer a US proxy. But you know as well as I do why the entire senior leadership of AQAM, from Zarqawi to Haqqani to OBL, were once lauded as the "moral equivalents of America's founding fathers" by President Reagan himself.
