WI: The House of Saud Overthrown

[Don Draper]

I have become interested lately in this potential POD, as it would have enormous implications for the Middle East, yet never seems to come up around here. What could cause the Middle East's most famous monarchy to go the way of its counterparts in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, etc? I know that given the strong support by the U.S. for the royal family that it would be difficult, but could it happen?

Maybe if Faisal isn't around (for whatever reason) to overthrow King Saud, and Saud's excesses and incompetence eventually alienate the army and National Guard enough to back a Nasserist coup in the 60s? Or could divergence of certain things lead to an Islamist revolution later on?

If such a thing were to come to pass, what would be the effect on the Middle East? What would this change for the Gulf states, Iran, Iraq? What about Israel? What would the implications be for US foreign policy in the region (depending on what era this took place in)?

Any thoughts are welcome.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

A lot depends on what kind of government fills the power vacuum, assuming it's filled at all.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Any Nasserist revolution is quickly going to find itself struggling with a complete lack of popular support or social legitimacy, compounded by pressure from the United States and conservative Gulf states. The Republic of Arabia either ends up back under a branch of the Saudi monarchy (perhaps now with a legislature dominated by tribal sheikhs and the ulama) or ends up as an Egyptian or Iraqi puppet, reliant on their 'peacekeepers' to fight an ongoing insurgency.

 

[Don Draper]

Any Nasserist revolution is quickly going to find itself struggling with a complete lack of popular support or social legitimacy, compounded by pressure from the United States and conservative Gulf states. The Republic of Arabia either ends up back under a branch of the Saudi monarchy (perhaps now with a legislature dominated by tribal sheikhs and the ulama) or ends up as an Egyptian or Iraqi puppet, reliant on their 'peacekeepers' to fight an ongoing insurgency.

Interesting. What would be the most vulnerable moment for the House of Saud in your view? (as a reader of your fantastic Middle Eastern TL I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the subject).

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Interesting. What would be the most vulnerable moment for the House of Saud in your view? (as a reader of your fantastic Middle Eastern TL I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the subject).

Thanks!

Apparently, there was a failed coup plot in 1969. Not much is known about it, but it could succeed with some handwavium. After that, the biggest threat to the Saudis is Islamist revolutionaries unhappy with American influence, modernization and Saudi family corruption and avarice.

 

[Don Draper]

Thanks!

Apparently, there was a failed coup plot in 1969. Not much is known about it, but it could succeed with some handwavium. After that, the biggest threat to the Saudis is Islamist revolutionaries unhappy with American influence, modernization and Saudi family corruption and avarice.

The most I can find on it with a quick search is that the officers involved had Ba'athist and Marxist leanings, so they would indeed quickly have to turn to Syria, Egypt or Iraq for support. As you said, they wouldn't have the popular and social legitimacy to secure the country quickly even if they seized Riyadh, so the result could be civil war between the pro-Ba'athist faction backed by the Soviets through Syria/Iraq, against the American-backed surviving royalists. Sounds like a recipe for all kinds of loveliness.

I may have to do a deeper dive on Saudi history to get to the bottom of this.

 

[The Kiat]

Give it time, it can still happen. As soon as the Sauds lack the ability to buy of the populace with all sorts of entitlements, they'll be in trouble. If you think terrorists and extremist fight hard over stuff in Iraq or Syria, wait until the holiest holy sights are up for bid.

As for WI; the best bet would be the late 40s or early 50s, back when the isolationist movement was still viable. I know the public won't care if the Sauds are ousted in 1953 and I doubt many politicians would beyond who replaces them (something like a Soviet-leaning, leftist government perhaps). Considering the monarchy in Iraq and Egypt was overthrown, I doubt Arabia would be much different than those two.

 

[Plumber]

The Saudi and Jordanian monarchies were seen as unstable and not long for this world by analysts in the US and UK in the '50s. Faisal changed that. Exacerbate the power struggle between him and Saud or have the Nasserist coup succeed and there you go. Since Faisal is the main person responsible for the rise of Islamism as a competitor to Nasser, this has huge implications. Proto-Islamists certainly aren't going to have any of their OTL money to fight against the Arabian Republic.

Any Nasserist revolution is quickly going to find itself struggling with a complete lack of popular support or social legitimacy, compounded by pressure from the United States and conservative Gulf states. The Republic of Arabia either ends up back under a branch of the Saudi monarchy (perhaps now with a legislature dominated by tribal sheikhs and the ulama) or ends up as an Egyptian or Iraqi puppet, reliant on their 'peacekeepers' to fight an ongoing insurgency.

Nasser was probably more popular than the Saudis, given that whencer he visited the kingdom he drew crowds that they had never seen before. Additionally, the would-be President of the Republic of Arabia came from a prominent Hejazi family that fought against the Sauds in the '20s. The United States isn't going to view a Nasserist movement as an enemy, though this is a possibility if it occurs after 1967. The only Arab coup that resulted in a civil war was Yemen, where Saudi Arabia generously backed the anti-Egyptian rebels. The most likely base for a counterrevolution would be in the isolated Najd, which is good at avoiding conquest from far away power centers (ex: the Ottomans) but is ill-suited to receive the supplies necessary for a long-term insurgency due to this same isolation.

It's hard to imagine a Republic of Arabia, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened had a few things gone differently.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Nasser was probably more popular than the Saudis, given that whencer he visited the kingdom he drew crowds that they had never seen before. Additionally, the would-be President of the Republic of Arabia came from a prominent Hejazi family that fought against the Sauds in the '20s. The United States isn't going to view a Nasserist movement as an enemy, though this is a possibility if it occurs after 1967. The only Arab coup that resulted in a civil war was Yemen, where Saudi Arabia generously backed the anti-Egyptian rebels. The most likely base for a counterrevolution would be in the isolated Najd, which is good at avoiding conquest from far away power centers (ex: the Ottomans) but is ill-suited to receive the supplies necessary for a long-term insurgency due to this same isolation.

It's hard to imagine a Republic of Arabia, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened had a few things gone differently.

Interesting, hadn't been able to find anything specific about the coup attempt. As for Nasser's popular support, I think that while Nasser might be popular, Nasserism is going to struggle. Nasser's populist policies benefitted mainly a growing state sector, peasants and the urban working and middle classes. In Saudi Arabia, there is barely an urban class to speak of, and rural populations are more closely tied by clan and tribe than in Egypt, where relationships are much more 'capitalist'. Like North Yemen, Nasserism won't have a sufficient social base to survive, especially beyond the death of Nasser.

That said, I did discount the idea that a relatively conservative, tribal Republic of Arabia could survive. If they can successfully nationalize and continue processing their oil reserves without sparking an American invasion, they'll have enough money to run a standard rentier state while spreading the patronage around to more families than one and attempting to industrialize and modernize their economy. In the long run, I think you get a dictatorial republic with an ongoing insurgency in Nejd, a couple dozen families running the show instead of just the Saudis (although the elite may be roughly the same size, what with Saudi breeding techniques), and a powerful Wahhabist movement disgusted with the state's pretensions at modernity.

 

[Simon]

Interesting. What would be the most vulnerable moment for the House of Saud in your view?

Well there was the Free Princes Movement during the late 1950s early 1960s, if things went differently with one side of the royal family calling for reforms and the other defending the status quo you could perhaps see them distracted/destabilised enough for the third party like the military to come up and overthrow all of them. Nasser already saw himself as the regional leader and strongman, imagining him being able to tap into Arabia's oil money via influence over the government is going to make things really interesting.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Well there was the Free Princes Movement during the late 1950s early 1960s, if things went differently with one side of the royal family calling for reforms and the other defending the status quo you could perhaps see them distracted/destabilised enough for the third party like the military to come up and overthrow all of them. Nasser already saw himself as the regional leader and strongman, imagining him being able to tap into Arabia's oil money via influence over the government is going to make things really interesting.

Oh wow. A United Arab Republic (Egypt + Syria) that includes Saudi Arabia is a potential monster. With all that oil money, Egypt could really get the ball rolling on pan-Arab unity...

 

[Cook]

It's hard to imagine a Republic of Arabia...

It used to be hard to imagine an republic of Iran.

 

[Green Painting]

It used to be hard to imagine an republic of Iran.

It would be Republic of Hejaz and Republic of Nejd though, as Iran is a nation-state with a shared history, and Saudi Arabia is a state defined by a royal family.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

It would be Republic of Hejaz and Republic of Nejd though, as Iran is a nation-state with a shared history, and Saudi Arabia is a state defined by a royal family.

A Nasserist military regime might appeal to a supranational identity (Arab) and try to unite the people as the Arabian region of the Arab nation, with some Arabian particularism thrown in (heartland of the Arab people, protector of the holy sites, yadda yadda).

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that the local Nasserists, after a year or two of trying to make a go of it on their own, agree to annexation by Egypt in exchange for positions in the new regime and substantial proceeds from the oil wealth of the region. If Egypt controls Arabia's oil wealth, all of a sudden their position as a regional giant is unchallengeable. That could reignite pan-Arabism as a real force.

 

[Shiva]

Actually a better POD would be during the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979. If the Islamist forces had had more backing, as in a few Generals, or a couple princes trying to us them, they could have really discredited the Saudi's while whipping up support for themselves.

With the backing of factions in the military, and the civilian population turning to them, Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani could have overthrown the House of Saud and established his 'Mahdi Kingdom' and started a campaign to bring the 'House of Islam' under one roof, so to speak.

 

[Cook]

It would be Republic of Hejaz and Republic of Nejd though, as Iran is a nation-state with a shared history, and Saudi Arabia is a state defined by a royal family.

Why not the Republic of Arabia or Islamic Republic of Arabia then? There'd already been a United Arab Republic. Given the tendency of revolutionaries to be either ideological and evangelical (wishing to spread their revolutionary message abroad), or nationalist and irredentist (looking to 'recover lost territories' abroad). Revolutionary Arabia could have gone either way and the name would have been suitable to either ideological camp; perfect if they are hoping to unite both camps.

 

[President Farrakhan]

The Saudis are recognized as arguably the worst tyranny outside of North Korea.....but the rest of the world has a Gentlemen's Agreement to whistle past this particular graveyard, because nobody has the stones to see what's behind Door #2.

I suppose an Israeli-Saudi nuclear exchange would be the absolute worst case scenario. Assuming they don't figure "Well there goes the neighborhood. Fuck it, Icarus Falls time!" and toss some preemptive ground bursts around.

lol $2000 a barrel oil?

 

[Don Draper]

A Nasserist military regime might appeal to a supranational identity (Arab) and try to unite the people as the Arabian region of the Arab nation, with some Arabian particularism thrown in (heartland of the Arab people, protector of the holy sites, yadda yadda).

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that the local Nasserists, after a year or two of trying to make a go of it on their own, agree to annexation by Egypt in exchange for positions in the new regime and substantial proceeds from the oil wealth of the region. If Egypt controls Arabia's oil wealth, all of a sudden their position as a regional giant is unchallengeable. That could reignite pan-Arabism as a real force.

This seems like a likely case if a Nasserist coup were to succeed, though would that be viable if they took power as late as 1969, eight years after the breakup of the UAR? Though maybe it could give the then-declining pan-Arabism a shot in the arm.

 

[xerex]

It is entirely possible that in a 1979 Wahabbi revolts that Saudi Arabia splits into 4/ The Wahhabi controlling the center and North. Pro Iranian Shia holding the east and the oilfields. Pro Yemen Shia grabbing the South West and Nasserist/Baathist groups holding the West.

 

[Plumber]

A Nasserist military regime might appeal to a supranational identity (Arab) and try to unite the people as the Arabian region of the Arab nation, with some Arabian particularism thrown in (heartland of the Arab people, protector of the holy sites, yadda yadda).

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that the local Nasserists, after a year or two of trying to make a go of it on their own, agree to annexation by Egypt in exchange for positions in the new regime and substantial proceeds from the oil wealth of the region. If Egypt controls Arabia's oil wealth, all of a sudden their position as a regional giant is unchallengeable. That could reignite pan-Arabism as a real force.

Mmm, Nasser considered Syria to be more trouble than it was worth, but Arabia is quite a different story since it is literally free money.

It used to be hard to imagine an republic of Iran.

Precisely, precisely.