Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Clash Within a Civilization. By Anthony Cordesman. Real Clear World, February 3, 2014. Also at Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Cordesman:
Western
experts may argue with some justification that the upheavals in the Arab world
since 2011 have been the product of decades of authoritarian repression, weak
and ineffective governance, failed social policies, poor economic development
and growing inequality of income distribution, corruption, and crony capitalism
– points made equally clear by Arab experts in the series of Arab Development
Reports issued by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
The
fact remains, however, that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies have valid
reasons to see these upheavals as direct threats on or near their borders, and
to the two other remaining monarchies in Morocco and Jordan, and can argue that
they were far better at meeting popular needs with their oil wealth than any of
the Arab states with titular presidents and pseudo democracies. It is also
interesting to note how many Russian and Chinese diplomats and scholars have
the same impression of the results of the upheavals in the Arab world and the
Western response – views that strike an immediate chord with Arab experts at
conferences and meetings in the region.
It is
hard to argue why most citizens of any Arab Gulf state or Arab monarchy would
envy or want to emulate any citizen of Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq,
Lebanon, Palestine, or Yemen. Whatever hopes outsiders may have in the eventual
triumph of modernization, democracy, and development, it is far from clear why
anyone in their right minds would want to live through any of the examples of such
transitions to date. At present, the best any outside power can do is to try to
find the least bad course of action. There are no good sides, merely ones that
offer less risk and less potential for future damage.
Boycotts Driven By Hate, Not Settlements. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, February 4, 2014.
