What's new

Saudi Arabia’s dream of becoming the dominant Arab and Muslim power in the world has gone down

The 87 billion USD is when the regional and security administration figures are added in (because Saudi Arabia did not separate the two in previous public releases of the budget). These numbers are for counter-terrorism and internal security forces and do not count towards the military budget.
Would you not think that these two are still related to each other? They both count as defence budgets.

And @burning_phoneix and @Full Moon I'd rather we didn't turn this thread into another endless Iran v Saudi thread. I assure you that I have replies to yours but I'd rather not get bogged down in a troll fest.
 
Its a paper tiger thats all, it may take a another decade or 2 just to be able to operate your own equipment and military.
 
Would you not think that these two are still related to each other? They both count as defence budgets.

Not really, they go to funding the forces of the Interior Ministry, from serious things such as the Anti-narcotics forces to more benign task such as the Civil Defense forces (Fire Fighters and the like).

To make it clearer, the budgets for the CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA and the ATF are not included with the military budget of the United States Armed Forces (at least I don't think so? Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Its a paper tiger thats all, it may take a another decade or 2 just to be able to operate your own equipment and military.


Err....we already operate our own equipment?
 
Nope, we relize our natural limitations and this has nothing to do with Iran. When it comes to Iran, we are pretty much the only state that has been working on combatting their spread of Shia genocidal terrerosim in the region through Hezbollah, Iraqi Hashd, Afghan Hazra gangs, Houthis.... you name it. Iran is weak and tired economically so their ability to sustain their expansion is not going to last so long. Poverty rates in Iran is astonishing, and their currency has entirly collapsed. This was caused by the political instanity that Iran has been a victim of since Feb 1979.

These groups aren't expansions of iran, whether with or without iran they are there.
 
These groups aren't expansions of iran, whether with or without iran they are there.

No, they are simply an extention of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی‎‎. This is just too obvious to be disputed.
 
Not really, they go to funding the forces of the Interior Ministry, from serious things such as the Anti-narcotics forces to more benign task such as the Civil Defense forces (Fire Fighters and the like).

I dunno, the Reuters link said it was military-related... we need more detail on this.

To make it clearer, the budgets for the CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA and the ATF are not included with the military budget of the United States Armed Forces (at least I don't think so? Please correct me if I'm wrong)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion
 
It's incredibly naive to suggest that Saudi Arabia does not wish to become a regional leader or that it does not wish to expand its sphere of influence beyond its borders and become a dominant power in the Sunni Arab World, if not in the wider region.

All states/countries around the world have these kinds of geopolitical ambitions, including small countries such as Qatar, Israel, Belgium, Vatican City, etc. That's the nature of geopolitics. All countries have their very own spheres of influence, no matter how small or weak they may be or appear to be, and all countries around the world are invariably destined to pursue a policy of expanding their spheres of influence abroad (i.e. beyond their national/state borders) for the purpose of gaining geopolitical leverages on the regional stage and, possibly, global stage. Even the smallest of countries (e.g. Qatar, Israel, etc) wish to become, and could become, regional leaders.

So anyone who suggests that Saudi Arabia hasn't tried to lead the Sunni Arab World is either naive or being outright disingenuous.

As for the article in question, I would agree with its author that Saudi Arabia has so far failed to become a real regional leader.

----------------------------------------------------

If anyone around here is interested in understanding the geopolitical goals of Saudi Arabia, then continue reading.

First of all, we must look at Saudi Arabia's geography. From a geographic point of view, Saudi Arabia is a large country. In fact, it is one of the largest countries in the world. Having said that, Saudi Arabia is, arguably, extremely unfortunate. In fact, I would make the argument that the UAE, although a much smaller country, is geographically more fortunate than Saudi Arabia by virtue of the fact that it has direct access to the open sea in the form of the Indian Ocean. By contrast, Saudi Arabia does not have direct access to the open sea, and is actually surrounded by various choke points in the form of the Suez Canal, Strait or Hormuz, and Bab-el-Mandeb.

2483086462_d3f3c2d19d_o.jpg


Saudi Arabia's export-driven economy depends heavily on the long-term security and stability of these choke points. For countries such as Oman and the UAE, which trade mostly through the Indian Ocean, a political crisis in the Mandeb Strait is not as detrimental to their national economies as it would be for a country like Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, Saudi Arabia has no other option but to expand its sphere of influence beyond its national borders and into countries such as Yemen and Egypt. From Saudi Arabia's point of view, these two aforementioned countries are incredibly important.

Saudi Arabia, therefore, sees Egypt and Yemen as its first line of defense against hostile regional rivals. Saudi Arabia must ensure that both Yemen and Egypt remain on good terms with Riyadh in order for the Saudi state to feel safe and secure.

The problem occurs when other countries in the region begin to challenge Saudi Arabia's sphere of influence in Egypt and Yemen.

For example, Turkey is interested in expanding its sphere of influence beyond its borders as well. For Turkey, Egypt is a very important country since it is viewed as a gateway into the Red Sea and, ultimately, Indian Ocean. Turkey cannot reach the Red Sea or Indian Ocean without passing through Egypt. This means that Turkey must develop very strong economic and defense ties with the Egyptians.

The more influential the Turks become in Egypt, the less safe/secure the Saudis would feel. Naturally, therefore, the geostrategic interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia will inevitably collide in Egypt. Egypt will end up becoming a battleground between the Turkish and Saudi spheres of influence until one of the two countries gains the upper hand, or until Egypt becomes powerful and assertive enough to push back both Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Another country that will naturally cause problems for Saudi Arabia is Iran. For the Iranians, Yemen is seen as a gateway into the heart of the Arabian Peninsula. A strong Iranian presence in Yemen would allow Tehran to undermine Saudi Arabia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It would also be seen as a great opportunity for Iran to expand its influence into the Hejaz region.

This is exactly why Saudi Arabia feels that it must have a strong influence and political presence in countries such as Yemen and Egypt. This is also explains why Saudi Arabia was willing to go to war in Yemen. For the Saudis, losing Yemen to the Iranians and Egypt to the Turks is akin to signing your own death warrant.
 
Arabia is the heartland of the Islamic world religiously (hosting the most holy sites in the Muslim world), historically (cradle of Islam and where the first Islamic Caliphates emerged from), cultural (Muslim dynasties from modern-day KSA ruled the Caliphate/most ofMuslim world for almost 1000 years and during the Islamic Golden Age, Arabic is the lingua franca of the Muslim world and the liturgic language of Islam) and Arab culture was and historically is the most dominant culture in the Muslim world.
There's no such thing as Arab culture. The Arabic-speaking World is not a homogeneous place and consists of a diverse range of cultures, most of which predate Islam and predate the adoption of the Arabic language.

For example, Lebanon, which is an Arabic-speaking country, is culturally closer to Cyprus (a non-Arab country) than it is to Saudi Arabia.

Iraq, another Arabic-speaking country, is culturally closer to non-Arab Iran than it is to Sudan.

Arabic-speaking Tunisia is culturally closer to Italian-speaking Sicily than it is to Arabic-speaking Yemen or Oman.

Really, there's no such thing as "Arab culture". You have Mediterranean culture in most of North Africa and the Levant, Nile Valley culture in Egypt and Sudan, Mesopotamian culture in Iraq, and "Arabian" culture in the Arabian Peninsula.

Even famous scholars from the Islamic Golden Age, such as Ibn Khaldun, classified the culture of sedentary/urban Arabic-speakers as either Persian-oriented (in the case of Iraq) or Greek-oriented (in the case of Egypt and the Levant).

So you can't really say that Arab culture was/is the dominant culture of the Muslim World. That's simply not true, especially when considering the fact that most of what became known as mainstream Islamic culture in the Middle East and North Africa was either traced back to Persian civilization or Hellenic civilization.

---------------------------------------------------

As for Arabia being the political heart of the Muslim World, that's also not true. The Fertile Crescent was the political heart of the Muslim World for a few hundred years when the region was ruled by the Umayyads and Abbasids.

Afterwards, Turkey became the political heart of the Islamic World for nearly 700 years.

Even to this day, most Muslims in the MENA region consider Turkey to be the center of the Islamic World, especially after the Islamists came to power in that country in 2002.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.
 
There's no such thing as Arab culture. The Arabic-speaking World is not a homogeneous place and consists of a diverse range of cultures, most of which predate Islam and predate the adoption of the Arabic language.

For example, Lebanon, which is an Arabic-speaking country, is culturally closer to Cyprus (a non-Arab country) than it is to Saudi Arabia.

Iraq, another Arabic-speaking country, is culturally closer to non-Arab Iran than it is to Sudan.

Arabic-speaking Tunisia is culturally closer to Italian-speaking Sicily than it is to Arabic-speaking Yemen or Oman.

Really, there's no such thing as "Arab culture". You have Mediterranean culture in most of North Africa and the Levant, Nile Valley culture in Egypt and Sudan, Mesopotamian culture in Iraq, and "Arabian" culture in the Arabian Peninsula.

Even famous scholars from the Islamic Golden Age, such as Ibn Khaldun, classified the culture of sedentary/urban Arabic-speakers as either Persian-oriented (in the case of Iraq) or Greek-oriented (in the case of Egypt and the Levant).

So you can't really say that Arab culture was/is the dominant culture of the Muslim World. That's simply not true, especially when considering the fact that most of what became known as mainstream Islamic culture in the Middle East and North Africa was either traced back to Persian civilization or Hellenic civilization.

---------------------------------------------------

As for Arabia being the political heart of the Muslim World, that's also not true. The Fertile Crescent was the political heart of the Muslim World for a few hundred years when the region was ruled by the Umayyads and Abbasids.

Afterwards, Turkey became the political heart of the Islamic World for nearly 700 years.

Even to this day, most Muslims in the MENA region consider Turkey to be the center of the Islamic World, especially after the Islamists came to power in that country in 2002.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

Not sure if serious or trolling. Stopped reading after the first sentence.
 
KSA without democratic system and with the current tyrant rulers doesn't deserve the leadership of Islamic countries.
First Arabian people of peninsula have to remove Al-Saud family from ruling system then implement Presidential, Parliamentary, Urban and rural councils elections. After that Arabian peninsula will be ready to host Muslims world wide and everyone will respect it's ideology. Currently Al-Saud family's gift to Muslim countries are only terrorism. The terrorists that fight their governments in order to ruin the Muslim countries.
The same advice for Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt and other dictatorial Arab countries. I hope this comment will not lead to shit storm :whistle::woot:
 
There's no such thing as Arab culture. The Arabic-speaking World is not a homogeneous place and consists of a diverse range of cultures, most of which predate Islam and predate the adoption of the Arabic language.

Same can be said for nearly every civilization out there. The presence of predecessor cultures or peoples does not preclude a people from having a shared culture.

You say that Iraq has a "Mesopotamian" culture. What does that entail?

Do Iraqis follow the religion of Marduk and Ishtar? No, the vast majority follow Islam, the religion of the Arabs.

Do Iraqis speak the Babylonian language? No. They speak Arabic, the language of the Arabs.

Do Iraqis name their children ancient Mesopotamian names? No. the vast majority name their children Arabic names.

By nearly every metric, this would qualify as an Arab culture.

It's incredibly naive to suggest that Saudi Arabia does not wish to become a regional leader or that it does not wish to expand its sphere of influence beyond its borders and become a dominant power in the Sunni Arab World, if not in the wider region.

What actions has Saudi Arabia done to become a dominant power?

I don't deny that every nation tries to gain an advantage on the global and regional stages but that is different from trying to become a DOMINANT power, which implies it wishes to subjugate the rest of the region.
 
Same can be said for nearly every civilization out there. The presence of predecessor cultures or peoples does not preclude a people from having a shared culture.

You say that Iraq has a "Mesopotamian" culture. What does that entail?

Do Iraqis follow the religion of Marduk and Ishtar? No, the vast majority follow Islam, the religion of the Arabs.

Do Iraqis speak the Babylonian language? No. They speak Arabic, the language of the Arabs.

Do Iraqis name their children ancient Mesopotamian names? No. the vast majority name their children Arabic names.

By nearly every metric, this would qualify as an Arab culture.
Did Iraqi cuisine come from the deserts of Arabia? No.
Did Iraqi architecture come from the deserts of Arabia? No.
Did Iraqi art and literature come from the deserts of Arabia? No.
Did Iraqi music come from the deserts of Arabia? No.
Did Iraqi folk traditions, folk dances, and clothes come from the deserts of Arabia? No.

Religion is only a small part of culture.

Culture consists of many other elements, including architecture, art, music, instruments, tools, clothing, food, cuisine, superstitions, lifestyles, habits, attitudes, folk traditions, folk dances, literature, morals, customs, laws, etc.

Yes, Iraq is an Arabic-speaking country, and so is Chad, but Iraqi culture has more similarities with non-Arab Iran than it does with Arabic-speaking Chad.

Likewise, Britain, an English-speaking country, is culturally closer to the Netherlands than it is to English-speaking South Africa.

And yes, culture is pretty much a social construct, just like ethnicity. The truth is, none of them really exist.

That said, culture is mainly determined by geography, climate, and the physical environment. Languages and religions do not influence culture as much as culture influences them. For instance, Islam in Iran is a lot different from Islam in Saudi Arabia. Islam in Iran has been highly Persianized in order to make it more compatible with Persian culture and tastes. Likewise, Islam in Albania is highly Europeanized and is practiced differently from Islam in sub-Saharan Africa. The same goes for languages. The Anatolian version of Turkish is a lot more refined and has less guttural sounds than the Turkish spoken in Kazakhstan and Xinjiang province.

What actions has Saudi Arabia done to become a dominant power?

I don't deny that every nation tries to gain an advantage on the global and regional stages but that is different from trying to become a DOMINANT power, which implies it wishes to subjugate the rest of the region.
Being a dominant power doesn't necessarily mean wishing to subjugate others.

Anyway, I wrote a very long post about how Saudi Arabia views its surroundings from a geopolitical point of view.
 
Sometimes, i have the same question too...For example, what is difference between Mediterrian Food and Persian food when we choose a resturant..Is Mediterrian is a super set where Arabs, Persian are included?

I am sorry, if this is my silly post, but it is always a question for me.
 
Saudis are/were never going to dominate the Sunni Muslim world. This article is just for keeping the Anti-Sauds happy. ;)

No one is interested in the example of Erdottoman shooting in the foot either!
 
Back
Top Bottom