In 1950 ASB makes the US topple the Saudi regime

[Otto Kretschmer]

WI: in 1950s ASB makes the US topple the Saudi regime and establish a secular one in it's place. What's the future of Islamism without Saudi backing?

I'd say it'd be weaker but how much weaker?

[stevep]

Aug 17, 2023 17:24:12 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

WI: in 1950s ASB makes the US topple the Saudi regime and establish a secular one in it's place. What's the future of Islamism without Saudi backing?

I'd say it'd be weaker but how much weaker?

  You do realise your talking about a western nation imposing a secular regime on the state that not only will become very important in terms of oil supply but also controls the two most important cities in Sunni Islam!  Expect a hell of a lot of trouble, not just for the US but probably all western nations having control/influence in Muslim regions.

[575]

Aug 17, 2023 17:24:12 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

WI: in 1950s ASB makes the US topple the Saudi regime and establish a secular one in it's place. What's the future of Islamism without Saudi backing?

I'd say it'd be weaker but how much weaker?

Of course there may be an Islamic backlash but there wasn't at the moment Islamism as we understand as of today.

There was the Muslim Brotherhood establish in Egypt which also tried killing Nasser though he by 1956 initiated the Lebanon crisis - which prompted the entry of US troops to Beirut 1958 - because of the Western support of the Israeli's in the Israeli - Arab conflict in the Palestine issue.

The real problem may be that such as the Muslim Brotherhood may try use it to get a popular support of rejecting the US at the Sacred Places.

BUT - nobody will know if such action will result in a continued secular regime in Saudi-Arabia; I could well as an outcome see a muslim rejection of US and other Western states in the area actually making matters worse. The Soviet Union may well decide to join the fray in support of the Arabs against the West.

Then at some distand time Islamism as we know it today may come about.

[stevep]

Aug 17, 2023 20:51:40 GMT 575 said:

Aug 17, 2023 17:24:12 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

WI: in 1950s ASB makes the US topple the Saudi regime and establish a secular one in it's place. What's the future of Islamism without Saudi backing?

I'd say it'd be weaker but how much weaker?

Of course there may be an Islamic backlash but there wasn't at the moment Islamism as we understand as of today.

There was the Muslim Brotherhood establish in Egypt which also tried killing Nasser though he by 1956 initiated the Lebanon crisis - which prompted the entry of US troops to Beirut 1958 - because of the Western support of the Israeli's in the Israeli - Arab conflict in the Palestine issue.

The real problem may be that such as the Muslim Brotherhood may try use it to get a popular support of rejecting the US at the Sacred Places.

BUT - nobody will know if such action will result in a continued secular regime in Saudi-Arabia; I could well as an outcome see a muslim rejection of US and other Western states in the area actually making matters worse. The Soviet Union may well decide to join the fray in support of the Arabs against the West.

Then at some distand time Islamism as we know it today may come about.

  True it was a lot more restrained that now, although don't forget its only 3-4 years after the savage sectarian strife accompanying partition in India.  However it was still an important underlying factor across much of the Islamic world and the basis for the opposition to Israel that even the secular regimes in power in many areas have to pander to.  The deposition of the Saudi regime might be acceptable to many Muslims if it was done by a Muslim force but not by a non-Muslim one.  I'm not saying the entire Islamic world would be united but there's going to be a hell of a lot of rage as a result.

[575]

Aug 17, 2023 22:14:28 GMT stevep said:

Aug 17, 2023 20:51:40 GMT 575 said:

Of course there may be an Islamic backlash but there wasn't at the moment Islamism as we understand as of today.

There was the Muslim Brotherhood establish in Egypt which also tried killing Nasser though he by 1956 initiated the Lebanon crisis - which prompted the entry of US troops to Beirut 1958 - because of the Western support of the Israeli's in the Israeli - Arab conflict in the Palestine issue.

The real problem may be that such as the Muslim Brotherhood may try use it to get a popular support of rejecting the US at the Sacred Places.

BUT - nobody will know if such action will result in a continued secular regime in Saudi-Arabia; I could well as an outcome see a muslim rejection of US and other Western states in the area actually making matters worse. The Soviet Union may well decide to join the fray in support of the Arabs against the West.

Then at some distand time Islamism as we know it today may come about.

  True it was a lot more restrained that now, although don't forget its only 3-4 years after the savage sectarian strife accompanying partition in India.  However it was still an important underlying factor across much of the Islamic world and the basis for the opposition to Israel that even the secular regimes in power in many areas have to pander to.  The deposition of the Saudi regime might be acceptable to many Muslims if it was done by a Muslim force but not by a non-Muslim one.  I'm not saying the entire Islamic world would be united but there's going to be a hell of a lot of rage as a result.

Think we then agree in principle - the thing is I just want us to observe not projecting our current understanding of the Muslim World back in time. That is one of the most difficult aspects of AH I'd argue and could certainly see that running the Denmark of 1940 ISOT at AHcom.

[stevep]

Aug 18, 2023 6:22:38 GMT 575 said:

Aug 17, 2023 22:14:28 GMT stevep said:

  True it was a lot more restrained that now, although don't forget its only 3-4 years after the savage sectarian strife accompanying partition in India.  However it was still an important underlying factor across much of the Islamic world and the basis for the opposition to Israel that even the secular regimes in power in many areas have to pander to.  The deposition of the Saudi regime might be acceptable to many Muslims if it was done by a Muslim force but not by a non-Muslim one.  I'm not saying the entire Islamic world would be united but there's going to be a hell of a lot of rage as a result.

Think we then agree in principle - the thing is I just want us to observe not projecting our current understanding of the Muslim World back in time. That is one of the most difficult aspects of AH I'd argue and could certainly see that running the Denmark of 1940 ISOT at AHcom.

  Fully agree.  Islamic reactionism has become a lot more public in recent decades, especially since the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan but the proposed action would give it a hell of a boost earlier I suspect.  You could well get an unholy alliance between such groups and the Soviets, especially once Stalin kicks the bucket but its going to be an uneasy ride for any 'socialist' type regime such the Bathists in Iraq and Syria [although not sure if they were in place yet] - albeit a lot harder for any seeking to be pro-western.

  I'm not sure what the reaction of other western powers, especially Britain and France which still have significant interests in the ME would be to such a US action.  They need the US a lot but this is really going to screw over their relations with assorted Muslim nations.  Plus if its some ASB action like this do anyone else get any warning of this sudden shift in Us behaviour as its going to seem massively strange to them.

  Just thinking if its before the start of the Korean war then that could have larger implications elsewhere as well.  If the US is dealing with a major crisis with the Muslim world would it be able to respond to the N Korean invasion and would butterflies mean it doesn't get UN support. - Only needs the Soviets not boycotting the organisation at the time.  Probably aren't going to get the OTL support from Turkey as well.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Bump.

What if this is done using another Islamic army like the Jordanian one?

The resulting Saudi Arabia would be a lot like Jordan - Islam would still be the state religion but the country would be a lot more secular.

[stevep]

Aug 29, 2023 15:49:40 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

Bump.

What if this is done using another Islamic army like the Jordanian one?

The resulting Saudi Arabia would be a lot like Jordan - Islam would still be the state religion but the country would be a lot more secular.

  Are you suggesting that the ASB makes Jordan invade Saudi Arabia or that it gets the US to try and persuade Jordan to take such an action?  Both seem unlikely.

 

  Jordan would lack the required military forces to do this and also is very strongly influenced by the UK at this point.  Plus also its main military is concentrated on the conflict with Israel.  Any attempt to do this by Jordan is likely to fail - and its likely to decisively reject any suggestion by an ASB influenced US to do so.  Furthermore it would cause a lot of reactions in the rest of the Arab/Muslim world.  The dynasty that rules in Jordan also ruled the holy cities for a while post WWI so there might be some basis for a claim there  but the Saudi possession of the region, let alone the oil provinces in the east is internationally accepted.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Ehh... ok. What of it's the Saudi people themselves who topple it? ASB changes their minds so they hate the Saudi regime so much that they topple it and replace it with... I dunno what, perhaps a republic like Egypt?

[raharris1973]

Aug 17, 2023 20:51:40 GMT 575 said:

There was the Muslim Brotherhood establish in Egypt which also tried killing Nasser though he by 1956 initiated the Lebanon crisis - which prompted the entry of US troops to Beirut 1958 - because of the Western support of the Israeli's in the Israeli - Arab conflict in the Palestine issue.

The US intervention in Lebanon 1958 [and quite possibly Lebanese Nasserites or Arab Nationalists' power struggles with incumbent Lebanese President Camille Chamoun] had precious little to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict in the Palestine issue.

President Chamoun [who was a Maronite Christian] called for western support, and America answered with intervention, because he was under domestic political attack by forces that wanted to unite or at least align with the United Arab Republic, the federation of Egypt, Syria, and Yemen at that time, led by Nasser, that was seen by Washington as 'tilting' toward Moscow geopolitically, and was in fact relying primarily on the USSR for its arms imports. Nasser's de facto foreign policy was fairly Soviet aligned, but repressive against native Communist Party members in Egypt and Syria. His formal foreign policy was "Non-Aligned" which meant emphatically rejecting western alliances like the Baghdad Pact and CENTO, and hounding regional Arab leaders who participated in such alliances.

By asking for support, Chamoun put the recently announced ''Eisenhower Doctrine" to support Middle Eastern countries "against Communism, or forces controlled by Communism" to the test. And Eisenhower support intervention in favor of the pro-western Lebanese leader against his anti-western opponents to show strength in the aftermath of the complete collapse of the Iraqi monarchy, which had been the linchpin member of the Baghdad Pact to contain Soviet-backed Communist, to a surprise coup by radical nationalist officers. The Iraqi radical nationalist officers expressed an admiration of Nasser, formally non-aligned, anti-western, open to the eastern bloc policy, so Washington did not want to be seen to "lose" more countries to radical "momentum" at this time.

Fortunately, the US intervention in Lebanon 1958 was brief, there were no real combat engagements for US forces, there was a compromise political settlements, and no loss inflicted upon or inflicted by intervening US forces at that time.

Around the same time as the Lebanon intervention, I believe the British SAS may have intervened to shore up King Hussein in Jordan against similar challenges. King Hussein was even more alarmed by the events of the Iraqi revolution, because it was his own cousins getting massacred in the overthrow of that other Hashemite monarchy.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, although Israel certainly received US financial aid and acquired American arms via black market means, it was not an official customer of US arms, or recipient of US military aid or ever offered a US alliance - it's biggest arms purchase during its war of independence came from Czechoslovakia, and never could have gone through completion without Soviet permission. In the 50s, France, followed by Britain and West Germany were Israel's biggest sources of arms, rather than the USA. Whereas the US in one or more instances, offered multiple Arab states including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco and Saudi Arabia alliances or basing deals. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan consistently rejected US alliance deals for domestic political reasons. The Iraqi monarchy accepted the Baghdad Pact with the west in 1955 but was soon overthrown in 1958, with foreign policy orientation being one of the military and public's main complaints. Libya accepted a US basing deal which remained in force until the 1969 overthrow of King Idris. Morocco and Saudi Arabia accepted base leasing deals.

So Nasser's tussling about in Lebanon was more about expelling more distant western (French, British, American) than local (Israeli) influence in Lebanon. And Israel wasn't see by western governments in the 50s as a strategic asset, but instead as sort of an embarrassing forced charity project/experiment.

In fact, it took another decade of Nasser continuing to play the anti-western/pro-Soviet card, against several targets, conservative Arab states, the US, UK, Britain, and Israel, and then the Israelis smashing him in 1967 and then deterring Syrian or Iraqi intervention in Jordan's Black September 1970, to make cynical Americans start to think of Israel as a useful Cold War strategic hammer to smash troublemakers.

[Max Sinister]

They might decide to resurrect Hejaz, so the Holy sites of Islam wouldnÄt be under US control, but "just" the oil.