Geopolitics of a Middle East without Saudi Arabia

In the Middle East today, there are two major players in the geopolitics of the region-Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both coutnries are using the Middle East as a playground to battle each other for influence, particularly in Syria and Yemen where they support rival factions in both countries. The cold war between the two is supported by countries outside of the region, particularly the United States and it's support to Saudi Arabia. Both the cold war itself and the involvement of outside powers have irrevocably changed the Middle East.

So, let's imagine the geopolitical situation in the Middle East WITHOUT Saudi Arabia. In an alternate timeline, Mohammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab is executed and Ibn Saud never unites the country. World War I proceeds as normal, except for the absence of the Arab Revolt due to Hussein supporting the Ottomans in this timeline. Egypt still becomes a British protectorate after the Ottoman declaration of war in 1914.

What we know of as Saudi Arabia becomes a British mandate. The southern tips of the mandate are taken over by Yemen. British Bahrain and Kuwait take over sections on the east coast. The Hejaz region is taken over by Egypt. This includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina

After World War II, the British further partition the peninsula. Now, they divide the mandate into a Hashemite-run Sunni-majority country in the north, bordering Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and a Shi'ite country in the eastern half, bordering the Persian Gulf and Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE.

What impact would the non-existence of Saudi Arabia have on the geopolitics of the region? Does Saddam Hussein still rise in Iraq? Does Iran still become a Islamic theocracy?
 
You break up Saudi Arabia. But does Iran still have a Shah? Iran was a very open, western-friendly country until the revolution in the seventies. The trouble was that it took an authoritarian ruler to make it that way.
 
Iran was a very open, western-friendly country until the revolution in the seventies. The trouble was that it took an authoritarian ruler to make it that way.

No, it was not. Iran hat well-off urban elites which were open and western-friendly. Then the highly conservative rural majority became dominant. Or do you think the Ayatollahs got into power just because they hypnotized the country?
 
What kind of butterflies are we talking about?
Well, Arab nationalism doesn't gain such traction, which could severely influence movements all across the Arab world, particularly Egypt, Iraq and Syria. The effect might not be obvious in the immediate aftermath of WW1, but after WW2 this could make a lot of difference when forming the new states, and especially concerning Israel. With less Arab national movements, you could have many OTL Arab states remain European protectorates. Egypt and Algeria could certainly interesting.
 
Well, Arab nationalism doesn't gain such traction, which could severely influence movements all across the Arab world, particularly Egypt, Iraq and Syria. The effect might not be obvious in the immediate aftermath of WW1, but after WW2 this could make a lot of difference when forming the new states, and especially concerning Israel. With less Arab national movements, you could have many OTL Arab states remain European protectorates. Egypt and Algeria could certainly interesting.

Wasn't Britain forced to decolonize the Middle East by the collapse of their empire after World War II?
 

Zen9

Banned
Eastern coastal state...Al Hasa.
Western states Asir and Hejaz.
Central Nejid.....spelling issue.

So western states could be held by Egypt or Hashemites.
Eastern is the Shia territory and opposite Khorzestan (memory?) in Iran and 'Narrain' marsh Arabs. Making upper Gulf a Shia sea.

Without Saudi there's no destruction of the Prophets toomb.
 
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab lived in the 18th. century, so the POD would be more than 200 years ago, even before the great powers started to get involved in the region. WW1 and major international wars far earlier would be butterflied away. I would suggest a POD after 1900, in order to make it easier to speculate about 20th. century developments. Even with a much later POD than you suggest, Saudi Arabia was far from predestined to be united. Egypt managed to suppress the first Salafists attempt to conquer large areas. A more successful Rashidi dynasty might help.

So let us assume a POD after 1900, possibly some time during the Saudi–Rashidi War (1903–1907). The major butterfly would be that Salafism would be a much weaker force, as they would not be sponsored by a major oil producer like Saudi Arabia. Actually Panarabism might become a stronger force since Islamism would be weaker. Even with this POD, it is quite impossible to say whether Iran would become controlled by the clerics. The major turning point in Iran was the coup in 1953. Since the turning point here is half a century earlier, the world situation might develp quite differently. It seems likely that there will still be a great war, although what triggers it might be something different. If Germany during such an ATL great war decides to start an unrestricted submarine warfare, the United States might enter this ATL war, like it did OTL. There is also the possibility that there will be a revolution in Russia, if there have not already been one. The timing of these events might be different though, something which would be important as the international situation would be different elsewhere and other persons would be in control in various countries and might make different decisions, which would influence what those in other countries would do and so on. One important question here is how this would influence the Aliyah and whether the numbers of Jews entering Palestine would be smaller or larger. The existence of Israel has played a major role in the politics of the Middle East. The establishment of the state of Israel was by no means a given. During the OTL interwar period Britain gradually restricted access to Palestine due the ethnic strife it lead to, and due to pressure from the Arab states. In this ATL we do not really now for sure who would be in control of Palestine. We also do not know how the political situation would be in Germany. Would they lose an ATL great war, like they did in OTL? Would there still be a major economic crisis? Would something like fascism still develop? Would there be a communist takeover in Russia? If the bolsheviks to not succeed in Russia, communism would be seen as less of a threat, and the political left in Europe would probably be more United. In this situation it seems less likely that an ATL far right party similar to the nazis would be able to come to power, even if there were an economic recession (although they might succeed later if the socialists do not succeed in solving the crisis). If Germany was on the winning side of an ATL early 20th. century great war, the situation would of course be different. How would this influence the situation in the Middle East? If we assume that the Ottomans were still allied with Germany, they would "survive" longer.

No matter what would happen in this situation, it seems quite clear that a world without the Saudi regime would be a better world.
 
Given the butterflies of that early a diversion points, let's keep in the post-1900s. Maybe the Rishidi end up just wiping out the House of Saud or maybe a disaster like plague hits them. Regardless, the House of Saud and their supporters of Wahhabism is finished, sinking into the sands and into obscurity.

This leaves either the House of Rashidi or Hashemites as the real power players left. Without the Sauds for the British to try and back up in World War I, the British are forced to be fairer over to the Hashemites, but to which extent, I do not know. My guess is that they would still retain the Hejaz and become a state under British protection.

I have no idea how Palestine would go, but they may try and assert more control. Alternately, there was this to consider: https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-j...s-negotiated-with-zionists-founded-a-kingdom/

I figure this shiekh of shiekhs would still navigate his way to a strong position and negotiate with the Zionists. Without the Ssauds ruling the chunk of Arabia, the Hashemites could be a in a stronger negotiating position.

And even if not, then he would likely exploit this down the line to try and turn the Zionists against Europe or at least to consider Hashemite Arabia better allies. Europe's neglect of the Jews and the Holocaust would be a pretty damn good way of achieving that and that with financial assistance, they could further seperate themselves from British influence.

I do not know how things would go with Iran here. Granted, we would have more progressive Islamic elements, but the people of Iran were still really wanting to have money from their oil rather than it going to the British. Maybe the Hashemites would go talk to the SUA and dissaude them of the preoccupations.
 
No, it was not. Iran hat well-off urban elites which were open and western-friendly. Then the highly conservative rural majority became dominant. Or do you think the Ayatollahs got into power just because they hypnotized the country?
The elites retained power when the economy remained strong. Then trouble came with economic troubles in the mid seventies, allowing a radical, Ayatollah Khomeini, to stir up a faith-based revolution. But back to the OP, how much will dividing the country up between different protectorates gain? Are the people going to support regimes that get their power from British, American, Russian or other European powers? As the Islamic world becomes more educated and aware, won't they all push for more self-government?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
MORE powerful hanafi madhab of sunni islam w/o the deep inroads made by salafis /wahabis

I see Turkey playing more of a role in arab politics than in OTL
 
I see Turkey playing more of a role in arab politics than in OTL
That is unless the Turkish nationalist movement goes differently and becomes more Marxist in orientation instead of what eventually happened. Which might keep them out of power longer than OTL but could give them something to look forward to. Something was going to happen in Russia; if that sentiment spreads to Turkey, . . .

As for Saudi Arabia itself, obviously the Hashemites retain control of the Hejaz and someone takes control of the Nejd, but I don't think generic superstates on tbe basis of divisions in Islam would happen. That would be too disruptive to the divide and rule mentality of colonization, which in a MENA context focus on local emirs, sheykhs, khedives, etc. rather than dealing directly with the Sublime Porte unless it's to weaken. If Turkey becomes run by the Left (take your pick how that turns out), then the Caliphate becomes insecure as the Empire that sustained it crumbles. Anyone could seize the opportunity, and solidify it by marrying into the last Caliph's family. In that you could have the Hashemites seize the opportunity by virtue of their custodianship over Mecca and Medina, or you could have the Hashemites - backed by the Caliphate - fulfill the role the Saudis did IOTL in trying to unite the Arabs together under one state, even with different borders from OTL Saudi Arabia. Only you won't get the Sunni superstate coming from this but a reaffirmation of traditional Islam as people at the time understood it. As the Sunni/Shi'i split was not as strong then but was subsumed under traditional beliefs with huge influence from the mystics and holy men, then the rivalry as such would not exist and allow for the possibility for the growth of syncretic movements like the Druze, like the Alevis, and the like. This would be a much different Islam than those of in the West would be familiar with.
 
Top