Saudi Revolution?

Delta Force

Banned
Saudi Arabia has experienced instability throughout its history. For example, in 1964 King Saud was forced to abdicate in a palace coup, and in 1979 the Grand Mosque was seized by extremists. The monarchy made concessions to more conservative elements, but the economy began to stagnate in the 1980s and 1990s, and radicalism continued to grow.

Compared to Imperial Iran, there are more indications of instability. Could Saudi Arabia have experienced a major disturbance of some kind between the 1960s and 1990s, such as a revolution or civil war? What might the Western and foreign response have been, especially if it occurred with a surviving Imperial Iran? Might the 1980s have seen a Iraq-Saudi War?
 
There's always these two things. A successful 1969 coup could be a very interesting POD.

Dissent in Saudi Arabia said:
In 1965, hundreds of Shiite activists, labeled communists, were imprisoned by the Saudi regime. This did not prevent a coup attempt in 1966. The rebels set off bombs near then-Prince Faud's palace, at the office of the senior American adviser in Riyadh, at the post office in Riyadh, at the Saudi security headquarters in Dammam, and at a Saudi airbase near the Yemeni border. At that time, King Faisal sought American help and renewed American guarantees of ``Saudi territorial integrity.'' The Saudi opposition is aware of the role played by the United States in apprehending the rebels.

In 1969, some 200-300 Saudi military officers attempted another coup. These officers were part of the National Liberation Front, a Saudi organization with Baathist and Marxist sympathies. Mass arrests followed. According to Dr. Fatina Shaker, some 2,000 Saudi students were recalled from abroad and arrested for ``requesting that the United Nations investigate the situation of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.'' Also arrested were hundreds of Ghamidi tribesmen from the Asir (western) region and from the Yemeni border. These tribesmen were accused of being agents of the Iraqi Baathist party.
 
I think the best POD would be to somehow avoid the coup that overthrew King Saud, there was a growing support for Nasserist Socialism during his reign due to King Saud's mismanagement of the country, allowing that mismanagement to continue and worsen will in turn anger the populace even more, drive them even further to leftist radicalism; and sow the seeds for a potential revolution.
 
Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, has a low enough population that keeping throwing money at problems (and, failing that, giving them weapons and dispatching them to Afghanistan in order to make them someone else's problems, which also requires money) has largely worked in keeping the kingdom basically stable. Cracks under the surface have begun to appear, well, almost at the very moment the kingdom was formed, and were already noticeable in the sixties. However, a mix of strategic Western support, relatively weak civil society, lots of money to be thrown at problems, and political cunning bu thte ruling elite/family, has kept a lid over things (well, mostly).
There are several possibilities for it not to work.
For example, in the aftermath of 9/11 the US decided that Riyad was the standard-bearer of "moderate Islam" and thus a valuable strategic partner, despite clear evidence that elements in the Saudi elite had pretty questionable relationships with al-Qa'ida and similar groups (the KSA had been a major sponsor of the Taliban -and of course, bin Laden's family is part of the Saudi elite). This was driven by important reasons in the eyes of the American decision makers, but it had not be necessarily the case. 9/11 was a shock big enough to warrant a 360 turn in the Middle Eastern policies if the Administation so chose.
Without Western backing, the position of the Saudi power vis-à-vis internal trouble is considerably worsened, especially if this includes "extreme" measures such as the freeze of financial assets.
It's hard to see what would come out that, but any post 2001 destabilization in the KSA is unlikely to be pretty (not that the current regime is particularly pretty either, to be fair).
 
yeah there was an offshoot of the ANM (arab nationalist movement) that operated in Saudi Arabia, I think with some influence from the PFLP's brand of Marxism. They're probably one of your best bets.
 
Remember that the house os Saud is just one of many tribes inhabiting the Arabian Penninsula. What about bedouhins? or those pesky mountain tribesmen down near the Yemeni border? or all those differnet Arab Emirates? Which one of those tribes is most likely to raise a revolution? or what about all those hundreds of thousands of "guest-workers" from Indonesia, Baluchistan, etc.?
 

Delta Force

Banned
If socialists or communists took power, would that have led liberal elements in Islam to become more prominent and crowd out reactionaries? Would Middle Eastern terrorism then be more political in nature and likely oriented around the Arab-Israeli Conflict?

Also, if revolutionaries took power and Imperial Iran existed, might there be an Iranian intervention in Eastern Saudi Arabia? The region not only has a large Shia population, but also extensive energy resources.
 
Secularists of any kind ruling Saudi Arabia is ASB as hell. If there's one city on Earth where Marxist–Leninist atheism isn't gonna fly, its Mecca.
 
Secularists of any kind ruling Saudi Arabia is ASB as hell. If there's one city on Earth where Marxist–Leninist atheism isn't gonna fly, its Mecca.
In the 1950s, the US and UK assumed that the end of the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies was only a matter of time, but that the Iraqi monarchy was ok.
 
If socialists or communists took power, would that have led liberal elements in Islam to become more prominent and crowd out reactionaries? Would Middle Eastern terrorism then be more political in nature and likely oriented around the Arab-Israeli Conflict?

Also, if revolutionaries took power and Imperial Iran existed, might there be an Iranian intervention in Eastern Saudi Arabia? The region not only has a large Shia population, but also extensive energy resources.

Whatever regime emerges is going to have a Ba'athist or Nasserist veneer, but is going to be dominated rather quickly by anti-Saudi tribes (this is assuming that a coup goes off as planned and doesn't just lead to civil war, a distinct possibility). The regime will still probably have a secularist bent, so they may encourage a more liberal interpretation of Islam. They will, at least, avoid embracing Wahhabism, which is directly tied to the Saudi dynasty.

As for terrorism and political activism, an Arabian revolution could re-embolden the Pan-Arab movement, especially once Arabian oil money starts flowing. If Jordan falls, the likelihood of a lasting Arab confederation goes up to somewhat plausible. That means that pan-Arab secularism and socialism holds on longer, and the unified Arab states might be able to give Israel a run for its money. Israel will still win, but pan-Arabism might not be so discredited, which in OTL led to the growth of political Islam.

As for the Shi'a, the new regime is likely to be much nicer to them, and try to win their support on a pan-Arab platform. It could work. The Iranians aren't likely to get involved directly, although they may take the opportunity (especially if it's past 1971 or the British are afraid of a revolutionary Arabian Republic) to annex Bahrain and try to prop up a Shi'a para-state through arms and money. If they try that though, Iraq will get dragged in. It could be the start of a regional war.

Another interesting option if civil war breaks out is an attempted Hashemite reconquest (perhaps alongside conservatives among the rebels) of the Hedjaz from Jordan. If the West backs them, they could be successful, which would be crazy and cool.

Secularists of any kind ruling Saudi Arabia is ASB as hell. If there's one city on Earth where Marxist–Leninist atheism isn't gonna fly, its Mecca.

Not really. The regime can be secular and appoint someone (perhaps an old Hashemite, if they're feeling confrontational with Iraq?) to be the Sharif of the Holy Places. As long as the regime doesn't mess too much with tribal prerogatives and keeps the oil money flowing, they'll do just fine.
 
The Shah of Iran was sufficiently concerned about the prospect of a Libya-style military coup against the King of Saudi Arabia that he proposed to plan an intervention and counter-coup with US approval. The 1969 situation was used as justification for this - Iran knew what was going on, and wished to support the House of Saud, but the request for aid never came. Without that request, Iran could do nothing.
As for the Shi'a, the new regime is likely to be much nicer to them, and try to win their support on a pan-Arab platform. It could work. The Iranians aren't likely to get involved directly, although they may take the opportunity (especially if it's past 1971 or the British are afraid of a revolutionary Arabian Republic) to annex Bahrain and try to prop up a Shi'a para-state through arms and money. If they try that though, Iraq will get dragged in. It could be the start of a regional war.
I've been toying with doing this the other way around: a surviving Imperial Iran intervenes in Bahrain, sparking a regional war with Iraq and Saudi Arabia that culminates in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq being hived off into a new Iranian-backed Shia Arab state - kind of by default, Kuwait would get included too. The remaining rump Saudi Arabia would have most of the population, and relatively little oil; Iraq wouldn't do much better, and Iran would become the undisputed regional hegemon. Some form of regime change in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq is almost inevitable, and probably wouldn't be peaceful - you may actually get two, as the Iranian-imposed leadership is deposed by popular risings.

Western opinion would of course be divided between Iran as defender of the rights of oppressed minorities, and Iran as expansionist power that dominates the oil supply. That 'Iran' and 'Aryan' have the same root, and the Iranian victories would look an awful lot like 1938-1939 in German-speaking Central Europe, would be popular talking points in some circles.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would the west intervene against a military or republican coup if it was moderate and promised to keep the petroleum flowing? Saudi Arabia doesn't seem like the kind of country that would turn to the Soviets.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Would the west intervene against a military or republican coup if it was moderate and promised to keep the petroleum flowing? Saudi Arabia doesn't seem like the kind of country that would turn to the Soviets.

As long as the oil keeps flowing, they don't join the Soviet sphere, and they continue their ambivalence on the Israel issue, there would be tacit acceptance of that kind of change.
 
Top