WI Saudi Arabia goes to civil war in 1964?

In the years 1962-1964 the power struggle between King Saud of Saudi Arabia and his brother Faisal escalated dangerously when Faisal allied himself with Fahd and Sultan and formed a new Cabinet excluding the sons of Saud from it while the King was absent.

Saud was furious and threatened to mobilise the Royal Guard against Faisal while Faisal mobilised the National Guard against Saud in retaliation...

However after the Ulema and several members of the Royal family intervened Saud gave in and abdicated in favour of his brother Faisal in 28 March 1964...

What if Saud sticks to his guns thus leading Saudi Arabia into civil war? What would be the impact on Middle East and the rest of the world if one of the most oil-rich countries sinks into civil war?

What would be USA's and USSR's position to the civil war?
 
Electric cars in the 1970s.

Even in OTL, GM was ready to debut an electric car in the 1970s if US gas prices went above $2.50, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0809/gallery.gm_electric_cars/5.html

gm_electro_vette.jpg
 
Well, the oil wells are going to be hit just as they were in the Gulf War, which, given the size of the Saudi reserves, means the price of oil jumps exorbitantly in the short-run and then very rapidly drops out the bottom and stays depressed for a long, long time. I'm sure you're going to see a UN intervention very quickly, but which side they back, if any, is going to depend a lot on the facts on the ground (e.g., whose winning), and the political disposition of the forces intervening (e.g. if they're NATO or Warsaw Pact troops). In the long run this means the two superpowers are able to dictate their energy policy more effectively through the UN mission that will be eventually established in Arabia, which likely means both do much better economically in the 1970s and '80s. This might be just enough to keep the shambling Soviet machine running for another decade or so, which might gave it a chance at liberalization, while in the US less inflation means the govt is free to spend more on large-scale projects, not only including the military or space missions, but also possibly UHC - ITTL Reaganomics likely never comes into power, and the far-right itself is butterflied away.
 
Last edited:
Difficult when both sides in the war were monarchist...

Indeed but USSR could support one side by supplying them with guns etc. (i guess they would support King Saud since he is weaker) and in case of victory they would pull the strings in the area through Saud who would be indebted to them...
 
Electric cars in the 1970s.

Even in OTL, GM was ready to debut an electric car in the 1970s if US gas prices went above $2.50

Hmm, the 1973 OPEC boycott worked because global oil demand had surpassed what the Californian and Texan fields could supply. Was that true in the early 60's? I'd say we'd get a rise in oil prices yes, but would it be as big as the 1973 one?
 
Indeed but USSR could support one side by supplying them with guns etc. (i guess they would support King Saud since he is weaker) and in case of victory they would pull the strings in the area through Saud who would be indebted to them...

Depending on how much they could trust him, the Soviets might even work indirectly, through Nasser. They backed his efforts in North Yemen, after all.
I'd be shocked if Nasser didn't try to take advantage of the Saudi civil war in some manner.
 
Indeed but USSR could support one side by supplying them with guns etc. (i guess they would support King Saud since he is weaker) and in case of victory they would pull the strings in the area through Saud who would be indebted to them...
If the SU gets seen being involved than it's going to turn into a proxy war, because America in the 60s is not going to stand for Soviet influence anywhere they can do anything about it.
 
If the SU gets seen being involved than it's going to turn into a proxy war, because America in the 60s is not going to stand for Soviet influence anywhere they can do anything about it.

Maybe both countries would be involved indirectly aka USSR supplying Saud and USA supplying Faisal...
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
This could get really messy.
Civil wars, in which both sides have natural resources and the possibility of selling them on the internatinal market tend to long, since this provides the neccesarry founding for weaponry.

If a war like this goes on, many of the countries are likely to get involved.

And then there are the holy cities Mecca and Medina.

Another point is the Shiit minority in Saudi-Arabia, I am not shure how relevant this is in 1964, long before the islamic revolution in Iran, but still, winning their support might be important.
 
This could get really messy.
Civil wars, in which both sides have natural resources and the possibility of selling them on the internatinal market tend to long, since this provides the neccesarry founding for weaponry.

If a war like this goes on, many of the countries are likely to get involved.

And then there are the holy cities Mecca and Medina.

Another point is the Shiit minority in Saudi-Arabia, I am not shure how relevant this is in 1964, long before the islamic revolution in Iran, but still, winning their support might be important.

WWIII? Just joking... But yes if Saudi Arabia sinks into civil war then other muslim countries would be involved too to "protect" the Holy Sites...
 
I actually think that this could aid in the development and rise of Islamic fanaticism. What's to stop Wahhabists from deciding that neither would-be king is worthy of their support?
 
Top