, GCB (
What if the House of Saud, the current ruling family of Saudi Arabia, never came to power? For purposes of the scenario, let's say that Ibn Saud is killed before WWI breaks out, but the Arab Revokt still occurs.
What effect does this have on the Middle East? If the House of Saud never comes to power, would another family rise up to take its place? I will admit I'm ignorant in the subject, so feel free to correct me on anything that is wrong here.
sultan to that title.I don't know a heckuva lot about this period. Hejaz was ruled by Hussein bin Ali of the Hashemite line as a vassal of Ottoman Turkey. As a result of the Arab Revolt and British patronage, Hejaz became independent, and his younger sons became Kings of Jordan and Iraq. Hussein declared himself Caliph in 1924, after Kemal abolished the claim of the fallen Ottoman. But then in 1925, Ibn Saud kicked him out of Hejaz.
If there is no Saud, Hussein remains in power in Hejaz. I am not informed about his power relations to his younger sons, or whether they would support his pretension to the Caliphate. However, it seems likely that the Hashemites would, collectively, claim overlordship of all Arabia. Iraq might claim Hasa in the northeast, along the Persian Gulf, while Jordan would absorb the north, and Hejaz could take Nejd in the center. The Rub al-Khali would remain unclaimed for a long time - it is after all the
Empty Quarter.
I don't see any major knock-ons from this until after WW II, when oil production starts up in Hasa. This would add to Iraq's older production around Mosul. Also, it woudl leave Kuwait completely surrounded by Iraq, and vulnerable to being absorbed. Assume Iraq does annex Kuwait. If Iraq is aggressive, Bahrein and Qatar might also be taken.
So during the 1950s and 60s, Iraq has more oil revenue than OTL, but still not a lot for a big country. And there will be severe tensions between the Sunni Hashemite monarchy and the Shia majority of the population. These tensions would be aggravated by the inclusion of predominantly Shia regions such as Hasa.
The oil price spike of the 1970s will flood money into Iraq. This will aggravate the positioning struggle among the Hashemite lines. Hejaz is senior, and claims overlordship as Caliph. But Iraq is biggest, and has the most money. If Hejaz and Iraq could be unified by either line... The Caliph may acquire practical suzerainty over the other two Hashemite rulers, or the Iraqi line may succeed to the Caliphate.
Either way, that would create an Arab superpower of sorts. It could command all of present-day Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrein, with all that oil revenue - plus the Caliphate title, which is going to be a
lot more potent with the oil money - practically a Pope of Islam.
The Hashemites were not Wahhabis, so that malignant influence on contemporary Islam will be avoided; and the Hashemites have even been relatively moderate. Does the Caliphate pull them toward fanaticism? Or does Hashemite moderation, multiplied by the Caliphate's prestige, moderate Islam generally?
The future of the TL depends in part on relations with Iran. Iran run by mullahs would be extremely hostile to the Sunni Arabic caliphate. Contrariwise, the Shah might find an accomodation with fellow monarchists against restive and radicalized Shia and their clergy (e.g. Khomeini).
Another iron in the fire is how this affects relations between Jordan and Israel. Jordan was always relatively accommodating to Israel. The larger Hashemite alliance or federation may be less so. The rulers of Jordan have had limited resources, which provided a rationale for not attacking Israel at every opportunity. That will not change much in 1948 or 1956, but by 1967 and later, Jordan has the backing of the Caliph and the oil bonanza of the Gulf. It provides a direct front for the power of the oil-rich Gulf Arabs against Israel. That could be very dangerous to Israel. OTOH, if the ATL Hashemite Caliph reaches accommodation with Israel - that's practically a general peace.