Thus, by the time World War I broke out in 1914, the ‘sick man of Europe’ was already on its last legs. The eventual victory of France, the United States and Britain against the Triple Alliance sealed the Ottoman Empire’s fate. Its territory was part of the spoils of victory. The Middle East was divided into British and French protectorates.
Meanwhile, the eventual founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdel Aziz Abdel Rahman Al-Saud (or Ibn Saud), had begun to claw back the land lost by the Al-Sauds. He recaptured Riyadh in 1902. In doing so he gave an early indication of his personal ruthlessness and the carnage that was to follow his ascension to power. He spiked the heads of his enemies on the city gates and burned over 1,000 people to death. Despite this early success, Ibn Saud recognised that he needed sponsorship from a major imperial power if he was to prevent a repeat of the debacle of the previous century and finally defeat the Al-Sauds’ tribal enemies.
Initially, he sought sponsorship from the sultanate of Turkey, but he was rebuffed and forced to look elsewhere. Britain had signed a treaty with Faisal Al-Saud, Ibn’s grandfather, in 1865, and so it had had some contact with the Al-Sauds previously. Now, Britain wanted allies in the region to give it a foothold within the territory of the decaying Ottoman Empire. The more allies it had, the greater its share of the Ottoman booty would be. Ibn needed Britain’s logistical and military aid to decisively defeat and subjugate his enemies. From the point of view of both parties it was a marriage made in heaven.
Contact was thus established in 1904. Britain agreed to advance Ibn Saud small subsidies, but beyond that did little. These subsidies were used to expand and maintain colonies of Wahhabi fanatics, the Ikhwan, which would later form the backbone of Ibn Saud’s conquering army. World War I saw the Al-Sauds’ tribal enemies, like the Ibn Rasheeds, siding with Turkey. Ibn Saud thus attacked them with Britain’s blessing. Small subsidies became larger and a gaggle of advisers, alongside what was then advanced military equipment, were despatched to assist Ibn Saud’s advance.
Afforded a decisive advantage by Britain’s backing and able to make use of Ikhwan fanaticism, Ibn Saud was able to bring the whole of eastern Arabia under his control by 1917. Britain’s vision of Arabia’s fate following Turkish defeat was clear: in the words of Lord Crewe it wanted “a disunited Arabia split into principalities under our suzerainty”. For his part, Ibn Saud, was, by and large, happy to acquiesce.
Article comments
1 - MBD
Yeah, we should tell Saudi Arabia to take their oil and shove it up their ass.
An oil boycott will teach them a lesson.
2 - methuselah
IMO the turning point was in 1973 when OPEC manipulated oil prices. We, the USA, had a choice between pursuing the new technoogies, alternate energy, altered tax subsidies and national conservation policies toward energy independence, or we could depend on future political and warfare policies to control foreign oil. We chose the latter, and that was a big mistake that continued our dependence on SA scoundrels and led to 9/11 and the iraq invasion. In 1973 (and following) we tied our fortunes to the fortunes of the Saudi family, to our disadvantage.
3 - Sooli
This article has quite a few fallacies, even though for the most part it is accurate (70% imho).
But I only have time to make one observation only, and I believe it is the most important:
The writer fails to mention the modern-day influences of al Qa'ida, such as Israels subjugation of the Palestinians, Israel's invasions of Lebanon, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Saudi's (and others) "hosting" of US & UK forces, the 1990's sanctions on Iraq, and "Western" blind support of all despotic, brutal, and corrupt regimes in the region (including Israel), among other modern-day popular greivances.
This is what motivates people who join al Qa'ida, this is where it draws its popular base from, and this is what all radical groups in the region -Wahabi and non-Wahabi- focus on to draw support and justify their acts.
Claiming that al Qai'da has commited violent acts of terrorism simply because it is "Wahabi" (which it is not) is far from the truth, and is a clear attempt to divert us from the true issues at hand.
The reasons why all extremists are violently angry at "the West" are the exact same reasons why moderates in the region and abroad are moderatly angry at "the West".
It is modern day political events that have driven some people to extremism and violence. If it was simply ideoligy, then millions of non-Muslims in the region would have been killed first, especially those in modern-day Saudi Arabia.