Saudi arabia

When the Shah of Iran gave the order to create the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) in 1974 it is unlikely that he had any idea of just how controversial his move would ultimately prove. The AEOI brought order to what had hitherto been a disorganised programme and set the country on the path to an eventual clash with the world’s leading western powers. That clash began in 2002, when at a public press conference in Washington DC, an Iranian opposition group, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) exposed details of undeclared Iranian nuclear activities, which had progressed much further than anyone had suspected. At least, almost anyone.

Whatever happened to America’s desert kingdom? In the four months since Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud became king of Saudi Arabia, everything we thought we knew about this supposedly risk-averse US ally has been turned on its head. In a ruling house long known for geriatric leadership, the new king has pushed aside elder statesmen and seasoned technocrats alike in favour of an impetuous and uncredentialled son, Mohammed bin Salman, who may be in his late twenties. Now the world’s youngest defence minister, the princeling is already second in line for the throne, prompting grumbles from Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, about ‘inexperienced youngsters’.

After years of hearing how terrible Western interventions are in the Middle East (Exhibits A, B and C the fiascos of Iraq, Afghanistan and post-Gaddafi Libya), it will be interesting to see how a Saudi-led all-Muslim intervention fares in Yemen. My prediction is it won’t be much better than those of the infidels. For a start we are dealing with the poorest country in the Arab world. Whereas Iraq sits on a lake of oil, squandering the proceeds with a venality that is ghastly to behold, Yemen is running out of water, let alone oil. With an estimated GDP per capita of $2,500, the country comes 187th in the world. The figure for Saudi Arabia, incidentally, is $31,300. The last thing Yemen needs is more war.

If the cries of ‘Je suis Charlie’ were sincere, the western world would be convulsed with worry and anger about the Wallström affair. It has all the ingredients for a clash-of-civilisations confrontation. A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more than the truth.

Today a quick game of 'spot the difference.' First, here are some photos, released yesterday, of Isis pulling down the crosses on ancient churches and desecrating Christian holy sites in Mosul, Iraq. They admit to doing this because they wish to destroy all records of pre-Islamic civilisation and because, they say, they are following Islamic law. And then secondly we have Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti speaking at a conference in Kuwait on Tuesday. There Saudi Arabia's top cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, called for the destruction of all churches on the Arabian peninsula. He explained that this is necessitated by Islamic law. So perhaps the first part of the game should be 'spot the difference'. The second part might be: 'and which one is our ally?' Answers below.

As oil prices continue to plummet, the rather sterile debate over Saudi intentions drags on. Some believe the Saudis are locked into a secret conspiracy with Washington to stiff Russia and Iran. Others prefer to take the Saudi oil minister at his word and believe that it’s all about market share. The truth is that the debate is founded on a false dichotomy: the Saudis are doing both things at once, and several other things as well. The best way to understand this is to try to step into the shoes (or sandals, rather) of a senior member of the al-Saud family. Your neighbourhood is convulsed in war and revolution, and you have seen apparently stable regimes in Tunisia and Egypt swept away, while your own vassal state of Bahrain is on the verge of civil war.

There are now thought to be more British-born members of Isis than there are Muslims in the British Army, leading lots of people to ask how they could hate us so much. After all, we did everything right: we imported low-skilled migrants from among the most clannish and socially conservative societies on earth to do badly-paid industrial jobs that were disappearing, ensuring their children grew up in unemployment; then we taught those children that our culture was decadent and worthless and our history tarnished with the blood of their ancestors; then we encouraged them to retreat into their religion through financial subsidies to the most openly sectarian and reactionary members of their community. What did we do wrong?