Get a grip.

1a. Saudi-Arabia has launched an economic war on US-fracking-oil to destroy that industry... but fracking survives and Saudi-Arabia is slowly running out of monetary reserves to wage this war.

1b. The car-industry is moving towards electricity and hydrogen. In 50 years, the fraction of cars not running on gas will be massive. And with less demand come lower prices.

1c. Tyrannies depend on economic stability. The Chinese are loyal to their communist regime because of the massive economic success it has enforced (while incuring massive costs and side-effects). Likewise, arab countries like Saudi-Arabia buy the loyalty of their people by paying them shares of the oil-revenue. That's a bribe and a tradition that has to keep coming.

1d. Global warming has a severe impact on the Persian Gulf. The southern part of Iran and the eastern part of Saudi-Arabia will get hotter and hotter, but especially the saudi-arabian areas. Climatologists have already predicted (though extremely rare) freak summer-days where it will get so hot that every person outside a building dies. Literally dies.
Just image what that means. Imagine living in a country with a significant population of Bedouines and shepherds. Imagine such people dying en masse.
Imagine the politial and economic pressure this lethal climate means for a country.



2. Saudi-Arabia is very well aware that the extremist doctrines of Al-Qaeda and ISIS come right from saudi-arabian scholars. Saudi-Arabia cannot attack ISIS for religious reasons, like they are doing with the shia factions in their neighbourhood. Saudi-Arabia, the western-allied tyrant, is exactly what islamic extremists are fighting against and the only possible answer for Saudi-Arabia to that threat is firepower.

Look at what's happening in Yemen, they're not fighting IS extremists, they're fighting Shia insurgents.

That's a bit of an understatement.

Saudi Arabia was bombing civilians in Northern Yemen, one with the Yemen military. With US weapons. They were bombing them because a Houthi youth movement became radicalized because of the US invasion of Iraq. They protested and the Yemen government got scared.

After a massacre which involved pouring gasoline into a cave where people were hidden, and countless mass arrests, the Houthis became radicalized and attacked the capital.

Since then the US and UK and Yemen have been involved in illegal collective punishment, by starving the population, including millions of women and children, and bombing a children's hospital, and the port. And hundreds of civilians. The US has admitted they're helping the Saudis choose targets.

And the outcome of this crap is that al Qaeda and ISIS are now blooming in Yemen, with multiple media reports of al Qaeda fighters, fighting next to Saudi fighters, who are again killing endless women and children, with US weapons and help.

So no, they're not fighting IS. They're helping them. So is the US.

Please note, the Shiites of Yemen are a different branch of Shia then in Iran. The Shiites of Yemen are of the Zaidi School of Shiitism. Shiite Islam is that branch of Islam that says Ali, the son in law of Mohammad should have succeeded Mohammad at Mohammad's death. Sunni Islam rejects that claim and said the successor of Mohammad had be to selected by his companions as was the Arabic custom when picking a new Sheikh at the death of a Sheikh. Ali did object to the selection of the first three successor of Mohammad (The First Three Caliphs) but did not oppose them as Caliph. Ali himself was selected as the fourth Caliph. When Ali was killed,and succeed by Muawiyah I, considered a rightful Caliph by Sunni, but rejected by Shiites, who said Ali's son should have been the successor.

The Zadiyyah and Iran (Twelver branch of Shiitism) agree that Ali was Mohammad's rightful successor (And thus the first Iman). Both agree that Ali's sons were the next two Imans. Ali's son Hasan is considered the Second Iman, and Ali's son Husayn (Sometimes Spell as "Hussain" or "Hussein&quot is considered the third Iman. Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin is considered the fourth Iman.

Upon the death of Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin a dispute arose over his successor between two of his sons. Zaidyyab Shiite Islam embraced Zayd ibn Ali (Zayd son of Ali) as the rightful successor. Zayd ibn Ali came under the influence of Muʿtazila, an Islamic School of thought that maintain everything has logic behind it, including even the Koran. They also dismissed anthropomorphism (an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal) and unqualified predestination (i.e Free Will exists even if some things are predetermined by God). These doctrines are NOT rejected by the rest of Islam, but given less weight then under Zadiyyah Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila

More on Zaidi Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaidiyyah


Twelver Shiite (The dominate branch of Shiite in Iran) holds that the fifth Iman was Muhammad al-Bāqir, the other son of Ali Ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin (The fourth Iman). The list of Imans continued for Twelvers till the 12th Iman, who Twelvers maintain will reappear when it is time for him to reappear.

Here is the list of the "14 Infalliables" of Twelver Islam, which include Mohammad himself, his daughter Fatima and the 12 Imans starting with Fatima's Husband Ali:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourteen_Infallibles

More on Twelver branch of Shiite Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelver

The Twelvers Shiite Islam are so called because they recognizer 12 Imans (starting with Ali). The 11th Iman, Hasan al-Askari we have records of independent of Twelver records, he had been kept in a military stronghold under strong guard till he was killed at age 28 on orders of the Ruling Caliph.

Hasan Al -Askar, as to the mother of his heir, told an Aide that the Aide was suppose to a slave market and pick up a a Greek Speaking woman. The Aide was to give a letter from Hasan written in Greek. The aide went to the slave market and saw a Greek Speaking female sale saying "Don't buy me, I will NOT be a good purchase for you". The aide gave the woman the note and the Woman agreed to be purchased by him for Hasan. This woman is now known as Narjis. This would have occurred in the 860s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narjis

The actual story of the Narjis is NOT told in the present Wikipedia account on her, but in the account of the 11th Iman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_al-Askari#His_wife

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_al-Askari

(in the legend they use the term "Rum" which was the Arabic Word for what we call "Greece", Rum being a corruption of the term "Rome", the Greeks of the middle ages, and to a limited extent even today, refer to themselves as "Rhomaioi" i.e. "Romans" through "Hellene" seems to be the more popular name among Greeks for Greeks today. The Latin derived term Greek is a poor third in the debate among Greeks of what the Greeks should call themselves). A female slave was being sold and spoke in Greek, that caught the attention of the Aide, who then purchased the woman.

More on Greeks and the name for themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks

Now the 11th Iman existed, that we know. We have one report of him having a son, but that is it. The brother of the 11th Iman said the 11th Iman died without any children, but the Shiites did not want him to be their leader for he had no religious background and appears to have been a tool of the Caliph. Thus the existence of the 12th Iman is open to debate, but Twelver Shiites Islamics believe he existed, lived till his 70s and then went into "Occultation" to come back with Jesus at the end of time.

The 12th Iman (869 to 941 AD), if he existed, was a child of about age five when he succeeded his father. The people around his father, upon his father's death, either created him as a fiction to keep up their control of the followers of the 11th Iman (This is the position of most Sunni Scholars) OR hide him so that the Caliph could not kill him, as the Caliph had ordered his father killed (Which is the position of the Twelvers Shiite Islamic leaders). This time of hiding is called the "Minor Occutation". It lasted almost 70 years. When he was Age 71 the 12th Iman, Muhammad al-Mahdi, called the "Mahdi" wrote a letter saying he was going into even deeper hiding, the "Major Occutation". At the end of the Occutation the Mahdi will return with Christ and defeat the Anti-Christ


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi

This Occultation was NOT a new idea among Shiites. There is a Hadith (A saying attributed to Mohammad but outside the Koran) that says they will be 12 leaders after him, the Twelvers use this to justify that the 12th Iman was real and is still in hiding.

Occutation was NOT a new Idea for Shiites, many other branches of the Shiites had previously said one of their leaders had gone into Occutation:

1. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, who was a THIRD son of Ali but NOT Fatima, the daughter of Mohammad. His sect and followers died out when his son supposely named the first Abbasid Caliph as his successor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al-Hanafiyyah

His followers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaysanites

2. Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Nafs_al-Zakiyya

3. Musa al-Kadhim (The Eight Iman according to Twelver tradition). Please note Musa was the second son to his father, his older brother, Isma'il ibn Jafar, lived long enough to have a son and the Isma'ilism branch of Shiite says the rightful successor was through the older brother and split with the Twelevers over this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_al-Kadhim

The Waqifite Shiite branch says Musa went into Occultation, but this sect died our before 1000 AD/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqifite_Shia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isma%27ilism

Ismalism has had its own splits but continues to have a Iman who is considered the leader of the group.

Out of the Ismali came the Assassins around 1080 AD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

4. Muhammad ibn Qasim (al-Alawi), an Alawite who disappeared around 834 AD. The Alawite is the religion of Assad of Syria, it claims to be a Twelver but contains elements of Christianity (including Christmas). ISIS calls then "Christian" for this reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Qasim_(al-Alawi)

5. Yahya ibn Umar, killed in battle in 845 AD, but some claim he just disappeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_ibn_Umar

6. Muhammad ibn Ali al-Hadi, the son of the 10th Iman, and the brother of the 11th Iman, some shiites says he is the 12th Iman and went into occultation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Ali_al-Hadi

His followers (this appears to be another extinct Shiite group):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammadite_Shia

Sorry about going into all of this detail, but the point I was going for is to show the the Shiites of Iran and the Shiites of Yemen are two different branches of Islam, as different from each other as each is from Sunni Islam. Iran's support for the Shiites of Yemen has more to do with the ongoing economic fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia then anything to do with Religion.

Of course it was an understatement. I'm English, that's what we do.

don't forget daytime drinking

And I'm not on holiday. That would really be going some.

I worked in London, in the City, for 3 years... I'd say, give it about an hour and the Brits will start drinking

We're not all like this guy.

A Blackburn man appeared in court today after "performing a sex act" (a big wank) in a pub garden after snorting five lines of cocaine – a sex act he managed to keep up for 40 minutes; a sort of endurance wank, a long-distance marathon of a wank, the kind of wank Paula Radcliffe gets up in the middle of and takes a shit during. A big wank, basically. Police arrested him on the scene and he has a history of criminal indecency, and today he pleaded guilty to outraging public decency.

hahahah

lol

And no I'm just messing... but saying that... there was a hell of a lot of day time drinking, even at the university I worked at... and when I worked at CTRL.

In a way I quite admire his determination.

A man who was allegedly high on meth reportedly fought off more than a dozen police officers while publicly masturbating. Incredibly, police were reportedly unable to subdue Frey with a Taser.

It took 15 officers to finally take him into custody and stop him pleasuring himself

The Hitler of masturbation

That if you were to complete it as a task in a computer game you'd open up a whole new level.

King Salman began a major push for military buildup when he took the throne, and it's about projecting power.

And the Saudis are quite well aware of the clock winding down on oil - they're dedicating a lot of oil profits (the massive 'sovereign wealth fund') to financial assets and stakes in industries throughout the world, including the (so-called) 'defense' sector.

The Sunni-Shia schism is really just an excuse to help Salman justify the military spending. What's strange is that the Saudi monarchy has always been wary of too much military spending, fearing an eventual coup. King Salman seems to have gotten over that concern...

Perhaps self-perseverance is a better term than self-defense? I think the main point is that they see things are changing, and it's likely going to be getting very difficult for them in the future.

In a dictatorship the problems of succession is rarely seen in the Second Generation. People of the Second Generation tend to have come together to rule as a group and in a country like Saudi Arabia they are also Brothers of each other (through many have different mothers). The problems as to succession occurs when the GRANDCHILDREN of the founder starts to fight over who shall be "King". The early parts of that has already been seen as various elements in the House of Saud participate in foreign intervention to now only show that they are the most fit to defend Saudi Arabia but to use such buildup of forces to support their fight for the crown.

I compared the interventions of Saudi Arabia (including into Syria and the Persian Gulf states and now Yemen) with the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan. The Generations of Soviet Rulers who came to power under Stalin were dying of old age by the 1970s. They were being replaced by younger people who had never meet Stalin. It was much like a situation when Cousins start to replace their fathers, who were the sons of the founder of Dictatorship. The third generation wanted to show how good they were at defending the Soviet Union. They failed and other successors could use that failure in the fight to take over as the second generation died out in the 1980s. Gorbachev was the first of the Third Generation, someone who had NEVER meet Stalin in the case of the Soviet Union, to make it as the leader of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev accession to leader of the Communist party meet the third generation was in control and that is when the knives started to come out. Within five years the Soviet Union was no more do to the various infighting among this third generation that did not settle down till Putin took over.

In Arabia, the second generation are the sons of King Saud I, the founder of the present Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Like Stalin in died in 1952 but Stalin's second generation was older then King Saud's sons, so the Soviet Union destroyed itself 20 to 30 years before the same pressure came to a head in Saudi Arabia. We are seeing that infighting occurring now. The Saudi Army is under one set of grandsons of King Saud I, but the equally strong National Guard is tied in with former King Abudullah, another branch of the family (Different mothers).

This is complicated by the fact in Arabia it is the norm to marry one's cousin, so you have cross alliances being form by such marriages. Another complication is we do not really know how many sons King Saud I had, nor how many grandchildren he had (and just because a grand child is female, does NOT remove her from the fight, it may remove her from being "King" but who is "King" the grand daughters of King Saud I and their husbands have a say (But the Grand daughters may be married to Grandsons of King Saud I).

Every time I try to figure out what is going on in Arabia, the closed doors prevents me from getting even a good idea of what is happening. The decline in the price of oil complicates the situation, remember a similar decline in the price of oil caused all types of problems for the Soviet Union in the mid to late 1980s, the years of Gorbachev's rule.

Yes, I make the comparison between the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia. There are differences and many of those differences will come into play, but problems involved with a change in generations of rulers is to similar to ignore (A similar change was reported in the rulers of Europe pre-WWI, and is considered a leading cause of that debacle).

that youngster, maybe, who he tapped as defense minister and who's been floundering around in yemen for some time.

Remember Gorbachev took over and ruled the Soviet Union, but doing that time period the in fighting among the Ruling Elite was severe till it blew up in the attempted coup that lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Maybe after three to four years AFTER some grandson becomes King things will settle down, but rule by such third generation are seldom stable for any length of time.

Putin is actually a post third generation ruler, he is a generation AFTER Gorbachev and Yeltsin (Both of who were born wile Stalin was still alive, Putin was born after Stalin's death). Putin has a more stable rule then Gorbachev and Yeltsin because he is NOT that third generation after a Founding Dictator. Putin is NOT facing the internal struggle Gorbachev faced in the late 1980s even as both leaders have had to deal with a huge drop in oil revenue

Putin is more like an American President in that he has a wide base of support NOT tied in with the group that put the present ruling class in power. Dictatorship are inherently unstable. You have two periods to worry about, when the founding dictator died and his immediate followers do not take charge collectively (In the case of the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia both groups DID take charge at the death of each founding dictator) AND when the collective leadership starts to die off about a biblical generation later (i.e 40 to 60 years later (40 years in the Case of Stalin and given better health treatment about 60 years for King Saud I).

Just a comment to watch the House of Saud the next five to ten years, and we will all see what happens, just watch the price of oil.

I am expecting that the surplus oil money will run low within a few years, and the benefits to citizens will be slowly dialed back, at which point disgruntlement and insecurity will rise, and religious factions not quite under the House of Saud's control (ISIS supporters and osama bin laden devotees, for example) will gather strength and redouble their muttering about their drunken princes who cavort with American infidels in a land that should be the holiest one of all.

Then, instability, a rise of in-house terrorism brutally dealt with by the desperate rulers, and then, maybe, a great conflagration.

I hope the US manages to stay clear of it, but I don't know what we've promised the ruling house in terms of military support if they're threatened by forces internal or external.

I'm mostly glad that I live on a different continent.... and sorry for the people who don't.

How do you see it playing out?

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:04 AM - Edit history (5)

Some of the following Comments were made as far as back as 2013. I just went back to my previous posts and cut and paste but first some comments on Arab's names:

Ibn is used if the name starts a sentence, but if the name is in the middle of end of a sentence bin is the proper translation. Thus, bin and ibn means the same thing, "son of" but the later is proper only if you start a sentence with the name.

Thus "Osman Ibn Laden was the planner behind 911", is a proper translation, but so is "911 was planed by Osman bin Laden". The difference is where the name is in the sentence, Ibn is used when the name begins a sentence, bin is used otherwise.

al or AL is best translated as "of the house of", thus Al Saud means "Of the House of Saud", that is the overall family clan the person's is a member of.

Bint means the "Daughter of", I have NOT heard of there being any difference if the name of a woman starts a sentence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/07/abu_ibn_and_bin_oh_my.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_name

More on King Saud I, who died in 1953:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud

King Saud I is known by that name outside Arabia, but inside Arabia he is known as Abdulaziz bin Abdul. Thus both names are used interchangeably by most people. King Saud I is the founder of Modern Saudi Arabia, dying in 1952

King Saud I had at least 23 sons, but the most important are the Sudairi Seven, for they are the single largest group of sons AND King Saud I's mother was of the Sudairi tribe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudairi_Seven

King Saud I had a brother and his children have married the children of King Saud I (marrying cousins is common in the middle east). thus the Brother's family is almost as important in any family infighting as the Children of King Saud I:

More on King Saud I's brother:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Abdul-Rahman

As I pointed out above, the children of these two brothers have married each other:

One of Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman's sons married the daughter of King Saud I (a full sister of later King Faisal, king 1964-1975) and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia

Another son of Muhammad married the Sheikha bint Abdulaziz, a daughter of King Saud I (through given the lack of openness the House of Saud in known for, this MAY be a different Sheikha for all I can tell).

The ins and out of the House of Saud takes more then a quick review but you can read the following to get a feel for the House of Saud:

http://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lfU5ldbBOasC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=abdul+illah+bin+abdulaziz+and+saudi+succession&ots=glrD_TsC_e&sig=19MkgjBRP5HAjILZc5QgQ58jXNE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tow more background pieces on this succession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Saudi_Arabian_throne#The_question_of_succession_in_Arabia:_1920-1953

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus96.pdf



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/tree/

We also have to understand the Salafi movement within Saudi Arabia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement

Finally the Military in Saudi Arabia:

The Saudi Arabia Military was lead by the present King Salman till he became King, then it came under the control of King Salman's son. The Saudi Arabia National Guard is independent of the Saudi Arabia Military, it was under the personal command of King Abdullah till he became king, then in came under the control of his son.

The head of the Military as a whole is the son of King Salman, who is also third in line for the throne, (please note the National Guard is Independent of the Military):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman_Al_Saud

The present King of Saudi Arabia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_bin_Abdul-Aziz_Al_Saud

The head of the "deputy chief of the oil Ministry" is also the son of King Salman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulaziz_bin_Salman

The head of the Saudi Arabia National Guard is the son of former King Abudullah i.e. Mutaib bin Abdullah. Please note the Saudi Arabia National Guard is NOT under the Saudi Arabian Department of Defense but its own cabinet position. Please also note is is decedent of the Tribal Forces that King Saud I managed to Control to take over Saudi Arabia in the 1910s and 1920s. These forces were know as the "Ikhwan". Thus it is both a top notch military group AND a Tribal group.

More on the present head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (he is also married to a daughter of one of the Sudairi Seven):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaib_bin_Abdullah

More on the Saudi Arabian National Guard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_National_Guard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan

More on former king Abdullah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

A piece on former King Abdullah's daughter and her push to permit women to drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adila_bint_Abdulla_Al-Saud

Another son of former King Abdullah had been the governor of the province just north of Yemenbut was fired in 2015 by the present king:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishaal_bin_Abdullah_Al_Saud

Another son of former King Abdullah is Deputy for Foreign Affairs and remains in that position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Aziz_bin_Abdullah

Asbul-Aziz bin Adbullah was married to the daughter of Turk bin Nasser, son of Nasser bin Abdulaziz. i.e the great grand daughter of King Saud I (also called King Abdulaziz)

The Saudi Arabian National Guard is more a State Police force with Military capability then the US National Guard. Till 2012 it had no tanks, then suddenly they order German Leopard II tanks. This shocked observers for the Saudi Army (a different organization) used American M1 tanks. You do NOT buy a different make or model tank unless you are upgrading (the the Leopard II and M1 Tanks area about the same). The main reason NOT to have two tanks is to minimize spare parts and other supply problems. When you see a country with two different tank models of the same generation, something is wrong, either they had lost access to their original suppliers (as what happened to Iran after the fall of the Shah) or they switch sides (as what happened to Egypt when they shifted from the Soviet Union to the United States about the same time period) OR you need the Tanks TODAY not some time in the future (i.e. Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war).

I believed the order for German tanks was cancelled by the Germans but that the Saudi Arabian National Guard decided it needed Tanks is NOT a good sign that they trust the Saudi Arabian Army or Military.

The use of force is a sign that the House of Saud has a weak control over its population. You do NOT need to use force, if your hold over the people is strong, it is when that control and support is weak you see an increase in violence. This is what happened in South Africa in the last decades of Apartheid (1960s through the 1980s), and the Soviet Union as it dissolved (In the case of the Soviet Union the period of unrest was less then half a decade, but the unrest existed between 1985 and 1989 as the Soviet Union Lost the support and then the control over its people).

One of the reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was you finally had rulers who had NOT meet Stalin. It was a generational change, much like what happened in Europe just before WWI. The same thing is going on today in Arabia. We are seeing the last of the Sons of King Saud I (who died in 1953) dying (his last sons were born in the late 1940s). Thus we are seeing the grandsons take more and more power and being grandsons and thus cousins, more willing to pull out the knives to stab competitors for power then were their fathers (who were brothers to each other and thus grew up together to a certain degree, through most had different mothers, the difference in mothers is another factor in the ongoing in family infighting among the House of Saud).

A generational change in rulers is always dangerous, to many young people in charge and not enough older people telling them to calm down for they are heading for disaster (It is better to have a mix of the old and the new, the old to tell the new what will NOT work for it failed in the past AND to tell the young you have to work with your enemies for in the long run, your enemies today will be your allies ten years from now). The Mongol Rule of China ended when the Grandsons of Kublai Khan fought over who would rule China (The Ming Dynasty ended up defeating all of the Mongol Claimants). Otto von Bismark warned Kaiser Wilhelm II that he was bringing it to many new people with him and those new people ended up leading Germany into WWI. Franz Joseph, the Ruler of the Austria-Hungary had ruled that country successfully for decades, but brought in a whole new set of advisers just before WWI and we can see the results of that decision.

Just a comment, the House of Saud is going through a generational change, and in such a change infighting breaks out (Gorbachev-Yeltsin fight in the last years of the Soviet Union is a recent example of this). In the case of the Soviet Union, it was the leaders of the Soviet version of the US National Security Agency that tried to do a coup, the result was the end of the Soviet Union, something the coup plotters did not even think possible (and they were a third party to the Gorbachev-Yeltsin fight going on at that same time period, thus you have to watch not only the people up front by other members of the ruling elite, and in the cause of Arabia that is the Ruling House of Saud and their close allies).

King Saud has several wives, each produced several sons and daughters. The Daughters ended up marrying some cousin, but now the grandsons and granddaughters of King Saud I are marring each other to create even more infighting and alliances between the branches of the family. (each marriage being with it additional allies within the internal family fight).

Side note: It is only with the Catholic Church in the Middle ages that you see a ban on marrying your cousin. Marrying one's cousins seems to have been the rule in the days of Rome and remain so today outside "Christian" Counties (i.e. Counties with Strong Christian traditions, such as Europe, Russia and both North and South America). The only non "Christian" Country to ban marrying one's cousin is China and they appear to have done so for the same reason Christian Europe did so, to prevent concentration of wealth within certain families by spreading out that wealth by marriage to non cousins.

I bring up marrying cousins for that is an additional complicating factor in the ongoing fight for power among the members of the House of Saud. I have tired to determine the alliances within the House of Saud, but who is married to whom is often NOT on the net. The present King is a Son of King Saud I, but the line of succession includes a grandson for the first time ever (The King of Arabia is an elected position from among the male members of the House of Saud, since 1990 they have elected a successor to the existing king who takes over when the king dies and a new successor is selected, that potential successor is called the "Crown Prince&quot .

The last time a Nation went through a generational change was when the Soviet Union broke apart in 1989. The Politburo of the old Soviet Union was the head of the Soviet System. The men in the Politburo ran not only the Soviet Union but the Warsaw Pact. The problems in the 1980s was the generation that came to power under Stalin were dying out and being replaced by people born post Stalin (in the last years of Stalin's rule thus did NOT grow up under Stalin)

Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev was born in 1931, thus was only 23 when Stalin Died in 1953:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

Putin was a year old when Stalin Died:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

Thus all three of these Politicians had little if any interaction with Stalin. That was NOT true of Gorbachev's predecessors, all had dealt with Stalin on a personal basis. They all talked to Stalin and survived Stalin.

Thus the 1980s was the decade of the post Stalin politician and politics and the infighting was intense. One story went that Gorbachev had arranged for one of his rivals to host a state dinner with glasses from Catherine the Great. At the end of the toast, someone threw a glass at the fire place (a Russian Tradition) and everyone sitting followed (A Russian Tradition). The problem was it was CATHERINE THE GREAT GLASS WARE not some 1980 copy. Worse, the story I read was the Politician's last name was Romanov, no relations to the Tzar's family but sharing the same name PLUS the on the face carelessness of handling the Glass Ware of Catherine the Great ended up being fatal to that politicians raise in the Politburo (In many ways Catherine is considered a greater ruler then Peter the Great).

I do NOT know if the above story is true, but it is typical of the infighting an underhanded dealings that occurs in a time period where you have a change in generations. Mostly this occurs about 40-60 years AFTER the either an event that "molded" a generation (Thus Civil War Veterans were all but one President of the US between 1860 and 1901, WWI Veterans were President from 1916 till 1961, and WWII Veterans were President from 1940 till 1993).

Side note: I include whoever was President during a war as a Veteran, thus Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were Civil War "Veterans", Wilson was a WWI Veteran, and FDR and Truman were WWII Veterans (Truman actually served in WWI, FDR had been Secretary of the Navy During WWI so in many ways a Veteran, and Herbert Hoover did post WWI reconstruction work at the end of WWI).

Even in the US it took 47 years to get a NON WWII Veteran to be President. The same with the Soviet Union, WWII was a defining war, but surviving Stalin was even more defining.

Now, Wars bring about a defining generation that holds onto power for almost two generations, but that is also true of the heirs of a founding Dynasty. In many ways Stalin can be viewed as the first of his "Dynasty". Now his successors were NOT his sons, but they were his "Sons" in the sense they had know Stalin, dealt with Stalin on a Constant basis, did what Stalin told them to do, were rewarded by Stalin and saw people Stalin had turned against killed by Stalin. Those killed were NOT always enemies of Stalin, but Stalin wanted them dead for Stalin thought they were enemies of Stalin.

One of the characteristics of the Second Generation after the death of a founder of a Dynasty is that the "Heirs" see each other as survivors who MUST stick together as they had tried under the founder. Some infighting occurs, but the deaths are minimal (i.e. the heirs prefer to work together than kill each other). This is what happened under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. The heir did NOT kill each other (When Khrushchev was removed, he was not killed, just sent to live in a Soviet Collective in the Ukraine, where he came from). None of the infighting is fatal except in rare cases (in the case of Khrushchev, he did arrange the execution of Beria the Chief of the Stalin's secret police, the NKVD and replaced much of its leadership to become the Committee for States Security, or KGB, its initial of its Russian Name).

Such restriction on Violence is NOT true as the THIRD Generation moved into power. They want to show they can use power to advance what the Dynasty say the Dynasty supports. Thus the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Brezhnev would support a Communist Government (such as Cuba), they would NOT send troops. They will give supplies and advisers but not actual troops (Korea occurred under STALIN, thus the sending of Soviet Pilots was Stalin's idea not Khrushchev and Brezhnev's generation). The Soviets would maintain their empire (this sending in troops in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and threatening troops in Poland in the 1980s, those were all part of the Soviet Existing Empire) but NOT outside that Empire.

The Third Generations started to take charge in the 1970s when Soviet Advisers went to Africa (along with Cuban Troops). You saw increase of this in the 1980s as the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Second Generation would NEVER had done either when they were in complete command, but the third generation was pushing starting in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Third Generation wanted to show how pro Communists they were as long as the Second Generation was on the top rung of the ruling ladder. Gorbachev and Yeltsin (and Putin and most of today's Soviet Billionaires, through Putin is more a post third generation person then a member of the third generation) were all good party men during that time period, supporting expansion of the Red Army and sending troops and advisers overseas.

Thus you had massive infighting and jockeying for position within the Politburo as the post-Stalin Generation slowly died out. This did NOT stop when Gorbachev became the head of the Soviet Union, in fact the infighting intensified after Gorbachev took over. In this massive infighting several groups that wanted to break away from the Soviet Union appeared and were used by those doing the Infighting. In fact there is evidence that the people who tried to overthrow Gorbachev had funded these groups, hoping to set up a situation where they could justify taking over the country to put them down. Yeltsin took this opportunity to quit the Communist party and become the President of Russia (a weak position, the real ruler was still Gorbachev who was head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and by that time President of the Soviet Union). In the attempted coup, the Troops refused to support the Coup (the problem with a Universal Service draftee army they do what the people want NOT want the leadership wants). With no troops willing to support the coup plotters it failed. Gorbachev had been on vacation in the Crimea, so Yeltsin took charge of the opposition to the Coup and with that success Gorbachev was finished and so was the Soviet Union.

Notice the problem with the Soviet System was it permitted massive infighting among various parts of the ruling elite. Much of this infighting was NOT visible, but people could see the results. Yeltsin ended up on top, but his incapacity to rule slowly became clear so by 2000 Putin was in charge of Russia. It was a much slower change then in 1989, but it was a change. It was also a "Normal" change not a change as result of infighting that resulted in something no one really wanted (Contrary to Western Views, except for maybe the Baltic states, most of the Soviet Union wanted to stay together, there saw each other as parts of a united whole).

After the attempted Coup, the Communist party, the single unifying institution was gone, there was nothing to replace it with, thus independence of every former Soviet Republic. How those Republics should interact has been an ongoing source of tension within the former Soviet Union states.

Now, I bring up the fall of the Soviet Union for it is the last instance where a dynasty fell. King Saud I of Saudi Arabia started building Saudi Arabia before Stalin took over the Soviet Union and died in 1952 a year before Stalin. King Saud was succeeded by his sons. One advantage sons have over sycophants (Which is what Stalin had around him) is they tend to younger and thus the Third Generation takes longer to get in charge. Thus what the Soviet Union went through in the 1970s, Saudi Arabia went through in the 1990s, and thus what the Soviet Union went through in the 1980s is what Saudi Arabia has been going through since about 2000.

When I first wrote the above Saudi Arabia was still being ruled by a 90 year old son of King Saud I (King Abdullah now deceased). This is like Brezhnev surviving till 1996 not dying in 1982 at age 76.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/saudi-transition-kings-sons-well-place.html

King Abudllah's Crown Prince (and Now the King of Saudi Arabia) is King Salman, who is one of seven full brothers known as the Sudairi Seven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_bin_Abdulaziz_Al_Saud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudairi_Seven

The Sudairi Seven are considered the single most powerful group of sons of King Saud I. King Fahd, King Abdullah's predecessor, was one of these seven sons. Two had been the Crown Prince before their died. One is the present Crown Prince, Three, Turki, born in 1931, Abdul Rahman, born 1931 and Ahmed born 1942 are still alive. All Seven had several children.

Of the Sudairi Seven, two have been King (King Fahd and King Salman, please note they were the king before and after King Abudullah). Three of the Sudairi Seven were crown Princes under Abdullah, but two died before Abdullah, thus each was succeeded by another brother of the Sudairi Seven.

Turki is the most interesting of the three, he has always been the most liberal force in Arabia, but the three surviving members of the Sudairi Seven are considered OUT of the line of succession.,

Thus it is time for the Grandchildren of King Saud I to do what the Third Generation after Stalin did, fight among themselves in regard to who should rule what part of Saudi Arabia. This infighting may result in the breakup of Saudi Arabia or someone may come out on top (This happened several times during the Roman Empire, infighting during succession crises, but then stability as one of the successors of the precious ruler comes out on top. IT happened during the Mongol Empire, when it came time for the third generation to take over, Kublai Khan won out in China, through other cousins won out in Persia and Central Asia/Russia, then all three empires fell when in turn another third generation crisis hit when the third generation after Kublai Khan tried to fight out who should be in charge).

In the case of the Soviet Union, the infighting lead to the break up of the Soviet Union, that is an extreme case but always possible. In the 1970s and 1980s the infighting in the Soviet Union was mostly over who was the better communist, breaking up or leaving the Soviet Union was NOT as issue till the late 1980s, which many be 2020 in the case of Saudi Arabia (When talk of a break up begins NOT the break up itself). I can see the Saudi Army supporting the sons of the Sadari Seven against the son of King Abdullah, who controls the National Guard of Saudi Arabia, which is almost as strong as the Army (The Army has more tanks then the Guard, but the Guard has more wheeled vehicles to move men quickly to a point of decision).

We may even get to see how much better or worse is the M1 Tank vs the German Leopard II. The Saudi Army has the M1, the Saudi National Guard has the Leopard II.

As in the old Soviet Union, you will NOT see any violence till after the Second Generation is mostly gone. i.e when King Abdullah and maybe his successor finally dies and finally a third generation member gets to be in charge.

One aspect of this change in generation was when King Abdullah died and King Salman became King, the youngest son of King Saud I, Maguin, became "Crown Prince" but was replaced within three months by the present Crown Prince, appointing Muhammad bin Nayef. the first grandson of King Saud I to become Crown Prince.

Mohammand bin Nayef is also the head of the Interior Department of Saudi Arabia which is more like Homeland Security then the US Department of the Interior (i.e. he controls the police).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Nayef

, but also was head of the Department of Interior, which he inherited from his father, who had been Crown prince but died before King Abdullah. Nayef had been one of the Sudairi Seven, thus the present Crown Prince is the son of one of the Sudairi Seven.

Please note, Saudi Arabia follows the French Practice of the Duties of the Secretary of the Interior, i.e. control over ALL INTERNAL SECURITY FORCES, i.e the police and any other NATIONAL law enforcement agencies.

The Crown Prince's.Mohammand bin Nayef, brother, Saud bin Nayef (was born 1956) rules the "Eastern Provence" of Arabia, i.e. the part along the Persian Gulf. This is where most of the oil in Arabia is AND where most of the people are Shiite not Sunni.

More on Muqrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqrin_bin_Abdulaziz_Al_Saud

Succession to the House of Saud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Saudi_Arabian_throne

More on King Salman

The present king, Salman bin Abdulaziz is also a member of the Sudairi Seven.

More on Nayef son of Abdul-Aziz (King Saud I), the father of the present Crown Prince:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayef_bin_Abdul-Aziz_Al_Saud

More on the Crown's Princes's brother Saud bin Nayef:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_bin_Nayef

Thus you have one of the remaining Sudairi Seven appointing the son of another member of that clique to be his successor. That grandson of King Saud I is also the head of the Department of Interior (i.e. the Police) and his brother is the Governor of the provinces with most of the oil and Shiites in Arabia.

Just like it was good practice to be a true blue Communist in the 1970s and early 1980s while the second generation where still in charge of the Soviet Union, in many ways it is best to support radical Sunni Islam in Arabia and the rest of the Middle East today. Once the second generation is gone, people doing the infighting can change their spots and even turn against ISIS for those Radicals would have done their job. The problem is by then the genie may be out of the lamp, like the movement to break up the Soviet Union, to powerful to put back into the bottle and you end up killing off what you wanted to rule (i.e. destroying Saudi Arabia instead of being in control of Saudi Arabia). Only time will tell but that such infighting is happening is NOT a good sign.

One of the rules of Dictators is that Dictatorships span three generations, unless something outside the power of the Dictators leads to the collapse of their dictatorship. Example of such outside powers are at the bottom of this paper. The three generation of dictatorships that survive outside pressure are roughly the following:

First Generation: The founder of the Dictatorship (often called "kingdoms" and "Empires&quot . After a good bit of struggle, the Founder takes over a country and makes himself (generally a him, sometimes a her) absolute ruler of the country. He rules with an iron hand.

Now, one of the characteristics of the first generation is the elimination of all potential enemies (real or imaged), often in the climb to the top, but more often after the dictator is in full charge. For example Lenin was never an absolute Dictator, he was a leader of a collective group, known as the Bolsheviks. Subsequent to his death the rest of the leadership fought for control, Stalin came out on top. Once on top he not only eliminated any anti-Communist opposition, but also his former allies who may have had claims to ruling with him. The Show Trials of the Late 1930s was Stalin making himself supreme.

Genghis Khan did something similar, he slowly built up support among the Mongols and once he was in charge he conquered anyone who opposed him. Like Stalin and King Saud I, Genghis Khan died in bed. Thus is typical of such first generation dictators.

Second Generation: These are the heirs to the founder of the Dictatorship. In some cases these are the sons of the first dictator (Saudi Arabia, and the Mongol Empire are examples of this), but can also be people who had been the immediate lieutenants of the founder (the members of the Politburo at the death of Stalin are examples of this). There may be some infighting among these heirs but it tends to be very brief and bloodless when compared to what the founder had done (for example when Khrushchev took over the Soviet Union, Stalin's secret police chief was the only man killed). The second generation came to power together, and have learned to depend on each other when the founder was alive. This continues after his death, some infighting over who is in control and how much control that person has, but when push comes to shove, everyone backs down if violence may result.

When Stalin died in 1953, the second generation of Soviet Leaders took over, and ruled till Gorbachev was elected Head of the Communist Party in the 1980s. Do to the stress the second generation went through under the founder, they tend to act like brothers who are very close. Arguments, yes, non-violent fights yes, anything that may rock the boat NO. This was the Soviet Union from 1954 to the 1980s. Sometime dogma would step in and they would do something stupid (like invade Afghanistan, something Stalin had refused to do), but they concern was conscience among the ruling second generation of leaders (even if that means long term harm to the Country, thus the Communists tendency to not only tolerate but participate in the corruption that slowly destroyed the Soviet Union, for to attack the corruption, other then in words, meant going after fellow leaders of the Second Generation and that meant rocking the boat and that is something the second generation of any dictatorship will not permit.

You see the same thing with the death of Genghis Khan, his sons ruled collectively, but also refuse to address the problem of communication and such a large empire produced. The sons of Genghis Khan continued they war of conquest, but those wars actually made the problem of central control ever worse.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Second Generations is the Sons of King Saud I. He had 36 sons and unknown number of daughters. While the sons technically rule Saudi Arabia, the daughter (mostly through their husbands) also have a say. Furthermore it is a long Arab Tribal Tradition that the men of a Tribe select their leader at the death of the previous leader (This is how the First Caliph was selected by the followers of Mohammad at his death). Thus since the death of King Saud I, the sons have collectively ruled and at the death of each son who was elected King by King Saud I's sons, the surviving sons have elected the next king. Till now, all of the kings have been sons of King Saud I.

Third Generation: Sooner or later, the second generation of the Dictatorship dies out and the third generation takes over. You saw this in the Soviet Union at the death of Brezhnev, He was followed in quick secession by other Second Generation Soviet leaders. People born before the revolution of 1917 and who came to power in the vacuum left when Stalin killed off their predecessors during the Show Trials of the late 1930s. Unlike actual sons, the Second Generations of Stalin's dictatorship were already in their 20s in the 1930s, unlike the natural sons of King Saud, many were born in the 1930s. Thus in the case of the Soviet Union, the Second generation died out about 20 years ago. In Arabia that is only occurring now.

Gorbachev and his fellow third generation communists did not know Stalin except by stories told by others. They ties to the collective leadership of the second generation was weak and thus willing, ready and able to risk internal conflict in the fight for power. Gorbachev lost that fight, Yeltsin won that fight, but then lost it to Putin. This is typical of third generations of dictatorship, it is when the knives come out. Thus you had the attempted coup against Gorbachev (that ended up with Yeltsin in power), one addition coup attempt (put down by the Army) and finally an internal coup that put Putin in charge. The infighting took ten years to resolve itself, but it did. Putin is NOT the dictator Stalin was, and has less power then Gorbachev did but he is typical of what happen to the third generation, a new system is adopted the the remains of the dictatorship is sweep away.

When the Sons of Genghis Khan died, the third generation took over. While technically the Mongol Empire survived, the grandsons divided up the Empire among themselves, thus you ended up with several Mongol Empires. These empires fought each other till the MIng Dynasty of China overthrow the Mongols in China, and the the Golden Horde of the Steeps of Russia was slowly absorbed by the expanding Russian Empire after 1600.

Dividing Saudi Arabia up is NOT an option for the third generation (but may happen, breaking up the Soviet Union was NOT an option for the third generation after Stalin, but that is what happened, the same with Genghis Khan's empire). Thus in the case of Saudi Arabia we will have to wait to see what happens.

From 2013:

Turkey gets its oil from Iran:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017142652

Other family members involved in the fight over succession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Nasser

Prince Bandar, is a third generation member of the Family and had been Ambassador to the US from 1983 till 2005, but I read (and I have NOT been able to confirm this) is his mother had been an employee of his father and thus the lack of a strong connection as to his maternal line moves him out of the picture for selection as King, thus NOT expected to become King, but given his connections in DC an important factor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan

His father was Crown Prince from 2005 to 2011 (2005 is when Abdullah moved up from Crown Prince to King). His father was replaced by Prince Nayef, one of the Sudairi Seven (who died in 2012 and was replaced by Prince Salman, another of the Sudairi seven):

Prince Bandar's Father, Sultan bin Abdulaziz (Sultan son of Abdulaziz)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin_Abdulaziz

Bandar's brother, Khalid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_bin_Sultan

Khalid lead the Saudi Arabian Army till April 2013, when he was removed allegedly for not being able to push back Yemeni tribesmen who had taken over Arabia territory, but was replaced by the Present King's son. Who in turn was replaced in August 2013 by a son of Prince Sultan, thus the army returned to the control of the sons of Sultan.

Salman bin Sultan (Salman son of Sultan):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_bin_Sultan

Crown Prince Naylef:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayef,_Crown_Prince_of_Saudi_Arabia

Naylef son, Mohammad is the Secretary of the Interior, Saudi Arabia follows the French Pattern as to that office, i.e. it is more Homeland Security and the FBI then the US department of the Interior, along

More on that son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Nayef

Another son is Governor of the "Eastern Provence" i.e. the area with large Shiite population and thus must be watched carefully. Saud bid Nayef (Saud son of Nayef) is often mentioned as being the first third generation king if and when that occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_bin_Nayef

Just some comments, the House of Saud looks more and more getting ready for an all out Civil War among themselves. One way to get supporters is to act like you are the most aggressive against enemies of the State (Which is one of the reason the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan in 1979, to show the world Afghanistan was part of the Soviet area of control and the Soviet Union will do all that is needed to make its area of control pure). Thus the massive support for the coup in Egypt and the opposition in Syria. Some of this may be to off set the success the sons of Abdullah had in putting down the protests in the various Persian Gulf States last year.

I suspect the second generation is still keeping the lead on any internal fighting, but King Abdullah was 89 years old when he died. King Salman is 76 years old. One of the Youngest of the remaining sons of King Saud is Muqrin bin Abdul al saud who is only 68 years old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqrin_bin_Abdul-Aziz_Al_Saud

List of surivivng sons of King Saud I:

Bandar bin Abdulaziz (born 1923)
Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (born 1931) Former minister of communications.
Abdul Rahman bin Abdulaziz (born 1931), Former deputy minister of defense and aviation, Sudairi Seven.
Mutaib bin Abdulaziz (born 1931), Minister of municipal and rural affairs (1980-2009).[
Turki bin Abdulaziz (born 1932), Former deputy minister of defense and aviation, Sudairi Seven.
Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz (born 1932), Former director general of Saudi intelligence (2001-2005)
Abdul Ilah bin Abdulaziz (born 1935), Adviser to King Abdullah with the rank of minister since 2008.
Mamdouh bin Abdulaziz (born 1940), Former governor of Tabuk Province, and former director of Saudi Center of Strategic Studies
Ahmed bin Abdulaziz (born 1942), Former interior minister (June 2012 - 5 November 2012)
Mashhur bin Abdulaziz (born 1942), Member of the Allegiance Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Succession_to_Saudi_Arabian_throne

You still have enough of the Second generation to keep the lead on things, but with the youngest being 68 years of age, now long will that last? Thus I suspect the unrest in the Middle East involved members of the House of Saud trying to show who is the better advocate of the House of Saud and their version of Islam. I can see the Persian Gulf being done by the sons of Naylef one of the Sudairi Seven, but with help from the Saudi National Guard, which is controlled by a son of King Abdullah. Yemen being handled by another son of Abdullah. Egypt being done by another son of Abdullah as Deputy for Foreign affairs. With Syria being done by the sons of the Sudairi Seven, for they control the Army (and being done to off set what Abdullah's sons have done in Egypt, Yemen and the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf was probably seen as a draw between these two factors, the Governor a son of one of the Sudairi Seven needed help from the sons of Abdullah who control the Saudi Arabian National Guard).

Second Side note: Why many dictatorships do NOT last to the third generation:
Now, not all dictatorships follow this pattern, some fall for other reasons such as:

1. Invaders (Thus Hitler lost his dictatorship do to losing WWII), now you have to be careful, sometimes an invasion occurs BECAUSE the dictatorship is in its third generation and the third generation is so busy fighting among themselves that they ignore or even ally with the invaders hoping to take power in the resulting confusion. This is what happened when Saladin took over Egypt just before the third Crusades. Crusaders had attack Egypt and found that had they planned for anything more then a raid they could have conquered Egypt do to the extensive infighting among the Moslem's in Egypt at that time period. A Kurd, Saladin then invaded Egypt via Lebanon and the Mediterranean and took over Egypt from its previous rulers. In many ways the revolt against the Mongols lead by the future Ming Dynasty was similar, the Mongols third generation from Kublai Khan (The Third Generation from Genghis Khan), who had set up the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty of China, but the third generation from Kublai prefer to fight over who was to rule the capital instead of stopping the growing and later successful peasant revolt lead by the Ming's.

2. Deteriorating economic situation that forces change: This is what happened in Brazil Greece, Chile and Argentina when their Dictatorships gave up power (and why the Ming replaced the Mongols in China). The economy of these nations had become so bad that drastic actions were needed. The Dictators dare not do it, for it would have lead to a massive revolt. Thus the Dictators gave up power so the leaders of the opposition could impose the harsh treatment the economy needed (and to get the blame for doing so).

3. Franco of Spain also gave up power at the end of his life, instead of giving it to the second generation, again do to pressure within the country that require that another option other then continued dictatorship be fellowed (Through you can say the King of Spain is Franco's second generation, for he was picked by Franco to succeed Franco, but both of them knew the King could NOT rule as a Dictator so the Dictatorship died with Franco).

The borders of Iraq and Saudi Arabia was set by the British based on how far a plane along the Euphrates river could fly and return in 1921. Anything outside that range and to the South became Saudi Arabia.

The British adopted a similar policy as to Palestine and Jordan. This is the reason why the borders between Jordan and Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the way they are.

Now, a complication is that Iraq has very little rain fall, its source of water are the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The area between the rivers are extensively farm with irrigation (Thus its Greek Name, Mesopotamia, the land between the Rivers). As you go more then 20-50 miles south of the Euphrates, irrigation runs out and you end up with desert/pasture land like the rest of Arabia.

Amman, the Capital of Jordan, is the ancient point where the the rains from Mediterranean tends to run out of water. i.e. the rains EAST of that point tends to be to little to support agriculture (Through dispersed headers can use it as pasture).

Thus, while the present borders were set by the range of planes in 1921, the area east of the Amman - Damascus line is more like Saudi Arabia then the rest of Jordan or Syria. Given that most of these herders have been herding sheep and goats in this area for Centuries, they loyalty is to their tribe NOT to whatever country they happen to be in (Movement across National Borders is done all the time in these areas).



Below is a map of languages of Syria, notice that the part in revolt and nearest Iraq and Arabia speak a version of Arabic closer to those areas then Western Syria, this reflects the traditional movement between those areas, Iraq and Arabia:


http://geocurrents.info/geopolitics/syrias-ethno-religious-complexity-and-potential-turmoil

A division of Syria means more for Arabia, for the Durse, Alawites and Christians may accept division with each having their own country (or as one country) but the Arabs in the Middle would be ripe for take over by Arabia:

Alawites...Other Shiites...................Suuni Arab......Suni Kurd.....Druse.......Christian

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/29/sunday-review/a-sectarian-patchwork.html?_r=0

Now I do not mean actual annexation, Saudi Arabia gave up on that during the time of Saud I (who died in 1953), but by making sure whoever rules the country is a toady of the House of Saud (as are the Persian Gulf States). The house of Saud do NOT need this area for money, they have oil. The desire for land is to control the area so they can direct any attack those people decide to do.

I mention this for the House of Saud is on its last legs. It may last another ten years, but sooner or later it will collapse. This is typical of general rulers. The First generation (King Saud I died 1952) dominates his country and makes sure his sons will succeed him. The next generation then take over at the death of the first generation and rules collectively, for they grew up together and while there is in fighting, no one reverts to knives unless most of the second generation agrees it is necessary. The problem occurs in when the third generation takes over, they have NOT grew up together, instead their grew up in the household of their parents. They loyalty is to their parents (and thus as long as the second generation is alive, the third generation is held in check) and their siblings NOT their cousins. Thus once the second generation died out the third generation pulls out the knives and a lot of in fighting occurs, often leading to the collapse of the ruling house as the cousins are so concentrated on each other, they miss the fact the country is sick of them and their infighting.

Stalin had eliminated almost everyone who had participated in the 1917 Red Revolution by 1938. Stalin wanted control and these were potential challengers to his control. He replaced them with bureaucrats, who he also had a habit of killing if he thought they MIGHT be a threat (Khrushchev commented that he survived one plot of Stalin to kill him, by saying it was to important for him to stay on the front line to support the troops then to go to Moscow and see Stalin).

With Stalin's death in 1953 (1953 was a good year for the deaths of tyrants, both Stalin and Saud I were tyrants) opened up Russia to be ruled by its "Second Generation", bureaucrats picked by Stalin as opposes to his son, but still second generation. These bureaucrats had come of age under Stalin and worked together for their had one thing in common, they survived Stalin. In many ways they were more like brothers then just bureaucrats, for they had gone through a crisis together (the Crisis being Stalin). The mass killings of Stalin ended with Stalin's death and he was replaced by a collective leadership lead by Khrushchev. Khrushchev had been picked for he had an idea of where Russia should go and tried to implement it. It took ten years, but the bureaucrats slowly became more confident and wanted to protect their own situations, decided Khrushchev's leadership was wrong for Russia and collectively the bureaucrats decided to remove him, Khrushchev being a member of the same group accept that change, like the House of Saud has accepted the various changes in who is King of Arabia since the death of King Saud. Both King Saud II and Khrushchev lost power in 1964, a bad year for reformers who were also members of a second generation of rulers.

Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev and ruled till his death in the 1980, then in rapid succession the survivors of the second generation took over and then died. Now one of the Characteristics of the Soviet Post Stalin leadership is all had seen WWII service. Stalin like promoting people with SOME experience. King Saud I, just moved his sons into position of power, even of they were teenagers. Thus the Soviet Union saw its end with the death of its last WWII leaders. Gorbachev was the first NON-WWII veteran and the first leader of the Soviet Union who had NOT meet Stalin. It was a generations shift. This was complicated by a drop in the price of oil (and drop in oil production and thus a drop in oil exports and revenue). Anyway, the knives came out. People tend to forget, but almost all of the leaders of Russia since Gorbachev had been members of the Communist Party prior to 1989. This include Putin AND Yeltsin. It has been 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and today you are finally seeing politicians who had NOT been members of the Communist Party (or one of its associations, which included most youth organizations in the former Soviet Union). If a politician is over 40, he had been a member of the Communist party, if over 30, a member of a Communist youth group to the party itself, below 30 maybe neither.

I bring this up, for the subsequent actions within the Soviet Union saw the knives come out. There were massive checks on these knives, first was the people of Russia wanted someone to solve their problems and not fight among themselves. Thus Gorbachev had the support of the Russian people (and maybe even most of the people in the other Soviet States) till the attempt to overthrow him. Gorbachev was out of position to do anything. Gorbachev was on the Black Sea Coast away from Moscow. Yeltsin was in Moscow and took charge of the Russian Parliament in opposition to the coup attempt. Yeltsin was NOT pro-Gorbachev, but he was clearly anti-coup. The Coup plotters then ordered the Army to destroy Yeltsin, and the Army said no, they supported Gorbachev. You had a standstill. Yeltsin was to weak, Gorbachev could not reach the Army to order it to do anything, and the Coup Plotters saw the people slowly come around to Yeltsin. It was the Coup that destroyed the Soviet Union. Without Gorbachev the Army would not obey anyone, but no one was going to the Black Sea to get him to Moscow. Within a Few days it was clear the whole command structure of the Soviet Union had been destroyed. Gorbachev did return to Moscow, but only to officially dissolved the Soviet Union, but he had lost all power.

A few years later another coup attempt was attempted, but Yeltsin was able to get the Army to put it down.

In many ways the reason for the failure to go into Civil War was that Russia had a Universal Military Service Army (if you male, you are in the Army when you turn 18, worse, both males and females are given military training in high school, so when they go into the service, they have already had their basic training). Such an Army is lousy at suppressing your own people, yet it was the most powerful MILITARY force in Russia. It could be used against what the people want it to be used against, but not against things the people do NOT want it to be used against. Thus no one had the forces, to go to Civil War if the Army opposed them AND that meant not only the officers but the enlisted ranks.

I mention the Soviet Union for it is the most recent example of a Generational Change in leadership and how that lead to massive changes within that country. I also pointed out why the in fighting did not lead to Civil War (beside the fact the people of Russia did not want a Civil War, this is best seen in an old joke of the time period. A Russian who was an optimist taught his son Russian, a Pessimist taught his son English, a Realist taught him how to use an AK-47 for the upcoming Civil War. Jokes like that tends to show a people can see what is coming towards them. Once a people see what is coming to them, they can address it and in Russia it was a preference for dissolution to Civil War, bad ruler to Civil War, bad times to Civil War).

Saudi Arabia has two armies, both recruited by enlistments, i.e. they are paid to be soldiers NOT something they have to do like paying taxes which is how men in Russia view Military service (i.e. they serving in the Army is like paying taxes). Now, Russia does have a full time army, with full time army units, but it is relatively small compared to the main Russian Army. That is NOT true of the Regular Saudi Army and the Saudi National Guard. Both contain professional forces (with the National Guard getting German Leopards II tanks, the Regular Saudi Army use American M1 Tanks) and some reserves, but the main purpose of the Army is to maintain internal security NOT to protect from an outside attack.

Worse the two armies are under different branches of the House of Saud. The present King of Arabia has long Controlled the National Guard (and that may be why Saudi Arabia purchased the German Leopards II), while the family of previous King Faud controls the Regular Saudi Army. Unlike Gorbachev who actually was cutting back military spending when he was head of the Soviet Union, the House of Saud is expanding its military. I suspect this is NOT 100% coordinated, for countries try to keep the different model of any weapon to a minimum, thus why buy Leopard IIs when you have M1 tanks already? One is not that much better then the other. The M1 tank is design to float on water (Due to American Experiences in Vietnam), but Arabia is mostly desert., The Leopard II was designed to operate in the North European theater in the mud and snow of the Eurasian plain (Based on German WWII experience) not the desert of Arabia. In Arabia neither is better or worse then the other, thus why opt for a new tank UNLESS you wanted it in a hurry, i.e. need it TODAY, not next year and thus willing to accept the complications of having more then one type of tank, just to have more tanks.

The next question is who is the tanks aimed at? It is not Israel, Israel has a very strong military but it lacks a "tail" i.e. it can take Jordan and maybe even Northern Saudi Arabia, but it can NOT hold it, nor take over all of Arabia. Iraq? Similar problems, while Iraq had the population to hold Arabia, it had no tanks to take Arabia. The Persian Gulf Nations? No population to man a large enough army to occupy Arabia, and professional armies designed to keep their own peasants down not to attack Arabia. Same with Jordan. Syria in under Civil War, thus not a threat at the present time. That leaves Iran,

Iran has the population to occupy Arabia (Iran has done so in Ancient Times). Iran has a decent military but any invasion will have to come over the Gulf Persian (Which means through the US fleet in the Gulf) OR via Basra in South East Iraq. With no threat of a US attack on its supply lines, possible, but with such an attack not only possible but probably, makes such an attack unlikely.

Ethiopia and Somalia have attacked Arabia in the past, but right now neither can and as long as Somalia is more a geographical expression then a nation-state that will remain so. Turkey has also attacked Arabia in the past, but for Turkey to attack Arabia it has to take Iraq or Syria over first, something Turkey is not even trying to do at present. Egypt has also attack Arabia, but that means going through Israel (Which is not that impossible, Israel may prefer Egyptian Troops in Arabia then al Queda in charge of Arabia, i.e. Israel leave the Egyptian Army through, if they do not lead the charge).

Now the above can attack Arabia, but none appear willing to do so at present or the near future unless something happens to the House of Saud. At that point anything is possible (thus my mention that Israel may lead an Egyptian attack). Thus why the new tanks for the Saudi National Guard? Once you remove foreign threats that leave domestic threats, and that is the real fear of the House of Saud. If infighting starts, I can see a popular rebellion occurring at the same time. The rebellion grows and grows for the cousins are more concerned about who rules in the Capital then putting down the rebellion (this is how the Mongols lost China, they were so busy infighting among themselves, the Ming had the time to firm up a peasant revolt against the Mongols, for the Mongols were fighting over who would rule in Beijing. As such less then adequate troops were sent against the Ming, while most of the troops stayed around Beijing to fight over who was to be Emperor. By the time who was Emperor was decided (and it never really was decided) the Ming had defeated the Armies sent against it AND itself had taken Beijing and destroyed it (The Ming would build a new city on that cite and called it by its present name Beijing, the Mongols technically used a different name for the city).

Thus the new tanks is to help put down any peasant revolt (at least on paper) but also intended to strengthen the family of the present King of Saudi Arabia in any future infighting among the House of Saud.

Sorry, the Middle East is a mess due mostly to the House of Saud. The House of Saud is set for a generational change in rule, but it may take years before we see if they were ready for it. You do not have Universal Military Service to act as barrier to the Army being used in the infighting. You do not have the Orthodox church (and the Communist party) with its tradition of encouraging people to help their fellow humans in times of trouble. The Tradition in Arabia is to support your family, then your clan, then your tribe. The checks that prevented a Soviet Civil War do not exist in Arabia and thus it is possible for a nasty Civil War.

What is happening in Syria is most likely like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, A move to make an area within the rule of the Second Generation more like the "Homeland" (in Afghanistan, Afghanistan more Communist, in Arabia more Arabian). As such is it the first shoots in in fighting between the cousins of the third generation as that generation tries to show it is capable of leading the country by making it "Better" by eliminating outsiders (to the Communists, Afghanistan, which was within the Soviet Sphere of influence should also be communistic). This move into Syria is an attempt to show that the Third Generation can expand the influence of the House of Saud to include Syria. It is part of the infighting that will become more clear as the Second generation slowly dies out. In many ways it is the first shots in that fight (which also included the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya and the suppression of the Shiites movement for more rights in the Persian Gulf States).

Just a comment that Kissinger is back to being normal, half right but for the wrong reasons, that that is also why he is half wrong. Syria had its generational change when the present Assad took over at the death of his father. Qaddafi in Libya was in a generation change. Unlike King Saud I and Stalin Qaddafi does not seem to have built around him enough loyalist to survive a revolt by his own people as the coalition he ruled by collapsed over the last few years of his rule. This collapse of his coalition and the support for the revolt by the West in the form of total control of the Air over Libya and Saud Arabia by supplying guns, ammunition and other supplies basically killed him off.

Kissinger ignores Libya and advocates breaking up Syria for it is clear the coastal and mountain people will NOT accept rule by the House of Saud, but those who reside in traditional Bedouin areas will accept rule by Arabia, for many of them travel into Arabia all the time, just to graze their herds. This is also true of those areas around the Euphrates river (Which starts in Turkey and flows through Syria and then into Iraq). That is not a real division of the Country into the groups that makes up the country, but a division between two, Assad and the House of Saud.

From September 2014 on Iran and Qater and the Natural Gas Pipeline from each country to Europe:

Iran has the second largest amount of Natural Gas in the World, the first being Russia. The largest Natural Gas field NOT associated with Oil is off the coast of Qatar, in an area Qatar shares with Iran. This has produced two plans for competitive Natural Gas Pipelines

Side note: There is two ways to transport Natural Gas, pipeline or as Compressed Natural Gas. Do to the fact Natural Gas is a gas ?162 °C (?260 °F) at sea level, it requires the energy equivalent to about 1/3 of the resulting liquefied natural gas to compress it to make it liquid. The costs, independent of liquefaction, of shipping natural gas is cheaper by pipeline then by ship (through the up front cost of liquefaction is much lower). Thus, unless they is a reason you can NOT lay down pipe (such as the depth of the Atlantic Ocean), it is at least 1/3 cheaper to build a pipeline to move natural gas then to compress it into liquefied natural gas for shipment by rail or ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

Thus, oil being a liquid can be shipped by ship economically, it is cheaper to ship natural gas by pipeline.

Given the location of the above huge natural gas field, two proposed pipeline had been proposed. The First is from Iran opposite Qatar then through Iran to Iraq, then through the Shiite areas of Iraq to southern Iraq, which is nothing by desert. Then to the desert region of Syria, and its lack of population to either the Christian sections of Lebanon OR the Alawite controlled coastal area of Syria (The Assad family is of that area and faith). Then, by underwater pipeline to Cyprus, then to Athens, then either Serbia or Romania to Europe.

The second pipeline would start in Qatar, then through Saudi Arabia, then through the deserts of Syria to the Sunni Areas of Syria, then to Turkey, then to Romania or Serbia via Bulgaria.

Notice the Iran-Iraq-Greece routes bypass Sunni Areas of the Middle East and the Qatar-Turkey-Bulgaria route bypasses the Shiite areas of the Middle East. ISIS was funded by Saudi Arabia and no one objected to its actions till it moved into Iraq AND declared itself the Caliphate. Saudi Arabia then decided it was time either to crush its creation OR go through the motions to look like it had, wither way explains Saudi Arabia's support for the US Bombing if ISIS.

On the other hand, the lack of troops, from Turkey (the big power in this region) or Saudi Arabia indicates they do NOT want to Destroy ISIS, just direct where it is to attack i.e. areas where the Iran-Iraq-Greece pipeline would go.

The Kurds being attacked by ISIS is also explained by this, for the Kurds have long been funded and allied with Greece against Turkey.

The only area where the two proposed pipeline overlap is in the deserts of Southeastern Syria, an area of low population, mostly traditional goat herders and as such NOT a threat to either pipeline, unlike the higher population areas where farmers live.

In simple terms, the present fighting is over WHICH pipeline gets built. Iran can build its today through areas of low population (deserts) OR population allied with Iran (i.e. Shiite, Christian or Alawite). Qatar and Saudi Arabia can NOT for it needs the eastern part of Syria or Western Iraq, two areas with high populations but presently under ISIS control but Sunni in background. ISIS was to get control of this area and prepare it for the pipeline, but it appears ISIS had other plans and Qatar and Saudi Arabia is willing to crush it to further they own plans.

Turkey is NOT innocent in this fight. Right know Turkey is dependent in Iranian Natural Gas and sees the Qatar pipeline as a way to get independent of Iran AND gain control over the transportation of Natural Gas to Europe. Thus Turkey does NOT technically support ISIS, but has NOT really done anything to oppose ISIS EXCEPT when Qatar and Saudi Arabia agreed to oppose ISIS.

This also has some implication as to the Ukraine. Russia Natural Gas goes through the Ukraine. Russia is building two pipeline to bypass the Ukraine, one through the Baltic to Germany, the other through the Black Sea. Under the Rules of the Sea Treaty Countries control out to 200 miles from its coast, EXCEPT where it overlaps the control of another nation, then the halfway point between those two nations. In the case of the Black Sea it is all within 200 miles of some coast thus it is 100% covered under the control of the countries that border the black sea.

On the other hand, while resources can be restricted under the Rules of the Sea, transportation remains under the older 12 mile coastal border. Thus Russia does NOT need the permission of any of the other countries of the Black Sea to build an undersea pipeline under the Black Sea. This Black Sea pipeline would provide additional natural gas for any pipeline going via Romania to Europe. The Chief reason for the objection of the Russian take over of the Crimea seems to be tied in with the fact such a take over permits Russia to move the pipeline closer to the Crimea and thus reduce the cost of building that pipeline.

Turkey has objected to the building of the pipeline through the Black Sea for it bypasses Turkey and could be adjusted to take Iranian Natural Gas to Europe. Iran then could turn off Turkish Natural Gas WITHOUT having to worry about Turkey grabbing gas sold to Europe for its own use (which is what the Ukraine has done in the past as to Russian Natural Gas, refused to pay, then stole the natural gas, leaving Italy short of Natural Gas it had paid for).

Yes, energy is a weapon. People ignore the fact that Germany lost WWII, not do to having a weaker Military, or bad generalship, but through a lack of access to oil. A German Infantry Division by 1942 had to make do with just 10% of the oil it used in peacetime (and with this restriction Germany fought the battle of Stalingrad). Germany lost WWII more do to a lack of oil then any other factor. Everyone knows this and thus why the fight is over ENERGY, in this case Natural Gas. Everything else you hear or read of is more of an excuse then the reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/attack-on-syria-competitive-shia-sunni-gas-pipelines-politics/


European pipelines and dependence on Russia for Natural Gas:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/energy-geopolitics-and-the-u-s-mission-in-iraq-and-syria/

The Natural Gas Field mentioned above, while off Qatar with Qater hold SOME of the field, most of the Field is in Iran or Iranian waters:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/milad-jokar/war-in-syria-geopolitics-_b_2378683.html

Map of the two proposals:

Or a certain terrorist group? Hmmm......

Some insist that it still does get funding from the same portion of the Saudi royal family that supports and defends Wahhabi extremism.

we shouldnt have any friends

How come no one, D or R ever wants to cut off or "small gov" the DOD?

They prefer spilling our blood instead of their own.

...but I have said too much.