It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Iranian backed regime change in Saudi Arabia

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:58 AM
I've been stressing for a while that a regime change in the pro-Western oil state of Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic for oil supply and thus the world economy.

In such a case, Iran would gain possession of the largest oil reserves and cut off the supplies to our Western societies.

Saudi Arabia consists predominantly of Sunni Muslims, yet the minority of Shiite Muslims count for a respectively large number of 2 million people.
Iran does primarily consist of Shiite Muslims and Iran has had several regime changes throughout the last century. The current regime has the know-how and experience to start another regime change.

From Saudi Arabia's establishment in 1932, its minority Shiite population has been subject to discrimination and sectarian incitement. Beginning in the early 1990s, with then Crown Prince Abdullah's active support, the government took steps to improve inter-sectarian relations. But the measures were modest, and tensions are rising. The war in Iraq has had a notable effect, strengthening Shiite aspirations and Sunni suspicions and generally deepening confessional divisions throughout the region. King Abdullah needs to act resolutely to improve the lot of the two-million strong Shiite community and rein in domestic expressions of anti-Shiite hostility.


The man with the oil has the power - look at Russia, they can make or break the European Union by cutting off oil supplies. As a matter of fact, there is always other customers willing to buy oil.

The occupation of Saudi Arabia (or regime change) could have one of the three following consequences:

1-Pressure on the regime and Iran to re-establish the royals
2-A massive war in the Middle East between three parties: the Shiite and Sunni Muslim communities and the West.
3-The West would fall on the knees

As for option 1, the regime, nor Iran would likely obey Western demands. Option three sounds not as an option and seems very unlikely to happen.

Iran is already suspected of supporting Shiite terrorists in Iraq and a few hours ago I read the following article:

U.S. drive in Africa, Iran-backed Shiite's rise worry Sunni-dominated Arab world.

Newspapers and television talk shows, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are filled with anti-Shiite rhetoric. In its latest edition, Egypt's state-owned Rose El-Youssef weekly carried a cover story on Saddam's execution with a banner headline: "Raising the ugly face of Shiites, expanding Iranian influence in the region."

"Saddam's execution unmasked the Persian hatred against Arabs and revealed the true affiliation of the (Shiite) militia-government in Baghdad,"wrote Ghassan Al-Immam in the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat paper Tuesday.


It doesn't surprise me that Saudi Arabia and Egypt started to enrich uranium. Egypt says for energy needs (very plausible if you research it), while Saudi Arabia secretly enriched uranium: probably for militarily purposes.

Bear in mind that a regime change in Saudi Arabia would inevitably lead to Western intervention. We wouldn't be able to say: let them take care of it themselves, and thus a strategically very important for Iran.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Mdv2]

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:16 AM
I know its DEBKA, and its not always reliable, but just take a look at todays breaking news.

Explosions along the Iranian / Iraqi border, more explosions inside a border town, and bush's speech all add up to a very, very unstable and nasty middle east.

There does seem to be a wind of change blowing through the middle east, and if the USA were truely a friend of the Saudis, they would not of let an iranian backed Shia government in Iraq, because if Iran holds the sway in Iraq, then its a short border hop into saudi... and then the real fighting will begin.

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:15 AM

QATIF, Saudi Arabia, Jan 29 (Reuters) - A leading Shi'ite cleric said on Monday Saudi Shi'ites would not be dragged into a sectarian conflict in the region and that their loyalty was to the kingdom [of S.A.] and not Iran.


Shi'ites in the Eastern Province, where most of Saudi Arabia's huge oilfields are located, rose against the Saudi authorities after Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The government has been suspicious of them ever since. There has been an easing of restrictions on Shi'ites openly practising their faith since Sunni militants linked to al Qaeda began a campaign to topple the Saudi royals in 2003.


The scenario that I mentioned above doesn't sound impossible at all. Since the Eatern province is also the biggest province, I'm pretty sure the US has troops stationed over there to support the Saudi Royals in case something might happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has already supplied certain groups in Saudi Arabia with weapons.

new topics

log in