In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties.
It's a bit like Iran before the revolution: the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation, while at the same using SAVAK to torture his opposition.
In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties.
Increased compared to taliban rule? Wow, thanks so much to the benevolent dictator for allowing a woman to go out without a male companion without being stoned. And thank the benevolent dictator for not having an interest in me specially. All praise the guy who could dismember many people but chooses to do that only to a couple, and who could imprison many, but does it mostly to his family and whoever he pleases.
If there were an overwhelming majority in Saudi Arabia who demanded the full set of human rights we have in the West, then it would be unconscionable to say anything positive about Mohammed bin Salman.
This quote is from a story from before Saudi women got the right to drive. The piece argues it was a common take:
Mashaal El-Maliki, a housewife:
"Female driving will destroy family life because it will give husbands a chance to know other women who (as drivers) will be free and without guardians."
The best path forward is whatever path is the shortest to making life bearable for liberal Saudis, but that doesn't end in conservative revolt (and deeper theocracy). When a considerable portion of a nation opposes basic freedoms, there are fewer viable options.
the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation
Quaint revisionism; in fact Mossadegh was already actually liberalizing and modernizing the nation while Pahlavi was turning it into a US/UK client state.
No leaders are 'ideal', but the only way you can equivocate between these two is taking it making a tacit assumption that reorienting the state apparatus and your economy towards the needs of foreign clients - and away from the enrichment of regular people at home - is good.
The concern I raise is that religious fanatics replace MBS. In that context, the relevant Iranian comparison is pre-1979 and post-1979. Post-1979 is a nightmare, a terrifying Twilight Zone episode. See:
In Saudi Arabia, MBS is probably better than a more fanatical Wahabist government. I gather the power struggle between the royals and the clerics is ongoing. Human rights progress would reverse under the latter.
Comments
That's the one, unfortunately.
In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties.
It's a bit like Iran before the revolution: the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation, while at the same using SAVAK to torture his opposition.
Increased compared to taliban rule? Wow, thanks so much to the benevolent dictator for allowing a woman to go out without a male companion without being stoned. And thank the benevolent dictator for not having an interest in me specially. All praise the guy who could dismember many people but chooses to do that only to a couple, and who could imprison many, but does it mostly to his family and whoever he pleases.
If there were an overwhelming majority in Saudi Arabia who demanded the full set of human rights we have in the West, then it would be unconscionable to say anything positive about Mohammed bin Salman.
This quote is from a story from before Saudi women got the right to drive. The piece argues it was a common take:
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-prot...The best path forward is whatever path is the shortest to making life bearable for liberal Saudis, but that doesn't end in conservative revolt (and deeper theocracy). When a considerable portion of a nation opposes basic freedoms, there are fewer viable options.
Quaint revisionism; in fact Mossadegh was already actually liberalizing and modernizing the nation while Pahlavi was turning it into a US/UK client state.
Neither Mossadegh nor Pahlavi were ideal leaders, and both were better than what Iran has today.
No leaders are 'ideal', but the only way you can equivocate between these two is taking it making a tacit assumption that reorienting the state apparatus and your economy towards the needs of foreign clients - and away from the enrichment of regular people at home - is good.
The concern I raise is that religious fanatics replace MBS. In that context, the relevant Iranian comparison is pre-1979 and post-1979. Post-1979 is a nightmare, a terrifying Twilight Zone episode. See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran
In Saudi Arabia, MBS is probably better than a more fanatical Wahabist government. I gather the power struggle between the royals and the clerics is ongoing. Human rights progress would reverse under the latter.