With all due respect, social and political reform in those countries will not come with American bribes. If anything, the opposite is true: these armaments deals and those economic agreements are only helping those in power stay in power, and that is favorable to the United States' perceived interests in the region. It is stalling reform.

That said, nobody knows for sure where these weapons will end up. Saudi Arabia for one has been funding and arming militant groups in Lebanon among other places. It will continue to do so, and the US will not mind, as long as these are all viewed as ways of "countering" Iranian influence and Nasrallah-style politics. That Israel has no objections to this plan, especially considering the fierce battle it and its lobby put up against another arms deal with the earlier Bush, is very telling.

How is it that the interests of the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Israel all happen to coincide in this case?

As you point out, it is unlikely to change the strategic balance of the region. An incredibly expensive military package will however does continue the misdirection of funds away from domestic infrastructure and economic development and shift it towards military goals. I think it is rather ironic that despite being able to spend 13 billion on weapons, Egypt is unable to provide clean water or working infrastructure to its citizens.

For Saudi, the inevitable graft that is associated with military contracts (what is so different about this arms deal, and say... this one? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701301.html)
is a continued misappropriation of oil wealth towards the royal family. I doubt that this is healthy for the future of either country.

I would not be the first person to observe that Mubarak's regime is hopelessly corrupt, or that it has not spent its money efficiently in the past. But I suspect that a very large proportion of Egypt's arms will come in the form of US aid. So that part of the money isn't so much being shifted from other purposes as it is freeing up funds for other uses.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the country is so awash in liquidity right now, that a few billion dollars here or there would scarcely make a difference. The country is certainly not going to open up tomorrow if the United States refuses to sell it weapons- it can just go to France or Germany instead.

As for where the weapons will end up, I rather suspect that they will be more sophisticated than mere guns and RPGs that can be shipped off to Lebanon in the dead of night. Indeed, a lot of them will be inoperable without American handlers and maintenance crews.

This is a cycle that has been repeating itself since before WWII. Weapons were provided to various parties for the same reasons being shared today. Though of course the past doesn't dictate the future, the dynamics are such that it is hard to argue these weapons will be eventually used for "defensive purposes" ...

The much trumpeted US support for reforms and moves towards more liberal democracy in the Levant died a quiet, sad little death in 2005/06. Don't think Washington wants to try that tack again. You can call it realpolitik, but there's just nothing enlightened about giving shiney guns to people - especially when they can't use the ones they've already got - and could be spending the cash on schemes genuinely beneficial to the populace.

Don't you think the Egypt part of the deal is to some extent compensation for the Israel sale? As an extension of how Camp David formally, if not in practice, put Egypt on equal footing with Israel and guaranteed it annual subsidies for its military. Not because it would need the weapons, but because it looks good, shows that the friendship with Washington isn't all that bad a deal -- and, of course, much of the money involved probably sinks right into the pocket of Mubarak and his cronies, rather than into the army. (Or, God forbid, the people.)

I'm more confused over why Israel and its US allies has belatedly started questioning this arrangement and lobby against military aid to Egypt. It's not just about this deal, there's been increasingly noisy protests against arming Egypt these last years. Is it just a case of political overreach in pro-Israel circles, or is there a real, newfound concern about the Egyptian guns -- or for the regime that is entrusted with them?

... and also, if the US wants to be seen arming "Sunni" governments against Iran, there's a real shortage of candidates. Who else to give guns to, after Saudi Arabia? Iraq is sort of out of the equation, Kuwait is the size of a matchbox, and the UAE ... well, I'd like to see that after the ports scandal. If they're not going to try to refashion the Yemeni narco-state into a military powerhouse, or Jordan or Oman, then Egypt is the closest Sunni Arab regime of any significance whatsoever. Well, among non-Arabs there is Turkey of course, but I don't see them doing anyone's bidding in Iran.

Straw poll: who thinks this could be in any way related to a future Iraq pullback and the possible need for loyal-yet-religiously & ethnically halal peacekeepers/border forces to give cover for continued meddling? Just a stray thought.

is there a real, newfound concern about the Egyptian guns -- or for the regime that is entrusted with them?

Badger has been writing about rapprochement between Hamas and Egypt quite a bit lately. Maybe that's it. Here we go. Turns out Israel had agents and did stuff to Egypt. Really.

Since their militaries are not particularly well-trained

With the exception of Oman, as I understand it.

"I would not be the first person to observe that Mubarak's regime is hopelessly corrupt, or that it has not spent its money efficiently in the past. But I suspect that a very large proportion of Egypt's arms will come in the form of US aid. So that part of the money isn't so much being shifted from other purposes as it is freeing up funds for other uses."

That is fuzzy economics if I`ve ever heard it. Foreign aid is another form of income for the state. Some US aid is tied to military expenditure, other aid is in the form of direct disbursements of cash for the government to decide. Without a matched increase in US Aid (tied or otherwise) this is hardly freeing up any amount of money for the state to work with. Rather it illustrates Egypt`s skewed developmental priorities. Regional strategic crisis come and go, but unless you see real economic development in Egypt (which is not developed by weapons imports) I doubt you are going to see any sort of benefit in either stability or human condition.

"In the case of Saudi Arabia, the country is so awash in liquidity right now, that a few billion dollars here or there would scarcely make a difference. The country is certainly not going to open up tomorrow if the United States refuses to sell it weapons- it can just go to France or Germany instead."

The point is not whether they can afford it, but the fact that these sales are greasing the wheels of existing patronage networks. That other people will be willing to sell these weapons isn`t the point, the point is that from an economic, political and miltary point of view these sales are counter productive. Iran is unlikely to attack any of these countries with a conventional army. Particularly with the US 5th fleet in the neighborhood.

If there is Iranian malfeasance it will be through proxies, and the sort of weaponry that they are investing in is useless for that goal. Indeed, economic development of marginalized areas and transparent distribution of resources to where they are most needed (rather than based on patronage networks) would probably allieviate at least some of the grievances that are felt.

Rather this seems like a great way to make a bit of chump change through the inevitable double invoicing and graft that comes along with these deals.

SecretDubai,

Why is Oman's military well trained? Do you have any links or such where I could learn more about that?

"Why is Oman's military well trained?"

I just love the way those boys look in uniform, that's why.

Oman's military is the one with the most recent fighting experience and since Oman is a training ground for the Bri'ish Army the local forces get "free" exercise and training along them. (Recently the Americans joined the fun.)

Within the GCC they're pretty much the only ones who'd be able to put up a fight. The others are too small and not motivated enough to actually make a stand.

Obviously, there is no force in the Gulf that could withstand an Iranian attack. But the hardware the GCC is buying makes them feel good and some might even help putting up the image that they can successfully defend installations within their territory against aereal (missile/plane) attacks or even launch retaliatory strikes - and that might just deter Iran ...

The Egyptian army ... is at this point maintaining size & technology "as befits a regional power". It's not like anyone wants to attack Egypt (no, not even Israel) OR that Egypt wants to attack anyone else. But ... if you wanna be a big boy, you gotta carry a big stick. Also, now that Libya's "back in from the cold" one of the first thing it's doing is buying shiny new military hardware from the West (Salut, Sarko, mon frere!) & THAT's something the Egyptians will be watching carefully. Ditto about the recent news on Syria's arms deals with Russia & Iran (regardless whether they turn out to be true or "maskirovka").

Overall - arms purchases in the region are often not about fighting actual wars but more about maintaining a certain balance & also positioning oneself on a certain level of "status within the region".

--MSK*

MSK -- Obviously, there is no force in the Gulf that could withstand an Iranian attack.

Well, head-on over a land border, no. But would Iran be capable to mount a serious attack across water & distance, with the near-certainty that their convoys would be blasted out of the Gulf by the US navy, and that US fighters would deny them control over the skies? I can't imagine they would. They could grab a part of Iraq after the US left, even if I'm unsure they could hold much if faced with serious resistance, but I think that's about it. Their real offensive strength lies in influencing, backing or breaking factions in other states, using political leverage to affect third parties, subversive action esp. among Shia minorites, maintaining military pressure, disrupting the oil trade, and threatening rocket/air strikes – but those last can be offset by a retaliation capacity, as you write below:

...some might even help putting up the image that they can successfully defend installations within their territory against aereal (missile/plane) attacks or even launch retaliatory strikes - and that might just deter Iran

Point being, Iran can play a spoiler role, put up obstacles, stir up chaos and make life very hard for some people, but they have almost no capacity to seize actual control over anything if the US decides to oppose it. Thus, excellent point here, and true for Iran too -- and the US:

Overall - arms purchases in the region are often not about fighting actual wars but more about maintaining a certain balance & also positioning oneself on a certain level of "status within the region".

Dear alle,

I KNEW I should've written "Obviously, there is no force in the Gulf that could withstand an Iranian attack except for the US or other Western forces tasked to protect the Arab countries."

Since we'd been talking about military aid to Arab states, I thought it went without saying...

But then, we have two scenarios, both putting a bit question mark on those arms purchases:

(1) US & friends are in the Gulf and protect the Arab countries - no reason for GCC & friends to buy weapons.

(2) US & friends leave the Gulf and its Arab countries to fend for themselves - no weapons that the GCC could buy would protect them if Iran was to attack.

THAT's why I think those weapons are for internal feel-good consumption and, to an extent, to maintain the general regional "perception of rank & power".

In a sense, the GCC is playing something similar towards Iran as the Syrians do towards Israel: We can't win a war with you, but we can make you pay if it happens.

Also, none of the US allies is truly RELYING on it to stay around forever, and thus all have alternative plans, should the US ever decide to say "screw the MidEast" or actually become too weak to offer sufficient protection.

Watch the GCC's intensification of relations with China & India, including on a military level ...

--MSK*

I don't know enough to be sure but my potentially reliable sources suggest that Saudi Arabia is far less a military lightweight than stereotype indicates.

(2) US & friends leave the Gulf and its Arab countries to fend for themselves - no weapons that the GCC could buy would protect them if Iran was to attack.

Well, here's where I don't agree with you entirely. I think that Iran would have serious difficulties attacking any of the major Gulf states. It's one thing to hunker down and defend against attack. They do that pretty well, to the point where even the US seems afraid to attack. But it's quite another to ship an entire army across the Gulf, land on foreign soil and seize territory from a well-armed population, while keeping supply lines intact, and to sustain this for years on end -- and then explain it to a population not keen on dangerous military duty abroad and food rationing at home. The US, or even the UK or Russia or some other bit player in the Gulf, could easily disrupt and make Iran's position unsustainable, with only an air/navy presence and some hefty arms shipments, without committing to a ground war. And as long as there's oil there, SOMEONE would intervene, even if the US had gone for isolationism and bioenergy (which they won't), if simply to win influence with the Gulfies. Assuming the Teheran leadership isn't apeshit crazy, which they don't seem to be, this is an effective deterrent -- and, importantly, a deterrent known to all involved.

That's why I think these arms sales could have actual military importance -- not saying they do, but could. All involved know that, because of the above, Iran's only reliable offensive option is indirect attack, harrassment, military/political pressure (like violating territory routinely just for show) and to attack shipping and air transports. This is serious enough, and could cause massive damage to the states involved, so as a threat, it is effective.

But if the Gulf states buy advanced air warfare material, missiles and radars and stuff, and are able to rely on some sort of foreign assistance (and they certainly are) they will become much harder targets for those kind of attacks. In any all-out war Iran would win, but at an unacceptable, pyrrhic prize and risk to regime stability; therefore they will not seek an all-out war. By raising the cost of limited attacks too, the American Gulf clients are effectively making themselves safer.

- - -

That said, the main importance is probably, as you say, political and economic. But that's not necessarily the whole picture.

MH,

Could you, if possible, elaborate? As far as I know & can gauge the situation, KSA has a big-ish army with lots of hardware, but its soldiers are simply neither trained nor motivated well enough to sustain a serious fight. Particularly the latter matters.

Alle,

I think that again we are talking past each other.

Of course you're right about the problems associated with an Iranian military campaign to attack and occupy GCC states in the light of global "interest" in their well-being (i.e. everybody wants/needs their oil & doesn't want it under Iranian control). But that's not what I was talking about. My scenario (2) was entirely hypothetical. IF the GCC is left to fend for themselves ... no amount of weaponry could protect them from Iranian attack.

Overall, I think we all agree.

--MSK*

Overall, I think we all agree.

Yeah, me too.

re. MH's point about Saudi military capabilities...

I'm no expert on military matters, but I was under the impression that the Saudis spent good sums of money on having airmen and crews for their air force trained by Western powers, if nothing else, and that these guys were quite high quality (a la Shah's air force before the Revolution). Whether that's borne any fruit, I couldn't possibly tell...

I don't have hard data but qualitative things like a minisub fleet that crawls the Persian Gulf, pilots with good skills and equipment, hi-tech communications, etc.

And I think there would be a lot of motivation if Iran tried to overrun the Arabian Peninsula. Even bin-Ladenites might enlist, just as the man himself tried to fight the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A Persian-Shiite advance on the Land of the Two Mosques?

MH,

Iranian attack on any of the GCC countries would not be an invasion/occupation of KSA.

It would be mainly air attacks (missiles & planes - in that order), naval attacks, and MAYBE attempts to seize bahrain or something like that.

An Iranian attack would be a "punitive measure", not a land grab.

Hence, no "Persian-Shiite advance on the Land of the Two Mosques" (which, btw, is actually "Land of the Two Sanctuaries/Holy Places").

--MSK*

The whole "Iran attacks" issue is overblown.

Iran hasn't attacked any Arab country since its revolution. In fact, the opposite is true. This isn't because of glittering army toys, it simply has no interest in doing so.