Most reports on international arms sales focus on the biggest sellers.
That inevitably means the United States, the largest exporter by far in
the growing market. You can’t have sales without buyers, however, and
that side of the equation centers heavily on the Middle East.
Middle Eastern countries now buy more than a third of all global arms. The biggest customer not just in the Middle East but in the world, is Saudi Arabia, whose purchases have soared 192% over a five year period.
Locked in an endless war in Yemen, and always looking toward a war with
Iran, Saudi Arabia has seen its military spending soar in recent years.
Recent estimates have put Saudi Arabia at the third costliest military
on Earth, behind on the US and China, and ahead of Russia.
Unlike the US, China, or Russia, however, Saudi Arabia lacks a huge
decades-old military-industrial complex to make all their weapons of
war. Instead, the Saudis are pouring into overseas contracts, buying
vast amounts of arms from the US and Britain.
The Saudis show no sign of slowing down on this, but it isn’t clear how
sustainable this is either. Already, Saudi war crimes are fueling a lot
of calls to rethink arms sales to them. On top of that, the Saudis are
spending 10% of their annual GDP on a mostly-imported military, which is
a heavy burden for their economy to bear.
Things were much better when the Saudis just bought limos and luxury yachts.
The MIC is essentially raiding the camel bank, competing with Saudi purchases of U.S. debt.
I would like to know whether the Saudis are actually paying for all their purchases.
I did read that there is little left from the original trade which Nixon arranged where the Saudis committed to spending their oil money in the US and that China replaced them long ago. But I forgot where I found that.
I’m not sure why you would think Saudi Arabia doesn’t pay for all its purchases. Antiwar covered this a little while ago. With no indigenous MIC, KSA is the perfect client state.
https://news. antiwar. com/2019/03/10/saudi-arabia-is-the-worlds-top-arms-buyer/
Anecdotally, the KSA military also relies heavily on foreign advisors for its higher-tech arms because their military culture discourages initiative. As in, officers will even hide manuals to discourage lower-rank ambition and enforce their elite-ness. Even on serving warships, equipment has sat in position still packaged in original shrink-wrap because no-one knows how to install, let alone use it.
Even if you don’t believe MbS himself, that he does pay cash for U.S. weapons, there is no reason KSA can’t. Its a plus for the U.S. (and every other Western arms provider) because its ‘real’ money that had been backed by value (Saudi oil) and less a banker’s note cycled into more debt-based investment instruments. In that sense, arms spending is a safety valve for all the $U.S.’s spammed by the Fed unmet by the real economy.
https://www. bloomberg. com/news/articles/2018-10-05/saudi-crown-prince-says-he-loves-working-with-president-trump
Other Saudi arms clients include the UK, France, Canada, Spain, and the Ukraine. China, not so much; cited are short range ballistic missiles. Recall that the INF had hampered U.S. development of shorter ranged ballistic missiles, while China has no such restrictions. Saudi arms are effectively NATO arms.
https://www. middleeasteye .net/news/arms-sales-middle-east-have-increased-dramatically-new-research-shows
I don’t know what the current status is, the oil revenues are increasing but the financial situation of the Saudis has been dire. Not in the way that a normal country couldn’t get by on that budget but they have a culture and a policy of throwing with money, which when they come short on budget, continues but with claims of ‘don’t worrry we have a lot of money you’ll get it later’. So you get ‘throwing money away but not paying your bills’.
It’s easy to overlook because Bin Salman is a bit of a psychopath but he didn’t take hostage all these princes for nothing, He didn’t start that war over Yemen for nothing either. The Bin Laden building company didn’t go broke for nothing. When nobody wanted to participate in the Future Investment Initiative it wasn’t for nothing. When Aramco was put on the market it wasn’t for nothing. And neither was it when it was retracted. Cost for lending money has increased.
about investment: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/06/07/saudi-arabia-shock-collapse-investment/#5db39b4b6e60
economy (2017)
https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/saudi-arabia
Saudi Arabia has had six straight years of budget shortfalls plugged by US$ savings/reserves.
It will be a while before they are tapped out, though.
The prediction in 2008 was a plateau of production of 10-15 years, after which decline of oil production could no longer be avoided. So already in 2008 SA lost one of its tools for controlling the economy: the ability to push high oil prices down by pumping up extra oil.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia
Here is an article that explains how Washington was trying to export nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/02/saudi-arabia-and-american-nuclear.html
The unintended consequences of this could be far-reaching and could further upset the delicate balance that has kept the Middle East from ending up in a widespread regional war.
Which part do you consider unintended?
Nuclear weapons capability(the ability to build a nuclear weapon in relatively short timeframe, say less than a decade )?
Actual acquisition of nuclear weapons?
A more aggressive, even extremely aggressive posture in an attempt to stave off the economical and political decline of Saudi Arabia?
Zionists got nukes, so now it’s time for the Wahhabis to have them 🙁
The Saudis are sewing the seeds of their own destruction here. They’re a regional power spending like a superpower. God willing, this will be their undoing. Iran just needs to wait.
Saudi fail benefits Israel, though.
Not really. They’ve actually become quite close lately, though they both publicly deny it for the cameras.
Friends of convenience.
Are there any other kind among war-states?