I think Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a single family? [Subsequent correction: More precisely: SA is one of two countries currently named for their ruling families, with the other being the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. (Same general point about the importance of "family" relations to politics and governance. But thanks to Jefferson for pointing this out.) ~HC.] And now, a battle "royal" is being waged in Saudi Arabia for the ear of King Abdullah ibn Abdul-Aziz-- and indeed over the entire direction of the country's policies.
On one side: Abdullah's nephew the former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar ibn Sultan ibn Abdul-Aziz-- and presumably also Bandar's father Crown Prince Sultan, Sultan's other sons, and perhaps also most of Sultan's full brothers from the "Sudairi" wife of the notable (very) late King Abdul-Aziz al-Saud.
On the other: another nephew, recently departed ambassador to Washington Prince Turki ibn Faisal ibn Abdul-Aziz, along with his brother the ailing Foreign Minister Prince Saud ibn Faisal, and other sons of the late King Faisal (but presumably not Faisal's daughter Haifa who is married to Bandar.)
The core issue being disputed: should the Kingdom align itself with the US and Israel, in particular, in an attempt to roll back a large perceived expansion of Syrian and Iranian power in the region (the position that, reports from several experienced observers agree, is being espoused by Bandar's group)? Or, should it continue to pursue the discreet alliance with Syria that has long been a hallmark of Saudi diplomacy while also continuing to, at the very least, pursue normal diplomatic relations with Iran (the position reportedly espoused by Turki's group)?
It is this dispute, and a lot of related skulduggery by, in particular, Bandar that apparently lies behind Turki's recent, extremely hasty departure from Washington.
| 