Strategic Forum 67

cost and need for a U.S. military presence. Increasingly vocal Saudis, for example, wonder
whether the October 1994 and August 1995 claims that Iraq was massing troops on Kuwait's
border for an attack was just a U.S. ploy to get the Peninsula states to pay for maneuvers and new
equipment. The press in the lower Gulf countries is beginning to criticize openly the US. policy of
dual containment, saying this is U.S. policy, not "our" policy. Islamic radicals accuse the United
States of shoring up corrupt rulers rather than supporting democratic reform.

Recommendations

© US. policy needs to be tailored to local conditions and with an understanding of what can be
realistically attained in each society. Islamic radicalism is not a monolith. A "one-size-fits all"
strategy will not work where societies and movements are so diverse and Islamists are pursuing
different localized goals.

© The U.S. military will continue to be welcomed by host governments, but the degree of
cooperation could depend increasingly on regime perceptions that Islamists' criticism of US. ties
weaken legitimacy and on U.S. behavior. A unilateral drawdown in the face of radical Islamist
attacks would raise the anxieties of host governments that the United States is not willing to live
up to its security commitments. It would also encourage Islamic militants that the United States
was backing down in the face of a threat.

© The U.S. military can try to reduce its risk by improving communication with host governments,
emphasizing the temporary nature of troop deployments, coordinating its "needs" with competing
commercial and diplomatic demands on host governments, and lowering its profile in the region.
Demands for more military access and exercises, civilian commercial contracts, and complicated.
negotiations with host governments may overwhelm local systems and stir up local protest.
Reliance on current levels of prepositioned equipment, rapid deployment and drawdown, and
simulation exercises could help maintain a U.S. presence.

© US. policymakers need to be aware of economic and demographic trends and declining wealth.
Radical Islamist demands for change do not occur in a vacuum. The issue, more broadly speaking,
is the ability of Muslim societies to cope with and afford change. Most of the regimes appear
unwilling or unable to make the choices needed to adapt to the demands of modernization and
their Islamist critics.

© U.S. personnel and their dependents need to be better prepared for the culture shock of a
prolonged stay in the region. Actions that, out of ignorance, are seen as disrespectful of local
institutions and customs play into the hands of Islamists eager to criticize the United States.

Judith Yaphe is a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies. This paper is the result
of the first in a series of roundtables on Radical Islam and U.S. Interests in the Middle East and North
Africa including members of the research and policy communities and the military commands. For more
information contact Judith Yaphe at (202) 287-9210 ext. 551; fax at (202) 287-9239; or Internet at
yaphej@ndu.edu. NOTE

|Return to Top | Return to Strategic Forum Index |Return to Research and Publications]

Sof6



Strategic Forum 67

© The traditional relationship between the rulers and the ruled is fragmenting and public opinion is
becoming increasingly polarized under the light of Islamist scrutiny. Those whose political
philosophy is not Islamist--secularists, nationalists, and leftist elites-are being marginalized by
radical Islamists.

© The Islamists’ vocabulary for change depends on the audience. To Western audiences, the radical
Islamists' discussion of democracy, consultation, elections, reform, and justice implies Western
values and concepts. But to local audiences the words carry different meanings: reform (islah) is
not political reform on a Western model but a return to early Islamic rule; consensus and
consultation are not recipes for parliaments, or free elections, or a pluralistic political system;
justice is not justice for all.

© The audience has changed. The message of the Islamic radicals may be an old one, but it is
attracting new audiences. These include once-liberal, Western-educated elites, students, university
professors, mid-level government officials, and members of the police and military forces
frustrated by what they perceive to be pervasive corruption and by their exclusion from political
participation.

Potential Opportunities for Radicalized Islamist Progress: An Indicators List

Looking ahead over the next 5 to 10 years, several developments could provide Islamic radicals with the
opportunity to widen their popular base and gain influence over decisionmaking in the Peninsula states.

© Looming succession crises. Saudi rulers King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdallah, Kuwait's Amir
Jabir al-Ahmad, Bahrain's Amir Isa, and Shaykh Zayid of the UAE are all aging and, in some
cases, in ill health. Designated successors exist in all but Oman; some do not share the older
generation's relative tolerance for sectarian differences or abilities to smooth over religious and
ethnic tensions. A succession unpopular with large segments of the population could help Islamic
radicals gain new supporters and encourage them to challenge the regime.

© Networking with foreigners. Most regimes tend to blame foreign influence rather than domestic
problems for the rise of Islamic radicalism. Oman blames outsiders for the presence of a Muslim.
Brotherhood cell allegedly plotting rebellion. Saudi Arabia and Babrain hold Iran responsible for
local unrest and urban violence. The charges do not entirely hold up to close scrutiny. Iran does
encourage Gulf opposition movements but its ability to influence local action is likely
overestimated. Events in each country suggest that Islamist demands for reform are becoming
popular among secular as well as religious elements of the population, including government and
military services. Islamic radicals exchange views and receive support from abroad but outsiders
have little leverage over local agendas and operational activities.

© Converging class and sectarian interests. In Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Sunni militants are
making common cause with Shia radicals to demand political reform and regime accountability.
Many are Western-educated scientists, scholars, and technocrats who were once more liberal and
secular in their politics. Half the signers of the petitions which began the challenge to the Saudi
government in the early 1990s were Islamic clerics and radicals, but the other half were moderate
liberals. In Bahrain, religious moderates are being out-shouted and out-maneuvered by
increasingly vocal religious extremists.

© Rising discontent with U.S. policies. Islamic radicals could capitalize on local grumbling about the

40f6



Strategic Forum 67

The Strategic Forum provides summaries of work by members and guests of the Institute for National
Strategic Studies and the National Defense University faculty. These include reports of original research,
synopses of seminars and conferences,the results of unclassified war games, and digests of remarks by
distinguished speakers.

Editor - Jonathan W. Pierce

6 0f 6



Strategic Forum 67

NATIONAL BeFENSE UNIVERSGITY

STRATEGIC FORUM

INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES

Number 67, March 1996

Islamic Radicalism in the Arabian Peninsula:
Growing Risks

by Judith S. Yaphe

Conclusions

© Political radicals using Islam as "the answer" are gaining support and influence in the Arabian
Peninsula states. They demand the establishment of truly Islamic government, an end to rule by

unjust, corrupt, "unislamic" leaders, and the elimination of foreign--especially U.S.--influence and

interests. Since Operation Desert Storm, Islamic radicals also question whether too much of the

nation's wealth is going for unneeded U.S. military hardware and excessive dependence on U.S.

military protection.

© US. policy in the Arabian Peninsula is based primarily on protecting the free flow of oil through

the Gulf and promoting regional stability. The United States maintains a policy of "respectful

neutrality" regarding Islam, recognizing it as one of the world's great religions and deploring those

who use it to justify acts of terrorism and violence.

¢ Many Islamic radicals regard the United States as hypocritical in not supporting their quest for

traditional American values: elections, civil liberties, human rights. Regimes, on the other hand,

assume U.S. support in resisting Islamists' demands for reform because of shared interests and

treaty commitments. These range from oil and protection of sea lanes to defense against perceived

Islamist threats to their stability and well-being.

© Peninsula regimes with close U.S. ties are increasingly becoming targets for more violence-prone
Islamic extremists. These extremists could conduct acts of terror against regime and U.S. interests

in those countries where the U.S. military presence is highly visible and expanding, and local

security forces may not be able to detect or contain the threat. Bahrain is probably the government

most at risk.
Background

The Peninsula states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and

Oman are under growing pressure from outspoken critics who use the language and authority of Islam in
these overwhelmingly conservative Muslim societies to call for political and economic reform. The rise

of a radically activist Islamic politics predates the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, but Sunni and Shia

. 20011001 038



INTERNET DOCUMENT INFORMATION FORM

A. Report Title: Islamic Radicalism in the Arabian Peninsula: Growing
Risks

B. DATE Report Downloaded From the Internet: 09/28/01

C. Report's Point of Contact: (Name, Organization, Address, Office
Symbol, & Ph #): National Defense University Press
Institute for National Strategic Studies
Washington, DC 20001

D. Currently Applicable Classification Level: Unclassified

E. Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release

F. The foregoing information was compiled and provided by:
DTIC-OCA, Initials: __ VM__ Preparation Date 09/28/01

The foregoing information should exactly correspond to the Title, Report Number, and the Date on
the accompanying report document. If there are mismatches, or other questions, contact the
above OCA Representative for resolution.



Strategic Forum 67

Muslim radicals received significant boosts from the establishment of Islamic government in Tehran
and, more recently, from the Gulf War in 1990-91.

Regional specialists from the government, the academic community, and the private sector debated the
impact of radicalized Islamic politics on the regimes and U.S. interests in recent roundtables at the
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS). They agreed that Islamic radicals throughout the region
have common perceptions of the causes of their societies’ ills. These include dissatisfaction with ruling
families that are deemed unfit to rule; deep frustration over diminishing economic entitlements, rising
unemployment, the inability of the traditional tribal, patriarchal system to provide for a population that is
increasingly younger, poorer, and larger; and the sense that traditional government by tribal consensus
no longer works.

The specialists noted that many radical groups agree on common goals, such as the establishment of
"pure" Islamic government, rule by religious (sharia) law, the elimination of foreign (read U.S.)
influence, and the concept of jihad as a political as well as a personal struggle. The radicals do not,
however, agree on tactics. In some countries, like Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, more moderate Islamists
are able to push their agendas within the bounds of the political systems; in Kuwait, Islamists have been
elected to the National Assembly and openly challenge the government on policy issues. They are
questioning, for the first time, the Al Sabahs' failure to defend the country against Iraq, its expenditures
of money invested in the special Reserve Fund for Future Generations, and corruption. By contrast, in
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman, virtually all Islamic radicals are seen as a threat to be outlawed and
contained, by force if necessary.

Several recent developments in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman raise the specter of violent change and
potential efforts to disrupt regime-U.S. ties.

© The November 13, 1995 bombing at SANG headquarters in Riyadh in which five Americans died.
Three previously unknown groups--the Tigers of the Gulf, the Ansar Allah, and the Islamic
Movement for Change--claimed responsibility for the attacks and threatened to continue them
“until the departure of the last American soldier" from Saudi Arabia.

© Recurrent unrest in Bahrain, including street demonstrations, bombings, and arson fires. In
January, following several days of protests, the government arrested a leading Shia cleric and
several hundred supporters allegedly for plotting to destabilize the regime. Dissident demands
focus on economic reform, restoration of the parliament dissolved in 1975, and an end to political
and economic discrimination against the majority Shia community. The U.S. Navy (NAVCENT)
has extensive facilities here with 500-600 military and civilian personnel on shore. No U.S.
interests have been directly threatened yet but two luxury hotels have been bombed.

© The discovery of clandestine Muslim Brotherhood cells in Oman and the UAE which were
allegedly plotting the overthrow of the Qaboos regime in Muscat. Muscat, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai
allow the United States access to facilities and provide local support.

"Islam is the Answer"--but What was the Question?
Changing economic and social conditions in the Gulf over the past five years are increasing the pressure
on regimes to reform and enhancing the appeal of radical Islamist parties as the primary vehicle to seek

political change. Islamist-oriented groups, whether allowed to operate overtly in local political
institutions and mosques or forced underground, are seen by many as the only alternative--and the most

20f6



Strategic Forum 67

easily comprehensible one--to the government. Several factors are shaping this view:

© Loss of faith in Arab nationalism as a credible solution to regional weakness. In its stead, a radical
Islamic theology of social protest is gaining popularity. Islamic radicals are able to shape the tone
and terms of political discourse, often with the simple formula, "Islam is the answer."

© Dashed economic expectations and decline in societies where the citizens--a minority of the
population in several of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries--once were cushioned
from economic shock waves, such as inflation, taxes, unemployment. The result in many cases is
increased corruption and repression by government officials, their families, and private citizens to
maintain their privileged positions.

© Generational time shift with the majority of the populations under the age of 16 and with
transitions underway in several countries as a newer, younger group claims leadership.

© Surfing the 'Net' by dissidents abroad and at home, enabling easy passage of information about
local conditions, organizational activities, requests for money and other forms of assistance, and
operational instructions. Regimes no longer have the capability to block out news by simply
monitoring the mail, banning books, and confiscating cassettes.

© Changing face of the security threat as the image of the Gulf War recedes and the U.S. presence
grows increasingly visible. Iraq, weakened by war and sanctions, is not seen as a significant threat
in the short term. Iran is seen as a threat but one that is probably containable through negotiation,
pressure from powerful friends, and financial blandishments. Regime leaders tend to see the
greatest threat to their security as an internal one spiked by Islamic radicals and their foreign
backers. Except for Kuwait, the popular perception sees the absence of a clear physical threat and
wonders "do we really need the U.S. forces here and must we pay for it?"

The Glass Half Full... .

Most roundtable participants agreed that the region is relatively stable, that the traditional style of
consensus politics will continue to provide regimes "guidance" on decisionmaking, and that no major
wars are likely in the next 5 to 10 years. These specialists were optimistic that regional leaders can
successfully contain the risk from radicalized Islamist critics because reliance on traditional concepts of
consultation (shura), consensus (ijma), justice (adil) and local institutions--especially that of the
extended family--will prevail and maintain order. One observer noted that democracy is not the issue,
participation is; corruption is not the problem, avarice is; and government is not important, family is.
Military representatives were confident of their ability to deal with regional stability and the capability of
U.S. forces to expand their presence to deter external aggression in the region.

... or the Glass Half Empty

Other roundtable participants agreed on the short-term viability of the Gulf regimes but were troubled
about the long-term prospects for the regimes and U.S. interests. Academic studies indicate the
traditional consultative councils which exist in all the states but Kuwait are not working, that the sense
of "legitimacy" for many regimes is declining, and that increased, pervasive corruption is weakening
regimes because there is no line distinguishing what is merely tolerable from what is "vulgar." The all
important unit--the family--has already broken down. They also note:

3 of 6