The Unseen Hand: How Arab Monarchies Enable Western Aggression Against Defiant Leaders
Arab monarchies act as vital partners in Western-led military, political, and economic interventions. By providing arms, bases, diplomatic cover, and media influence, they enable what one author has called “philanthropic imperialism”.
For Nigeria, the fallout includes navigating complex security partnerships, energy market volatility, and external political expectations—making the dynamics of Gulf-West cooperation a critical external influence on Nigeria’s sovereignty and strategy.
For decades, the global political landscape has been fraught with tensions, often leading to interventions that destabilize entire regions. A compelling argument posits that while Western powers frequently lead these interventions, their success is often facilitated by a less visible, yet crucial, force: the silent consent, and sometimes active participation, of Arab monarchies. This pattern, consistently observed over the past three decades, has systematically weakened independent, non-monarchical leaders in the Arab and broader Muslim world.
The early 1990s, marked by Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, initially saw a unified condemnation from many, including student writers who passionately defended the Saudi Arabia-backed allied forces. This youthful conviction, however, often masked a deeper, more insidious reality that would gradually unfold.
Iraq: A Blueprint for Complicity
A critical turning point in understanding this dynamic was the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Launched under the now-debunked claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the assault reduced Iraq to rubble and eventually led to Saddam Hussein’s execution after what many described as a “Kangaroo court.” What was chillingly evident during this period was the deafening silence of Arab leaders.
Despite immense oil wealth, these nations had failed to build their own military and technological capacities, remaining reliant on foreign powers for regime protection. This reliance, critics argue, came at the cost of betraying fellow Arab nations. The outrage at such complicity was profound, particularly after Saddam’s execution on Eid al-Adha, a sacred day of mercy in Islam, highlighting a perceived betrayal by those who stood idly by as a sovereign nation was dismantled under false pretenses.
The Arab Spring Paradox and Libya’s Demise
The Arab Spring of 2011, sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia, brought the contradictions of regional governance into sharp focus. While many self-proclaimed Arab republics had devolved into brutal dictatorships, some constitutional monarchies appeared to offer better living standards and more stable governance. Yet, amidst this introspection, a consistent thread remained: monarchical Arab states were selectively silent or actively supportive when Western powers moved against strong, pan-Arab, or pan-African voices.
The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya serves as yet another stark example. Under the dubious premise of “humanitarian intervention,” Western powers, again with the approval or silence of Arab regimes, toppled Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi, despite his authoritarian tendencies, had transformed Libya through free education, healthcare, and massive infrastructure development. He was also a formidable advocate for African unity and economic independence, often challenging established global norms.
The Catastrophic Fallout and Regional Instability
The destruction of Libya triggered a devastating chain reaction. Looted arms depots fueled the rise and expansion of terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISWAP, unleashing unprecedented instability across West Africa, from Nigeria to Mali, Niger to Cameroon. Millions became refugees and internally displaced persons, often with nowhere to go.
The indifference shown by some Arab leaders whose actions contributed to this displacement stood in stark contrast to the compassion demonstrated by leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who welcomed over a million refugees, many of them Muslims.
The recurring pattern observed over these decades highlights a tragic irony: while claiming shared Arab and Islamic identity, some monarchical states appear to prioritize regime security through external alliances over regional solidarity and the sovereignty of their neighbors. This strategy, critics contend, has inadvertently paved the way for chronic instability across the region, undermining the very foundations of self-determination and long-term prosperity.
Implications for Nigeria
Cyber of global alliances
Nigeria must navigate a global order where major powers and Gulf monarchies pursue shared strategic goals. For example, Nigeria’s security cooperation with the U.S. intersects with Gulf-backed anti-insurgency strategies, potentially making Nigeria an indirect player in broader regional agendas.
Security & Counter‑terrorism
Nigeria’s efforts against groups like Boko Haram are shaped by Western-backed counterterror policies. Gulf states that facilitate arms and intelligence sharing contribute—though these often come bundled with external political strings.
Energy & Economic Leverage
As Nigeria competes in the global oil market, the pricing strategies and production decisions of Gulf producers—who often cater to Western interests—directly affect Nigeria’s revenues and bargaining power.
Diplomatic Pressures
Nigeria’s foreign policy may face indirect pressure from Western–Gulf alignments—especially on issues like democratic governance, human rights, or military interventions—even if these pressures don’t align with Nigeria’s domestic priorities.
