It looks as though Riyadh may now be in the process of organizing a coalition with Ankara, Amman, Cairo, and Islamabad so as to be able to counter both Da’ish and Iran. This could change the regional balance and alter its political economy in important ways. With respect to Iran, Pakistan can provide a nuclear deterrent, Egypt can furnish military manpower, and Turkey has industrial strength. All three are producers of armaments as well as importers of them. Amman is on the frontline with Da’ish. Saudi money can help them cooperate or at least coordinate their policies to mutual advantage.

From an American perspective, such a coalition would be a mixed blessing. Certainly, Israel would not welcome it. But, if something like it came into being, there could at last be hope for an effective strategy that dealt with all three dimensions of the Da’ish phenomenon. Currently, there is a military campaign plan but no strategy. U.S. policy is especially unidimensional. We treat Da’ish as a bombing target, even though our military commanders all acknowledge that it is also an ideological and political problem that military means alone cannot address.

This is because we are no more credible or competent as commentators on Da’ish’s connection to mainstream Islam than the Grand Mufti in Cairo would be to analyze the theological relationship between the Ku Klux Klan and Christianity. Only Muslims can deal authoritatively with theological issues and political strife within their religious community. There is no one more qualified to do this than Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis, like Da’ish, are Salafis, that is adherents of the view that the revival or their faith requires reaffirmation of the way of the Salaf, the earliest Muslims, and the repudiation of subsequent innovations, superstitions, and corrupt practices. But the Saudis had their Salafi reformation in the 18th century. Salafism in the Kingdom is a conservative, stabilizing, if repressive force. Beyond its borders, it is very often violent, reactionary, and disruptive in its effects.

Still, as the late King Abdullah showed, Saudi Arabia is uniquely positioned to counter negative aspects of Salafism and lead it in constructive directions. Salafi extremists argue that, to purify itself, Islam must return to its roots. But they portray early Islam as puritanical, xenophobic, intolerant, and oppressive of women. Under Abdullah, the Kingdom began to argue that this was incorrect. Early Islam was open-minded and receptive to Greek philosophy (which it preserved and later bequeathed to Europe, where it catalyzed the Renaissance). Its governments included Jews and Christian ministers. Its women were active in commerce and public life. It was a brilliant civilization at the center of scientific and technological advance.

This vision of the revival of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, and scientific innovation is one that only Muslims can put forward. It is needed to oppose the dark fantasies and constipated religiosity of Da’ish. Under Abdullah, Saudi Arabians had begun subtly to make these arguments. We must hope not only that they will continue this effort under King Salman but that we will have the wit to back them in this endeavor, in which we must lead from behind.

David Fuller's view

Chas Freeman is extremely knowledgeable and experienced in these matters, so I think it is worth reading his article for the history alone.  After pointing out all the problems, he also optimistically mentions a “vision of the revival of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, and scientific innovation is one that only Muslims can put forward.”    

Well, one can hope but we could not be much further away from that vision for the Middle East today.  Instead, the first paragraph from Chas Freeman above could also imply that there is a risk of a much wider regional conflict.  Falling oil revenues are more likely to increase rather than decrease Sunni-Shia rifts, in my opinion.