Matthew Reed tracks the tremendous amount of money that monarchies belonging to the Gulf Cooperation Council are using to try to stabilize countries undergoing democratic unrest:
Careful review suggests these moves aren’t simply "counter-revolutionary," as some claim. In fact, the money is going to revolutionary causes also, once again proving Gulf power politics are strategically flexible—not just rigid or reactionary. …
With so much money changing hands, a bigger question looms: How much influence can the GCC buy? The answer is not much, but this is no fault of theirs. Recipient countries are not beholden to donors especially if those recipients are self-interested autocrats. Why so? When regimes face existential crises their concerns narrow greatly. If money fails to curb unrest, leaders choose reform or violence. Expect them to respond in their own interest if faced with this choice. Consider how much money the US spends on foreign aid and its modest returns and the GCC’s generosity seems less important.
Reed concludes that money can't buy the Saudis love. Bruce Riedel explains why the Saudis are uncharacteristically siding with revolutionaries in Syria. Andrew Tabler discusses how this kind of foreign pressure could help bring down Assad.
The Dish 