Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Saudi Arabia is unhappy. So what?

  1. #1
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    645

    Saudi Arabia is unhappy. So what?

    An interesting piece in Foreign Policy.

    Saudi Arabia's Unhappy. So What? | Shadow Government
    Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, is venting to journalists and foreign diplomats about his irritation at feckless Obama administration policies in the Middle East, ominously suggesting his country is at the point of making a "major shift" away from the United States. Prince Turki al-Faisal, former director of Saudi intelligence, joined in with an address to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, saying, "The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious and designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down, but also to help Assad to butcher his people." The Saudi complaints include not attacking Syria, not providing weapons and support to Syrian rebels, American support for the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, U.S. cuts of assistance to the military that overthrew that government, and a lack of consultation on negotiations with Iran.

    The Saudis are not alone, of course, in their criticism. Every country in the region is exasperated, as are many Americans. As former Centcom commander Jim Mattis so memorably put it, "I defy anyone to tell me what U.S. strategy is in the Middle East." But the Saudis' unhappiness is not proof that U.S. policies are wrong. Obama administration policies are wrong, but not in the ways or for the reasons the Saudis excoriate them. And bringing U.S. policies into alignment with Saudi Arabia is likely to create a Middle East even less in America's interests than the Obama administration's bungling has.

    Saudi Arabia wants a very different Middle East than we do. The Saudis oppose democracy. They oppose freedom of the press. They oppose freedom of conscience and practice of faiths other than Islam. They oppose women's equality before the law. They oppose the idea that individuals have rights and loan them in limited ways and for limited purposes to governments. They deny rights to their own Shiite citizens in Saudi Arabia, while advocating and enforcing the same in Bahrain. They denigrate domestic opposition as solely agents of Iran.

    Not only do the Saudis oppose these fundamental values of American society, but they have funded and armed some of the most virulent jihadists. Rachel Bronson's superb history of U.S.-Saudi relations, Thicker Than Oil, makes clear that the United States was complicit in Saudi Arabia's fostering of the mujahideen in Afghanistan; the Saudis now want U.S. complicity in supporting jihadists in Syria and the return to power of the deep state in Egypt (a model they would perpetuate throughout the region).

    Secretary of State John Kerry did a fine diplomatic turn in London on Tuesday, outlining the areas of U.S.-Saudi common interest, toning down the problem, and conveying a calm confidence that the two countries will continue to work together. The policy question is what form greater Saudi opposition to U.S. policies might take.

    Arab diplomats have suggested that the Saudis would increase assistance to Islamist rebels in Syria, both to punish the United States and to defeat the Iranians. Defeating Iran in Syria and toppling Bashar al-Assad is a great outcome for American interests, provided what comes next isn't worse. And even if the Saudis put a new, Saudi-looking authoritarian regime in power in Damascus, the United States will not be without means to influence its choices. Israel has consistently demonstrated detailed knowledge and willingness to act to prevent such outcomes; the United States can likewise up its game. Russia and China are less, not more, likely to support Saudi polices in Syria without American heft. Nor will Syrians themselves, who seem disinclined to replace one repression with another, be without influence.

    Would the Saudis unleash jihadists in Syria? There is precedent from Afghanistan in the 1980s. But the Saudis are themselves as much at risk as we are from that scourge, and since the attacks in 2005, they know it and have stepped up their domestic efforts against radical Islamists. More likely is a misperception by the Saudis that they can control rebels in Syria, an eventuality that would cause problems for the United States -- but the country is likely to incur those problems whether or not Saudi succor is the instigation.

    The Saudis might discontinue or curtail intelligence and anti-terrorism cooperation. That is a serious threat to American security. But again, the Saudis are at risk and need U.S. intelligence as much as the United States needs theirs. Moreover, recent cooperation is the exception; more frequent has been limited cooperation while the Saudis fund activity we feel threatened by.

    On Palestine and a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, the Americans and the Saudis have long worked to different ends. The Saudi plan for Palestine has foundered because of Palestinian choices, not lack of American support; it is difficult to see a path to progress on either their or America's preferred policy. It's easy to see why the Saudis support a nuclear-free Middle East, since it would remove Israel's deterrent as well as Iran's program, but difficult to see why it would now get traction even with major investments on their part.

    The Saudi equivalent of a nuclear option is the price of oil, something the Saudis have been very helpful with in recent years. As Meghan O'Sullivan convincingly argues, their ability to do so is declining, and any sudden moves to impose costs will benefit Iran and stimulate non-OPEC suppliers, including the United States itself.

    The Saudis (along with the United Arab Emirates) have already moved to bankroll the Egyptian military, supplanting by a factor of 12 the assistance the United States had provided. This could have a huge and deleterious effect on American interests if, for example, the Saudis and Egyptians eliminated preferential transit of the Suez Canal by U.S. military vessels. The U.S. ability to project military force would be dramatically curtailed.

    We should never underestimate the trouble countries can make for us by withholding cooperation, even if they don't overtly work against our interests. American power is sustainable in the international order in part because so few countries actively oppose it. The United States should try to soothe Saudi concerns where it can, consulting more fulsomely on Iran in particular.

    Too often, though, the U.S. assessment of enemy action overlooks that the United States, too, has choices to make that can impose costs: Without American intelligence, the GCC states would be subject to Iranian military harassment and less able to manage domestic extremists, and without American military support, they'd be substantially more vulnerable to a nuclear-armed Iran. And if there's one red line that President Obama has made credible, it's his willingness to abandon countries relying on American assistance.
    In both the bolded statements above, I believe the US weilds more leverage than the author is willing to admit. If Egypt closes the canal to the US Navy, poof goes the $6b/annum American military aid, and the imagined balanced with Israel.

    While GCC's internal security apparatus is robust enough to counteract domestic extremists, their military spending largesse could simply turn to Russia, France, Britain and China at the expense of US, all of whom would be delighted to sell more arms to the monarchies. The leverage here would be the American presence in the Arabian gulf, the absence of which would leave Iran dominant.

  2. #2
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Wait until the US economy improves and relies less on Saudi oil, dump Saudi Arabia for all we care.

  3. #3
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Wait until the US economy improves and relies less on Saudi oil, dump Saudi Arabia for all we care.
    While Saudis are definitely worried about losing control on the global oil market, American reliance on Saudi is not simply for oil. The Saudi princes have trillions of dollars of investments in the US. They're not stupid.

  4. #4
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Empty threat. Let the Qizilbash beat on them.
    Last edited by troung; 25 Oct 13, at 05:07.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    762
    Why are the saudis and israelis angry? The americans have got the iranians and syrians to dance

  6. #6
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    The Saudi's are angry that the US isn't fully supporting the Kingdom's mercenary forces in Syria who also love to kill Americans.

    Edit: They are also angry that Saudi women will protest today by getting behind the wheel and driving. The Kingdom has promised punishment to those women that do so.
    Last edited by Minskaya; 26 Oct 13, at 09:02. Reason: added edit

  7. #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 May 06
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    747
    Saudi Arabia is "angry", and they're right to be, insofar as shameful issues have no hope of resolution, such as the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons, Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, spinning Iranian centrifuges, Assad's continuing slaughter etc etc

  8. #8
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    The KSA is pissed because they can't play the Americans anymore.

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,258
    seriously, when i think of worthless allies and ingrates and get pissed off at Netanyahu...i'm always reminded that the Saudis are right next door.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    762
    The americans can't switch sides from sunni to shia due to geopolitics and the saudis cannot ally with the russians due to ideological reasons. The sides are clear as black and white. Maybe the saudis were expecting a lot?

  11. #11
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    The americans can't switch sides from sunni to shia due to geopolitics and the saudis cannot ally with the russians due to ideological reasons. The sides are clear as black and white. Maybe the saudis were expecting a lot?
    Why would the Americans care about Shias and Sunnis?

  12. #12
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,863
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    The americans can't switch sides from sunni to shia due to geopolitics and the saudis cannot ally with the russians due to ideological reasons. The sides are clear as black and white. Maybe the saudis were expecting a lot?
    Sure we can, we did before.

  13. #13
    Contributor cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 12
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Sure we can, we did before.
    The switch didn't happen because Iran was Shia. The switch happened because they locked up your diplomats for a year and a half. Wouldn't have mattered if they were Shia or Scientologists.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    762
    The shias have stuck to their gun.

    If the americans fail to get the chinese to court iran then the saudis and israelis will have to compromise.

    So what will china do?

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    The shias have stuck to their gun.

    If the americans fail to get the chinese to court iran then the saudis and israelis will have to compromise.

    So what will china do?


    Please elaborate.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03 Jun 13,, 03:44
  2. Saudi Arabia becomes WTO member
    By ZFBoxcar in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11 Nov 05,, 17:04
  3. Saudi Arabia antes up, again.
    By Bluesman in forum International Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19 Aug 05,, 19:26
  4. Has Saudi Arabia ever reserved oil for the US?
    By hurricaneone in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Nov 04,, 12:39
  5. Russia: The Other Saudi Arabia?
    By Gio in forum International Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25 Oct 03,, 21:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •