The United States Can’t Ditch Saudi Arabia, But It Shouldn’t Let Khashoggi Slide, Either

Spread the love

Loading

America’s gaffe-prone granddad Joe Biden had a rare moment of intellectual clarity and honesty in 2014, when he said something about Saudi Arabia that would be blindingly obvious to anyone except perhaps Thomas Friedman and the New York Times editorial board. “Our biggest problem was our allies,” he said in a talk at Harvard.

The Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and Emiratis were so determined to topple a secular dictator in Assad that they poured millions in cash and weapons to Al Nusrah. This was probably the only recorded time that any major modern American figure broke with tradition to try publicly criticizing the medieval Gulf monarchies. Of course, Biden promptly apologized, thereby proving H.L. Mencken’s quote about dishonorable politicians. At least he didn’t break that tradition.



With the alleged murder of dissident journalist and part-time Muslim Brotherhood member Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate of Istanbul, the Western media seemed to have rediscovered this ancient truth, that Saudi Arabia is a source of all problems for the United States, and Washington really should cut the kingdom loose to survive or perish. There’s no direct established evidence of the killing, other than the claim by Turkish intelligence, who are not very trustworthy to the media. But it looks likely that Kashoggi was in fact murdered.

Saudi denials were prompt initially, although it came with a caveat that all security and surveillance footage of the day Khashoggi went missing has somehow disappeared. There are also recent rumors that Saudis are about to release a statement saying that Khashoggi was killed in a botched interrogation and abduction attempt, although that cannot explain why interrogators would bring a chainsaw to chop someone if they were only planning to abduct him, as the Turks allege. Supposedly, there are even recordings of the killing. But in the meanwhile, the attitude from the Saudi side has been defiance.

Conservatives are divided on Saudi Arabia for good reason, and that has implications for the future grand strategy of the United States. Khashoggi is no liberal saint, not that it justifies his murder. Khashoggi wrote a glowing op-ed recently claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is not what the West thinks it is. It is the reason he was a dissident threat to the new Saudi prince, in a country that still runs according to rules of tribal loyalties.

The barbarism of killing someone after luring him into an embassy is barely imaginable. But it is perfectly in line with what Saudi Arabia is and stands for. Saudi savagery in Yemen is fed and supported by Anglo-American diplomacy and weapons, which has been a cause of moral concern for even diehard Saudi backers. Saudi-funded Islamists in Syria are, on the other hand, responsible for the rise of al Nusrah, and balancing Iranian Shia militias and proxies.

The two distinct strategic arguments on Saudi Arabia in American strategic thought, therefore, go like this. Is Saudi Arabia important to American grand strategy? How much should be tolerated, and at what cost to the Americans?

Matthew Continetti suggests in National Review the Saudis remain important: “Saudi Arabia has been the linchpin of America’s Middle East strategy for close to a century. That relationship has not been without costs.” He argues a Saudi Arabia left alone would be an unstable monarchy, which would imperil it from Iranian proxies. Put simply, they are horrific, but they are better than chaos, and what comes after, if the House of Saud falls.

He adds: “Iran, while not mentioned in relation to Khashoggi, is nonetheless a factor in this story. It is pressing against the Saudis on multiple fronts. It has fostered Shia rebellion within the kingdom itself and in Bahrain. It has armed and abetted the Houthis. Its proxies are on the cusp of victory in Syria, effectively control Lebanon, and have sown chaos in Iraq.”

Likewise, Walter Russell Mead argues that Washington’s fundamental aim is to keep the Gulf oil free. That has been a strategy since the 1940s, and that should continue, and to ditch Riyadh would mean Iranian influence growing in the Strait of Hormuz. Long story short, regardless of how reckless Saudis are, it’s better them than letting Iran be a sole hegemon in the region.

The Israeli balancing against Iran supports that thesis. Research suggests that Saudi Arabia and Israel have gotten closer in curbing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Recently, Israeli generals also met their Saudi counterpartsMike Doran summed it up on Anderson Cooper’s show this week. Saudis are needed to contain Iran. Therefore, America shouldn’t act on a fit of righteousness.

The counter-argument is that Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to the broader American grand strategy. As research suggests, petrostates rarely make good allies, and the Saudis are no exception to this rule. Petrostates are semi-feudal in nature. As Emma Ashford points out, due to their mono-industrial base, petrostates rarely have strong institutions. Their regional interests remain primarily sectarian and economic. Saudi rivalry with Iran fits this pattern.

Iran, a modern and relatively secular country ruled by medieval Shiite Ayatollahs, has a centuries-old history of regional hegemony. It is the natural counterbalance to the Sunni kingdom. After the boneheaded American toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran’s attempt to build a land bridge and expand its influence has fanned conflicts across the Middle East from Tehran to Tartus. However, as is the rule in geopolitics, that has led in turn to a spiral. The Saudis, feeling threatened, have supported Islamists to fill the vacuum left by revolutions, which in turn led to ISIS and further Anglo-American involvement.

Fortunately, therefore, the Middle East isn’t as important to the Americans as it was before. Realism dictates that Washington should fall back to a strategy of Offshore Balancing, which would entail letting the local warmongers duke it out and entering the fray only to balance a potential hegemon if and when they arise.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Greg: Which oil-producing nation that is in desperate need of cash has the most to gain by disrupting oil production in the region? Hmmmm?

We side with Saudi Arabia because they are the most moderate and least extreme of all the Muslim countries. Now, given what you just wrote, what does THAT tell you?

@kitt, #50:

Dont feel bad, the USA is a net exporter of oil, we also can be self sufficient with our resources.

Trump: US ready to tap strategic reserve after Saudi oil attack

The entire ME, every nation is an Islamic dictatorship why even point at that?

The people of Lebanon, Jordan, Cyprus, and Israel would be very much surprised to hear that. Actually, only five of the seventeen Middle Eastern nations are dictatorships—euphemistically referred to as Absolute Monarchies.

Saudi Arabia has only Sharia Law. Saudi Arabia doesn’t even have a constitution. Saudi Arabia is ranked 4th among the world’s 10 most oppressive nations. Iran doesn’t even make the top 10 list.

Iran recognizes Sharia, but also has a system of civil law. There’s a Supreme Leader—the head of state—in accordance with Iran’s constitution. There’s also an elected President, constitutionally limited to no more than 2 terms of 4 years, and a legislature directly elected by the people by secret ballot.

We apparently hold our noses in order to favor the guys with the oil and money.

@Deplorable Me, #51:

We side with Saudi Arabia because they are the most moderate and least extreme of all the Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia is most certainly NOT the most moderate and least extreme. They’re anything but. Please refer to the previous post. Saudi Arabia is on the high end of everybody’s short list of the most oppressive totalitarian states on the planet. They’re also devious as hell.

In our relationship with Saudi Arabia, we’re blinded by the dollar signs in our eyes. That’s the long and short of it. It’s why we let Khashoggi slide, as they knew we would.

@Greg: Trump: US ready to tap strategic reserve after Saudi oil attack
Really lol looks like the money rolls this way.

Really lol looks like the money rolls this way.

May any evil bastards who profit from this choke to death on their blood money.

@Deplorable Me: @kitt:

Wow!!! Greggie Goebbels singing the praises of Iran, a nation whose people shouts “Death To America” with regularity. Then he seems upset because we will be selling American oil. Guess he’d rather Russia make that money.

Kinda makes you wonder whose side Greggie Goebbels was on when he was in Vietnam, doesn’t it?

@Greg:

May any evil bastards who profit from this choke to death on their blood money.

WHY? It’s not like anyone in our energy industry paid Iran to attack the refinery. They are merely in the right place at the right time with the right product. They don’t even set the price. As usual, you ignore all the culprits and attack the innocent. Don’t you get tired of being WRONG every damned time?

@retire05: It’s pretty clear whose side he is on now; ANYONE that can harm America so Trump can take the blame.