Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 31, 2013
Why Saudi Arabia and the US don’t see eye to eye in the Middle East
Give credit to Vladimir Putin and his New York Times op-ed on Syria for sparking a new tactic for foreign leaders hoping to influence American public opinion. In recent weeks, Saudi Arabian political elites have followed Putin’s lead, using American outlets to express their distaste with the West’s foreign policy, particularly with regard to Syria and Iran. In comments to the Wall Street Journal, prominent Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal decried the United States for cutting a preliminary deal with Iran on its nuclear program without giving the Saudis a seat at the table, and for Washington’s unwillingness to oppose Assad in the wake of the atrocities he’s committed. Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain followed with an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone.” The Saudis are clearly upholding the vow made by intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan back in October to undergo a “major shift” away from the United States.
In light of the recent actions of the Obama administration, many allies are also frustrated and confused, and even hedging their bets in reaction to the United States’ increasingly unpredictable foreign policy. But of all the disappointed countries, none is more so than Saudi Arabia – and with good reason. That’s because the two countries have shared interests historically – but not core values – and those interests have recently diverged.
First, America’s track record in the Middle East in recent years has sowed distrust. The relationship began to deteriorate with the United States’ initial response to the Arab Spring, where its perceived pro-democratic stance stood at odds with the Saudi ruling elite. After Washington stood behind the elections that installed a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and then spoke out against the Egyptian army’s attempt to remove President Mohammad Morsi, the Saudi royals were left to wonder where Washington would stand if similar unrest broke out on their soil.
Second, while the oil trade has historically aligned U.S.-Saudi interests, the unconventional energy breakthrough in North America is calling this into question. The United States and Canada are utilizing hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques, leading to a surge in domestic energy production. That development leaves America significantly less dependent on oil from the Middle East, and contributes to the U.S.’ shifting interests and increasing disengagement in the region. Not only does Saudi Arabia lose influence in Washington – many of the top American executives in the oil industry were their best conduits – but it also puts the Saudis on the wrong end of this long-term trend toward increasing global energy supply.
To say that oil is an integral part of Saudi Arabia’s economy is a gross understatement. Oil still accounts for 45 percent of Saudi GDP, 80 percent of budget revenue, and 90 percent of exports. In the months ahead, new oil supply is expected to outstrip new demand, largely on the back of improvements in output in Iraq and Libya. By the end of the first quarter of 2014, Saudi Arabia will likely have to reduce production to keep prices stable. And the trend toward more supply doesn’t take into account the potential for a comprehensive Iranian nuclear deal that would begin to ease sanctions and allow more Iranian crude to reach global markets.
It is this ongoing nuclear negotiation with Iran that poses the principal threat to an aligned United States and Saudi Arabia. An Iranian deal would undercut Saudi Arabia’s leadership over fellow Gulf States, as other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members like Kuwait and the UAE would welcome resurgent trade with Iran. At the same time, Iran would emerge over the longer term as the chief competitor for influence across the broader region, serving as the nexus of Shi’ite power. The Saudis would find themselves most directly threatened by this Shi’ite resurgence within neighboring Bahrain, a majority Shi’ite state ruled by a Sunni regime that is backstopped by the Saudi royals.
The bottom line: the Saudis are actively competing with Iran for influence throughout the Middle East. That’s why the Saudis have the most at stake from any easing of sanctions on Iran, any normalization of relations with the West, or any nuclear breakthrough that gives Iran the ultimate security bargaining chip. The Saudis have reaped the benefits of an economically weak Iran – and they are not prepared to relinquish that advantage. Ultimately, any deal that exchanges Iranian economic security for delays in Iran’s nuclear program is a fundamental problem for Saudi Arabia – as is any failed deal that allows sanctions to unravel.
For all of these reasons, even though the United States will be buying Saudi oil for years to come and will still sell the Saudis weapons, American policy in the Middle East has now made the United States more hostile to Saudi interests than any other major country outside the region. That’s why the Saudis have been so vocal about the United States’ perceived policy failures.
But to say Obama has messed up the Middle East is a serious overstatement. What he has tried to do is avoid getting too involved in a messed up Middle East. Obama ended the war in Iraq. In Libya, he did everything possible to remain on the sidelines, not engaging until the GCC and Arab League beseeched him to – and even then, only in a role of “leading from behind” the French and the British.
Call the Obama policy “engaging to disengage.” In Syria, Obama did everything possible to stay out despite the damage to his international credibility. When the prospect for a chemical weapons agreement arose, he leapt at the chance to point to a tangible achievement that could justify the U.S. remaining a spectator to the broader civil war. In Iran, a key goal of Obama’s diplomatic engagement will be to avoid the use of military force down the road. It hasn’t always been pretty, but Obama has at least been trying to act in the best interests of the United States – interests that are diverging from Saudi Arabia’s.
That is all too clear when you look at the Saudi ambassador to Britain’s perception of the West’s dealings in Syria and Iran: “The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.”
The Saudis have a growing stake in all of these conflicts; for the United States, they are waning as priorities. These Middle East hot spots will remain a mess regardless of the United States’ stance. But the Saudis have a preferred mess – and it’s not the one the Americans are leaving them with. (Ian Bremmer)
7 Comments on "Why Saudi Arabia and the US don’t see eye to eye in the Middle East"
dissident on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 12:33 am
Poor little America, foreign leaders are trying to influence its public opinion. Hello, anyone home! The US and its NGO proxies work 24/7 to manipulate public opinion in countries such as Ukraine and Russia. They don’t do it via editorials, which can be ignored. They do it via creating a cacophony of propaganda via yellow journalist shills.
Saudi Arabia is the premier exporter of terrorism on the planet. But it has the USA covering its behind. Instead of bombing the KSA the US attacked Iraq after 9/11.
Makati1 on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 1:12 am
The old guys are terrified that they will lose power and the 7,000+ young princes are terrified that they will never have any.
“My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel.”
DC on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 1:52 am
This entire article is just one lengthy mis-characterization of everything going on currently. IE, propaganda. The US knocked out both Libras AND Iraqs oil production and have gone to great lengths to do the same to Iran via non-military means(for now). The uS were never on the ‘side-lines’ at all, they were, and remain, the prime movers in all three instances regardless what Reuters would like you to think.
And despite Mr Bremmers attempt to paint Iran as some kind of instigator, he cant actually point to anything Iran has done wrong precisely. All he can do is try to clumsily steer the blame for a situation the US created towards Iran. The Sauds shouldnt worry so much, the US hasnt lost its appetite for exporting war and death, not at all. Its just that the US is trying to destabilize too many nations at once. They had to retreat in Syria, China is being set up as next big bad, the recent failure to turn Ukraine into a Nato puppet. The most recent effort, organizing the ‘terrorist’ bombings in Russia, all of these efforts are a little too much for the US to focus on any one properly. Im am sure the US will come around to Iran again once it finishes terrorizing Russian civilians and encircling China.
steveo on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 12:48 pm
“Obama ended the war in Iraq.”
Well, not exactly. The Bush administration returned “sovereignty” to Iraq, then the Iraqi government refused to extend troop deployment after 2011. To extend the war past that point would have required overthrowing the government in Iraq.
eugene on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 4:18 pm
And if, as I suspect, the “boom” in US production turns out to be more limited and short lived than the boom in optimism believes, things will get even more interesting.
Arthur on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 6:38 pm
In recent weeks, Saudi Arabian political elites have followed Putin’s lead, using American outlets to express their distaste with the West’s foreign policy, particularly with regard to Syria and Iran.
This is a ridiculous sentence, because SA and Putin have diametrically opposed objectives in the ME.
In comments to the Wall Street Journal, prominent Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal decried the United States… for Washington’s unwillingness to oppose Assad in the wake of the atrocities he’s committed.
Another insane hypocritical statement: the ‘atrocities’ were instigated by SA/Qatar as proxies for US/UK, not Assad. The Saudi’s as the new humanitarians, you can’t make this stuff up.
Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain followed with an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone.” The Saudis are clearly upholding the vow made by intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan back in October to undergo a “major shift” away from the United States.
This can only be bluff, since no one else is going to support SA in a war against Iran, which SA alone cannot win. It is perfectly understandable that SA is frustrated with the US, that promised to overthrow Assad and now, on 2nd thoughts, does not.
Obama ended the war in Iraq.
I would say that his government finally came to the correct conclusion that there was no use for keeping a very expensive army in the desert indefinitely, that could not achieve anything. The US toppled the dictator, organized elections and the Shi’ite majority won. And as a consequence now Iraq belongs to the Iranian sphere of influence. Thank you, says Tehran.
But the Saudi’s seem to be right in their assessment that the US has grown less bellicose, since the Syria deal brokered by Putin. Russia and China clearly send signals to Washington, to not cross the line. And for the moment it looks as if Washington won’t.
rockman on Tue, 31st Dec 2013 11:09 pm
It would appear the KSA isn’t counting on anyone to protect them. They appear to be in the process of building a very significant defense forces. And given the growing financial connection I suspect they see a potential for Chinese boots on the ground if the need develops. The Chinese have lots of boots that probably wouldn’t feel as constrained in their rules of engagement as western forces would:
Saudi Arabia has emerged as the biggest foreign customer for German arms, buying nearly a quarter of Germany’s total weapons sales.
It’s part of an emerging pattern of weapons purchases by Saudi Arabia and its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates.
Saudi Arabia was the world’s 10th-largest weapons importer in 2008-2012 (the Emirates was No. 9). And Saudi Arabia is expected to be among the top five for 2013-17 “due to major outstanding orders, such as for 48 Typhoon combat aircraft from the UK and 152 F-15SA combat aircraft from the USA.”
That’s according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks such sales.
Last month, the U.S. Defense Department said it would sell the Saudis and the Emiratis $10.8 billion in advanced weaponry, including Boeing’s Expanded-Response Standoff Land Attack Missile and Raytheon Joint Standoff Weapon.
The announcement “sends a message of support from the Obama administration to two close allies in the Middle East,” Bloomberg reported. The Pentagon’s notice came as the U.S. and its allies were engaged in talks over Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s more from Bloomberg:
“The Saudi regime has pressed the U.S. to maintain tough economic sanctions on Iran, both to discourage it from developing a nuclear arsenal and to limit Iran’s capacity to help its embattled ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity about diplomatic relations.”
Those stories prompted us to examine the world’s top arms buyers — and their biggest suppliers. SIPRI maintains the data, but its figures are a percentage of total sales — not the dollar amount. This is because not every country provides details of its weapons sales.
Also, SIPRI’s figures cover a five-year period. The accompanying graphs show the data for the period 2008-2012.
SIPRI estimates that the total value of arms sales in 2011 was at least $43 billion. But that number is a low estimate, as the U.S. Congressional Research Service says that in 2011, “the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations was $28 billion.” That’s just for developing nations. And that’s sales from the U.S. alone.
The U.S. dominated sales, followed by Russia. Germany, France and China accounted for much of the rest of the sales.
The top five arms buyers were all Asian nations: India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and Singapore. Together, they accounted for nearly a third of all arms purchases during the period. But taken together, the Asia-Pacific, including the Middle East, accounted for half of all global arms purchases.
Russia was the top seller to India and China. While China sold Pakistan half the arms Islamabad procured in that time. The U.S. dominated sales to South Korea and Singapore.