As the president’s term slowly approaches its end, some call U.S.-Iran relations the most urgent of the Obama Administration’s shortcomings.The Saudi government has been exceedingly critical. Saudi complaints make sense, especially given the reality that they are directly threatened by Iran’s hegemonic rise. As such, the uncertain Saudi future will greatly impact regional dynamics. The United States has a key role to play in the Arabian Peninsula even as it pivots to Asia. Less clear is what will characterize the U.S.-Saudi relationship in the post-Obama era. Critics complain that our current alliance lacks definition and transparency, while others say dealing with the Saudi regime is a necessary evil. In the spirit of Ian Bremmer’s "Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World" (May 2015), I offer three options for the United States going forward.
Option 1: A Pragmatic Alliance
The most obvious option is continued or deepened U.S.-Saudi cooperation not conditioned on domestic Saudi reform. Why change a worthwhile strategy as a regional rival is on the rise? Besides, as the United States negotiated the first years of the War on Terror, Saudi counterparts provided crucial assistance. As Wall Street Journal foreign affairs columnist Bret Stephens recently wrote that “…the kingdom has been fighting al Qaeda for decades. It revoked Osama bin Laden’s citizenship in the early 1990s and pushed the Taliban to expel him from Afghanistan. Saudi intelligence has been vital in stopping major terrorist plots, including the 2010 al Qaeda plot to bomb cargo planes bound for the U.S.”
Further, while the United States has had some success advancing reforms inside Saudi Arabia, the humanitarian obstacle is tough to overcome. The United States cannot afford major shifts in alliances neither based on humanitarian considerations nor as Iran projects power in Syria, the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere. Despite the numerous challenges a closer U.S.-Saudi alliance presents, it is better to deal with a difficult Saudi regime than an unknown alternative.
Option 2: Riyadh, We Have a Problem
So the Saudi-American alliance works. Except, of course, for its rampant human rights violations. Many Saudis are marginalized at best. The kingdom’s mixed human rights record challenges the coherence and cohesion of American foreign policy doctrine. How can the U.S. government say its foreign policy is one of morality while its Saudi counterparts execute 47 dissidents in a single day? But there’s good news. Increased Iranian oil exports due to relieved sanctions and other factors are adding pressure to an already shaky Saudi economy. Poor economic performance puts the regime in a precarious position. If there is any time for the United States to hold the Saudi regime accountable, it is now, by offering the monarchy much-needed foreign direct investment and increased security assistance in exchange for domestic liberalization. It’s no accident that the Saudi government allowed women “to participate as voters and candidates in municipal elections for the first time in December," as Bret Stephens described in his recent column.
Option 3: A Separation
Our alliance with Saudi Arabia just hasn’t paid off. Despite post-9/11 intelligence cooperation, the Saudi government foments instability by promoting radical Wahhabi Islam abroad. This has threatened U.S. allies like Egypt and fans the flames of regional conflict. Besides, American aid and weapons have yet to drastically alter the Saudi regime’s calculus or policies. Women still cannot drive. Dissidents are still executed by the dozen. To add to this, there is an argument to be made that the Saudi regime is already in relative decline. Wise foreign policy is marked by the ability to know when to reevaluate or alter diplomatic commitments.
Regardless of which approach is yours, there will be consequences to negotiate. Strengthening U.S.-Saudi ties may be the gateway to dangerous diplomatic mission creep. Exerting influence to advance change inside Saudi borders could backfire, leading the Saudi regime to further repression and yet deeper support of Wahhabi elements. Premature disengagement could further embolden a rising regional challenger to the United States. These issues and my opinion notwithstanding, this issue must be wrestled with as Iran asserts itself.
Editor's note: If you would like to write to us your response or make an Op-Ed contribution, please e-mail us at tuftsdailyoped@gmail.com. The Opinion section looks forward to hearing from you.
More from The Tufts Daily
