Jonathan S. Tobin |
Saudi Bluff on Palestinians Fools No One -Jonathan S. Tobin
In today’s New York Times op-ed page, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States Turki Al-Faisal writes if the Obama administration vetoes a motion recognizing a unilateral Palestinian declaration of an independent state, it will mean the end of the U.S.-Saudi alliance.
Al-Faisal’s threats are patently absurd. The Saudis need U.S. power as a shield against both Iran and al-Qaeda just as much if not more than Americans need Saudi oil. But the main conclusion to be drawn from this threat is not so much about the Saudi devotion to the Palestinian cause, which we know is mere lip service. The interesting thing is what it says about the Saudis’ opinion of President Obama. For such a threat — albeit one without much credibility — to be issued by a prominent member of the royal family and the regime illustrates how weak they think Obama really is.
Talk about a more “independent” foreign policy by Saudi Arabia is just that: talk. The Saudis desperately need to keep America engaged in the Persian Gulf to keep their Iranian rivals at bay. Without the United States, upon who will the Saudis depend to guarantee their security? Let’s remember that al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists are a greater threat to the Saudi monarchy than anyone else. It is their shaky regime that will suffer the most if they pursue policies, as Al-Faisal threatens, that undermine stability in Iraq and Afghanistan merely for the sake of pique over the Palestinians.
That brings us back to the Saudi evaluation of Obama. For them to believe the administration would even for a minute think about backing off on a veto that is as necessary to defend American interests in the region as it is for Israel because of a blatantly insincere threat from Riyadh is testimony to their low opinion of the president.
Obama came into office believing he would transform the world’s opinion of America due to the force of his personality. Al-Faisal’s contemptuous essay is merely the latest evidence demonstrating how in less than three years he has won over no new friends and alienated virtually all of America’s allies.
[Commentary]
*
Saudi Arabia's exploitation of Palestinian UN bid -Caroline Glick
The Saudis effectively ended their strategic alliance with the US in the aftermath of the US-supported overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. [T]he US's abandonment of Mubarak was one of the greatest strategic errors the US has ever committed.
Things are getting uglier and uglier.
[CarolineGlick.com]
*
5 comments:
This started out reasonably but got ridiculous. It is true that this sounds more like bluff than anything, but to say we should have supported Mubarack shows the kind of nonsense that never learns from the past. It would have been as successful as trying to keep the Shah of Iran in power. Obama has not alienated any American allies and from Healthcare reform to improving world relations Obama has done just about everything he said he would. The only reason anyone would write something so poorly thought out is because Obama has not been able to effectively turn the economy around from the deep hole dug by the previous administration. While it is true that his methods have not proven any more successful in dealing with Iran or the Arab Israeli conflict, it has also been less harmful than the complete destabilizing of the balance of power between Iraq and Iran---again done by the previous administration. This blog often has thought provoking and important, well thought out essays but this one is none of those.
A few questions arise. Would Mubarak have fallen if Obama had not called for him to leave? It's interesting to recall that the Egyptian military did not turn on Mubarak until after Obama did. But what the Saudis were freaked out by was how quickly we abandoned Mubarak. If we didn't stick with Mubarak, why would the Saudis [or the Jordanians] think we'd stick with them if they were under duress? I'm no fan of Mubarak, but there are consequences.
Obama was quick to abandon Egypt's ruler, but also quick to abandon Yemen's cooperative rulers. If that was right, why did he hesitate to suppport the protesters in Iran just a few years ago. And his hesitation to support the protesters in Syria was instructive. The message does seem to be that we abandon our friends and reward our enemies. At least in the MidEast.
I do not think it was so quick nor do i think that is what the Saudis do not like. They do not like they we ever turned from an ally but we are trying to handle things better than we did in the past. As for Iran and Syria I have not seen this administration falter or hesitate in its support of the protesters. Obama supported the Iran protests and has called for Syria's leadership to change. I think it is how one chooses to spin all of this that makes the case or not.
If you were a Saudi prince, you'd feel differently. The only difference between Egypt and Saudi Arabia is that there's more money in Saudi Arabia. Their rule is no less autocratic than Mubarak.
Obama's call for Syrian regime change came only when the violence raged on unabated. He has still not called for regime change in Iran...shameful, considering how America-positive common Iranians are.
I am sure you are right about if I were a Saudi Prince. America walks a fine line as we have often needed to be allies or chosen to be allies with people that did not like us or did not treat their own people well. Our support of the Shah helped to usher in the Iran of today. We supported Saddam Hussein against Iran even as he suppressed his own people, then stopped him from hurting his own people and destabilized the balance of power and put Israel in a more precarious place as we empowered the Iran of today. We supported all the other Arab leadership, but as happened in Egypt the Saudis should be worried because we have shown time and time again throughout recent history that we do not know who to support or how to support them and while we try to figure the MidEast out some people are not going to be happy with what we do. With all the polarized sides in these things it is inevitable that someone will always be unhappy with the choices the US makes in the Middle East.
Post a Comment