Saudi Arabia buys the West
Ex: http://journal-neo.org
The
relationship between Saudi Arabia and the west, primarily the United
States, has always been a critical component of the Saudi political
policy. However, the recent changes to the strategy undertaken by
Washington and its various European allies to resolve both the Syrian
crisis and the Iranian nuclear program have forced Riyadh to amend its
foreign policy priorities and to alter any further co-operation with the
western countries.
These
policy changes that Washington and its main ally, London, have
undertaken in the Middle East are being called no less than a “betrayal
and a deceitful attitude towards Riyadh” by representatives of the Saudi
Arabian royal family. Such claims were particularly applied toThe Telegraph newspaper
by the Saudi ambassador in London, prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin
AbdulAziz Al Saud and it has been stated that from now on, Riyadh “will
not be idly standing by”. His advisor Nawaf Obaid has, meanwhile, accused
America and the west of “being dishonest with Saudi Arabia” and
announced that the Saudis will be adopting a new “defence doctrine” to
accomplish their foreign policy goals and that “our strategic posture is
moving from reactive to proactive”, that is, they will be taking an
active position in terms of their foreign policy.
Saudi
Arabia’s refusal to strategically partner with the United States was
also voiced to a host of foreign media at the end of 2013 by the head of
the Saudi Intelligence Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who claimed that a
“decisive shift” was occurring in Saudi Arabian foreign policy. He has
stated that the Saudi monarchy will now cease to focus on Washington,
who has been “ignoring Riyadh interests”.
Saudi
Arabia’s foreign policy has certainly never been public. This is
primarily because the leaders of this kingdom have never had to be
accountable before their own people with regards to their plans and
policies. This is why Riyadh’s plans on the foreign arena were always
hidden behind a veil of secrecy and only in certain circumstances did
well-known foreign players become privy to this knowledge through
“confidential talks” with Saudi diplomats. Even then, this information
was less of a “revelation” and was instead clearly well-placed
information that was disseminated in a skilled manner through the
“confidential talks” to reinforce certain Saudi manoeuvres or to
implement certain secret monarchy plans. This is why the information
pertaining to Riyadh’s shifting political focus that “accidentally”
ended up in the hands of a host of western news agencies, primarily The
Wall Street Journal,The Telegraph, Reuters, The New York Times and
others at the end of last year was really an expertly-executed
informational campaign aimed at warning Washington and London that they
their risk losing their main ally in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia. It’s
not hard to guess that Prince Bandar bin Sultan could have been the one
behind this campaign, as he is in charge of not only the national
intelligence but virtually all of the kingdom’s foreign policy.
This
“informational leak” was quickly followed by Riyadh’s “demonstration of
strength” in the form of financial flirting with various Arab countries
as well as those in the Middle Eastern region (in particular Lebanon,
Egypt and others) and their readiness to fully replace the United States
as a source of funding for their military and technical modernization
programs as well as a source of foreign weapons, a task that would
instead be relegated to a “trusted Saudi Arabian ally”. This political
game undertaken by Riyadh began to actively attract leaders of other
nations, those who also felt “offended by Washington”. Or, simply put,
those who, like Saudi Arabia, have become outcasts within the new
American policies. In this environment, the Saudi’s first choice fell to
the French president François Hollande, who was eager to play along to
the Riyadh tune during a time when his ratings were falling
catastrophically low among the French population.
This led to François Hollande visiting
Riyadh at the end of 2013 where the Saudi Arabian king allocated a $3
billion grant to fund the Lebanese Army on the condition that weapons
will be purchased in France. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia also stated that
it is ready to spend over $50 billion on the further foreign policy
rapprochement with France, which is based on their common views with
respect to the situation in Syria and Iran.
This
led to a severely negative reaction in the United States, where this
grant approval was seen as a public insult of the American position on
Iran and Syria, a position that is contrary to the Saudi policies
surrounding these countries. The United States believes that Riyadh
intends to create a new axis with Paris after having met the rather
soft, from the Saudi point of view, platform undertaken by Washington
with respect to their Middle Eastern policies. The foundation of this
new axis will be involving Paris in billion dollar operations relating
to the regions’ weapons and military equipment, something France cannot
refuse. At the forefront of the French-Saudi political alliance is the
Saudi oil money which has caught the interest of the deeply troubled
French economy. The French have already signed a $1.5 billion contract
agreeing to modernize the Saudi navy, which has led François Hollande to
undertake three additional visits to Saudi Arabia.
Although
the French and Saudi Arabian foreign policy is fairly close on issues
surrounding Syria, Lebanon and Iran, there are serious disagreements
regarding Egypt with respect to the role that the Muslim Brotherhood
should have in the country and in the region as a whole. These
disagreements could undermine the burgeoning “axis of good” in the
future, however, Riyadh can presently count on their “valuable ally,
uncompromising with respect to Assad” on Syrian issues.
Washington
is not only worried about losing Saudi Arabia as the sole client for
American weapons, but is also concerned about the hit to the United
States’ reputation as the provider of aid to Lebanon to help strengthen
their military power. After all, the financial support being provided to
Lebanon seems to be a lot more generous from Saudi Arabia than it is
from the U.S.
The
United States’ foreign policy image with respect to Syria is also
suffering due to France’s growing activity in establishing contacts with
the Syrian opposition with the aid of the Saudis. While François
Hollande was having talks with Riyadh’s protégé and head of the national
coalition for Syrian opposition Ahmad Dzharba, Washington’s highest
politicians did not once attempt to make these types of contact
themselves.
France’s
growing efforts to anchor in the Persian Gulf and the Saudi attempts to
define partners who would help resolve pressing regional issues (Syria,
Iran and others) without involving the United States has led to serious
concerns in Washington. The American plan to control the process of
transforming the gulf monarchies (Cooperation Council for the Arab
States of the Gulf) into an economic, military and political bloc are
now under serious threat. This could also mean that various U.S.
projects would grind to a halt, such as the creation of the unified
integrated ABM system in the Persian Gulf, the launching of the new
co-ordination mechanism – a Council of the Defence Ministers of the U.S.
and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and even
the creation of a unified military and political bloc of the gulf
monarchies.
This
has forced the hand of U.S. State Secretary John Kerry, who travelled
to Saudi Arabia with a short visit at the beginning of January of this
year. Although the main topic of conversation was the issue of
reconciling the Middle East, behind closed doors there were also talks
of other issues that have cast a shadow over Saudi-American relations
(military-technical co-operation and their disagreements on Iranian and
Syrian policies). The Saudis once again linked resolving the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict with how the situation will be developing
with regards to the regional problems that are central to Saudi
interests.
Within
these circumstances, the United States’ position on these issues will
be a defining characteristic that will determine the further particulars
of the Saudi co-operation with the Americans. Experts also note that
Saudi Arabia will not be able to agree that the Arab countries should
recognize the Jewish character of the Israeli state, a point which is
being advanced by the Americans and John Kerry himself.
In
a word, the “boiling Middle East” is a fitting name for the region as
the intrigues here seem to be perpetually growing. They are followed by
new informational provocation, which in turn prepares a foothold for the
possible upcoming deterioration of the military-political situation in
the region. One example of this is the new recent claim by the U.S.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding the
possibility that Syria has the manufacturing capabilities to produce not
just chemical, but biological weapons which will, once again, give the
U.S. a reason to send a military operation to Damascus, something of
particular interest to Riyadh who is ready to pay any amount of their
oil money to achieve their goals.
However,
let’s not forget that the times are changing and the world is changing
with them. New calls for military action, even those that are financed
well and generously funded by the Wahhabi monarchy, will not only fail
to generate an income for the puppeteers in Washington and Riyadh, but
will instead hasten their political downfall.
Vladimir Odintsov is a political commentator exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.
