On October 2, 2018, Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey and never came out. President Trump initially refused to publicly condemn the Saudis’ assassination of a dissident on foreign soil. In response, Democrats and Republicans have slowly started rethinking America’s Middle East policy. For example, the House has voted to withdraw American funding for the Saudi war effort in Yemen in February, even though GOP leadership continues to block the bill in the Senate.
Trump joins a long list of U.S. presidents who have remained silent on the egregious human rights abuses perpetrated by one of America’s chief allies in the Middle East. The national security establishment in Washington has, in effect, adopted the unofficial motto of U.S. Cold War foreign policy with regards to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman: “He is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.”
However, this realpolitik doctrine has proven as brainless as it is heartless. America’s unconcealed favoritism in the cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has had devastating effects for the entire region. While almost all serious observers agree that America’s war on radical Islamism in the past two decades has been a complete fiasco, few have dared challenge America’s special relationship with the most radical government in the Middle East.
“Sowing Chaos, Death, and Destruction”
The American national security establishment has been applying double standards to its relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Presidents from Reagan to Trump have denounced Iran as the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism. However, almost all of the 61 groups on the State Department’s terrorist watchlist are funded by the Saudi government, private Saudi donors, or both. While it has fought groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the kingdom has escalated the Syrian civil war by funneling money to extremist organizations like Ahrar Al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front.
Contrary to its image as an anchor of stability, Saudi Arabia, in truth, bears much of the responsibility for the recent uptick in violence and instability in the region. To reinstate embattled Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, bin Salman has conducted massive airstrikes on Yemeni territory, indiscriminately targeting schools, hospitals, religious buildings, and civilian infrastructure. The violence has placed 14 million Yemenis at risk of starvation in what the United Nations warns could become “the worst famine in the world in 100 years.”
Still, the United States has supported the crown prince’s bloody war with both intelligence and weapons, culminating in a $110 billion arms deal at the 2017 Riyadh Summit. Only a month after the meeting that saw Trump merrily swaying along to a traditional sword dance, the Saudis, emboldened by U.S. support, spearheaded a blockade of oil-rich Qatar in blatant violation of international law.
The American Threat
According to Trump, however, it is Iran, and not Saudi Arabia, that is sowing “chaos, death, and destruction.” This assessment ignores the importance of fundamental security considerations in shaping states’ behavior. Iran’s foreign policy is guided by fear of the “American devil.” In 1953, the CIA ended Iran’s short flirtation with democracy by deposing the country’s first freely elected prime minister. When George W. Bush, after including Iran in his infamous “axis of evil,” invaded neighboring Iraq in 2003, Iranian elites worried their country would be next. Feeling vulnerable, Iran even privately proposed a “grand bargain” including negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. “We don’t talk to evil,” replied Vice President Cheney on behalf of the Bush administration’s emboldened neoconservative wing.
Fearing American strategic encirclement, Iran has since doubled down on its deterrence strategy and pushed ahead with its nuclear weapons program. Due to its proximity to U.S.-allied Israel, Hezbollah plays a central role in this deterrence strategy, with Syria connecting Iran to its Lebanese proxy fighters. As Saudi Arabia and the United States began to throw their support behind the Syrian opposition, Iran fought back to defend the Assad regime, its most important ally in the region.
Two Shaky Pillars
There is no good reason, idealistic or realistic, for the divergence in U.S. foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia and Iran. The shale revolution has significantly reduced U.S. dependence on oil imports. Within only eight months in 2014, Saudi oil exports to the United States halved. Today, Washington has no reason to continue its commitment to an alliance that destroys America’s international credibility as a supporter of human rights.
In an ideal world, the United States would not have to interact with regimes like Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s. However, in order to defend its interests in the Middle East, America should engage with both without antagonizing either. From 1969 to 1979, the United States pursued a “two-pillar strategy” in the Middle East, relying on both Iran and Saudi Arabia to uphold order throughout the Middle East. Today, America should return to a similar balancing strategy.
Without an American blank check, the Saudis will likely think twice before invading and bullying their neighboring countries and arming radical terrorists. At the same time, assuaging Iran’s fears about drastic American intervention might allow Iran to shift away from its continued reliance upon Hezbollah, Assad, and Shia militias in Iraq. By forcing Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiation table, Trump could bring an end to conflicts in Yemen and Syria and the Qatar blockade.
Such a rebalancing would no doubt present the most significant change in America’s Middle East policy since 1979. However, given the civil war in Syria, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, sectarian infighting in Iraq, the terrorist activity of ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, and persistent anti-Americanism throughout the region, it is high time for a change. A new, more balanced foreign policy would be both more fair and more effective in pursuing American interests in the region.
Image Credit: Google Images/Evan Vucci