Follow us on social

Mohammad_bin_salman_in_washington_-_2018_26083237057

Saudi bodyguards have been training in the U.S. since Obama. Why?

Revelations that Khashoggi's killers were trained by a private security contractor in the States have raised some uncomfortable questions.

Analysis | Middle East

Four of the 15 Saudis involved in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi received training in the United States, according to the New York Times. The story highlights the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, the critique of which has simmered following Khashoggi’s grisly murder and dismemberment in October 2018. 

Tier 1 Group, the security company that conducted the training of the four Saudi men, has stressed that the instruction they received had no relation to the acts of brutal violence they carried out against Khashoggi. Instead, the training was defensive in nature, intended to “counter an attack” ostensibly against a high profile individual. This reiterates the link to Mohamed bin Salman, as members of MBS’ personal protection squad carried out the killing, although the Saudis continue to deny the Crown Prince’s responsibility in ordering the murder.

Yet the revelation also underscores the fact that the problems underpinning the U.S.-Saudi relationship predate the Trump White House, as well as Mohammed bin Salman’s tenure as crown prince. The four Saudis were trained in 2017, but two also received training between 2014 and 2015, while Obama was president, and King Abdullah was still on the Saudi throne. The question emerges as to why Saudi operatives receive training in the United States at all?

The military partnership between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia reflects the countries’ 75-year-long relationship. Historically, Washington had to overcome the mismatch between Saudi policy and values that the United States claimed to uphold — democracy, individual liberty, gender equality, freedom of expression — because of American dependence on Saudi oil. Yet the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest exporter of oil in 2019; instead the majority of Saudi fossil fuels now travel eastwards to Asian markets. Although the global economy remains dependent on fossil fuels, U.S. willingness to ignore Saudi abuses and crimes can no longer be explained by America’s addiction to Saudi oil.

Instead, it is the American military industrial complex that remains dependent on Saudi Arabia as a wealthy and valued customer. Although the Trump administration increased the sale of U.S. weapons by 23 percent, many of them to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration sold vast quantities of weapons to the Saudis as well. The Biden administration, after initially committing to end the sale of offensive weapons that could be used to attack Yemen, has allowed certain sales to proceed.

At the time of Khashoggi’s murder, Congress denounced the Trump administration’s close partnership with the Saudis, even passing an historic War Powers Resolution, which Trump vetoed. Yet since Biden’s ascension to power, perhaps because Biden himself initially signaled that he would be tough on the Saudis, critique of the relationship has been more muted. Members needn't have worried: the Biden administration also has deep ties to the defense industry.

As long as the United States merely pays lip service to the preservation of human rights, or only points out abuses by U.S. adversaries while ignoring the crimes of U.S. partners, Biden's efforts to restore America's moral authority will fail. The Biden administration should suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and drastically reduce its military partnership with the House of Saud. Until that occurs, Americans should prepare for more embarrassing revelations about the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.


Then-Defense Secretary James N. Mattis meets with Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., Mar. 22, 2018. (DoD photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kathryn E. Holm)
Analysis | Middle East
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.