Follow us on social

51590077394_fd632a575b_o-1

Ukraine war offers some clarity on transactional nature of US-Arab relations

It's time for rightsizing and realignment. Washington can continue to cooperate, but only if it's in our national interests.

Analysis | Middle East

A realignment of global relationships is underway, and that shift has become glaringly obvious in the days and weeks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Democracies are bolstering other democracies and authoritarians are supporting other authoritarians.

In the Middle East, we’ve seen leaders refuse to follow in lock-step with United States and the West in response to the Russian invasion and refrain from ostracizing Putin. The various United Nations General Assembly votes on Russian aggression in recent days and weeks have served as a litmus test for the general direction in which America’s relationships are headed in the region.

One example of this is the outcome of the April 7 UNGA vote to suspend Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council in which every country in the Middle East either abstained or opposed suspending Russia.

Additionally, there are reports that Saudi Arabia is considering accepting Chinese yuan in exchange for oil, threatening the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the only global reserve currency, and thereby undermining U.S. power globally. The Middle East’s now public embrace of Russia and China is both rational and probable.

Decisive U.S. and European actions and sanctions against Putin did not go unnoticed by regional regimes, which likely realize that this could happen to them one day if for any reason the West decides to take action against their rule. Those same regimes felt similarly during the Arab Spring when the Obama administration was not willing to condemn popular movements to depose long-time dictators, and allowed those movements to take their course.  

Even though the Gulf monarchies emerged mostly unscathed from the Arab Spring, they fear the spread of popular movements throughout the region and therefore continue to bankroll anti-democratic movements and figures. The most significant example of this, is the Gulf’s support of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el Sisi in the wake of the 2013 military coup, which overthrew Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi. Gulf states have spent tens of billions of dollars to prop-up el Sisi since 2013.

In addition to the U.S. position on the Arab Spring and the American willingness to wield crippling sanctions against a country like Russia that is admired by Arab leaders, the Gulf rift with the United States has deepened due to the U.S. refusal to become more deeply involved in the catastrophic Yemen war launched by Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman in 2015, as well as the U.S. commitment to renegotiating a nuclear deal with Iran.

While the United States continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, President Biden has said that the U.S. will only deliver "defensive" weapons to protect against cross-border Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia. While what is considered a defensive capability is somewhat nebulous, this policy has curbed some U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, like for example, air to ground missiles.

The level of involvement that Saudi Arabia envisions for the United States in Yemen goes well beyond what the Biden administration is likely willing to provide. Perhaps having realized that the Biden administration is not going to get fully on board with its Yemen campaign — and with Congress potentially moving forward with another War Powers Resolution — the Saudis ramped up their diplomatic efforts in recent days and declared a unilateral two-month truce that appears to have stopped cross-border Houthi attacks, at least for the time being.  

What Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and many in Washington view as a U.S. “abandonment” of its Gulf partners should actually be judged as a prudent U.S. decision to not join a devastating war of choice. Washington should not appease regional actors and should not undervalue the benefits the U.S. security umbrella has conferred not just on the Gulf, but for global trade and free-riders such as China who have benefitted greatly at no cost.  

Despite decades of investment of American blood and treasure in the region, Arab leaders continue to view their relationships with the United States on a transactional basis, as these relationships from their inception were not founded on shared values. Rightsizing and rebalancing America’s regional relationships does not mean that it must cut ties and disengage. The United States should continue to cooperate with countries in the Middle East to the extent that interests align in certain areas. However, this should not be done at the expense of U.S. strategic interests.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the West must rethink not just its military posture but its economic relationships with adversaries like China and Russia. The first step policy makers can take is to regain American energy and economic independence and help Europe untie itself — not just form the Russian energy sector, but from tethering itself to other problematic actors who can fill the gap.

In the short-term, this means increasing U.S. energy production from all possible sources, including for example extracting and exporting more liquified natural gas and incentivizing U.S. oil companies to ramp up production. In the medium to long-term this means focusing on significantly increasing solar, wind, and nuclear energy production so that cartels like OPEC+ can no longer hold the global economy hostage.

The second step is to aggressively pursue a foreign policy that emphasizes promoting U.S. interests, human rights, and democratic values while deepening partnerships with countries that share our values.

And finally, the United States should have an agile foreign policy, especially when dealing with adversaries and countries that do not share its values. The United States must accept the transactional nature of relationships with countries in the Middle East by fundamentally reassessing, rightsizing, and rebalancing U.S. foreign policy in the region, as well as being clear about U.S. expectations and obligations.  

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. government.


Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on October 14, 2021. [State Department photo by Freddie Everett]
Analysis | Middle East
USS Carl Vinson
Top image credit: 250410-N-FS097-1573 U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (April 10, 2025) An F-35C Lightning II, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 97, launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) during flight operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. (Official U.S. Navy photo)

Deterrence or creep? US forces quietly surge back to Middle East

Middle East

Since October 7, 2023, the United States has quietly but significantly expanded its military presence across the Middle East, reversing the drawdown that followed its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

U.S. troop numbers in the region have risen from approximately 34,000 to nearly 50,000 as of late 2024, a level not seen since the height of the anti-ISIS campaign, in addition to a rapid increase in naval and aerial deployments. This shift reflects a strategic recalibration that appears driven less by long-term planning than by an improvised response to perceived Iranian threats, instability in the Red Sea, and domestic political pressure to “do something” without committing to a full-scale conflict.

keep readingShow less
Donald Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump speaks to the media following the White House Easter Egg Roll in Washington, D.C., on April 21, 2025. President Trump speaks about Secretary of Defense Hegseth, the Pope's death, and the situation in Ukraine and Iran. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/NurPhoto) VIA REUTERS

Ukraine and Europe can't afford to refuse Trump's peace plan

Europe

Most of the peace plan for Ukraine now sketched out by the Trump administration is not new, is based on common sense, and has indeed already been tacitly accepted by Kyiv.

Ukrainian officials have acknowledged that its army has no chance in the foreseeable future of reconquering the territories now occupied by Russia. Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement that the U.S. plan would “freeze the territorial lines…close to where they are today” simply acknowledges an obvious fact.

keep readingShow less
Michael O'Hanlon, Jack Keane, Michele Flournoy
Top photo credit: Michael O’Hanlon (DoD Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. James K. McCann), Ret. General Jack Keane (White House photo) and Michele Flournoy (CNAS/Flickr)

Could a Blobby enclave be sowing chaos at DoD?

Military Industrial Complex

UPDATE 4/24, 5:15 PM: The Defense Policy Board website has been scrubbed, as reported by The Intercept. The list of DPB members can still be viewed on an archived version of the website.


Discussing alleged Pentagon leaks with Tucker Carlson on Monday, recently ousted DoD official and Iraq war veteran Dan Caldwell charged that there are a number of career staff in the Pentagon who oppose the current administration’s policies. He then took particular aim at the the Defense Policy Board as a potential source of ongoing leaks to the press.

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.