Follow us on social

2022-07-15t161833z_263984144_rc2gcv9a9tiq_rtrmadp_3_usa-saudi

Client states rejoice: Arms spigot reopens for Saudi Arabia, UAE

Washington provides weapons and protection to these monarchies, but honestly, what is it getting in return?

Analysis | Middle East

The Biden administration approved new arms sales worth an estimated total of $5 billion to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) earlier this week.

In the latest sign that the administration is resuming business as usual with the two client governments, the State Department justified the potential sales of Patriot and THAAD missiles as necessary to assist in defending their countries against possible aerial attacks. 

The notification of new arms sales came as the truce in Yemen was extended again for another two months in what has been the longest pause in hostilities since the beginning of the Saudi-led coalition’s intervention in March 2015. While the sales would technically be in line with the Biden administration’s commitment to sell only defensive weapons to Saudi coalition members, the U.S. should not be providing these governments with weapons of any kind at least until the war on Yemen has ended. 

Any military support that helps Saudi Arabia and the UAE to continue their interventionist policies in Yemen is an unacceptable enabling of an unjust war and should be rejected by Congress.

The missiles in question are used for defensive purposes, but the potential sales are nonetheless taking place in the context of an aggressive war that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been waging against a neighboring country for more than seven years. They have been forced to guard against drone and missile attacks from Yemen because they had been conducting an indiscriminate bombing campaign that killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and because they continue to support proxy forces on the ground there. Aerial attacks on their territory are the consequences of their own actions. 

Proceeding with these missile sales signals to both governments that they will pay no penalty for the war crimes they have committed with U.S.-made weapons in the past. Instead, their governments will conclude that the U.S. will continue to arm them no matter what they do if it can be spun as supporting their “self-defense.” The more support that these governments receive from the United States, the more reckless and irresponsible they have tended to be, and that makes any new arms sales potentially dangerous. 

The latest arms sales were announced the same week that OPEC+ agreed to a minuscule increase in oil production of 100,000 barrels a day in what has been widely interpreted as a “rebuff” to Biden in the wake of his controversial visit to Saudi Arabia last month. As Raad Alkadiri of Eurasia Group put it, “That is so little as to be meaningless. From a physical standpoint, it is a marginal blip. As a political gesture, it is almost insulting.” 

The tiny increase in production was not surprising, but it illustrates how little Biden had to show for his currying favor with the Saudi government. The bad bargain of the U.S.-Saudi relationship remains unchanged: the U.S. provides protection and weapons to guard against threats that Saudi actions have provoked and then the Saudis offer practically nothing in return. 

The Associated Press report on the arms sales framed them as part of an effort to “counter Iran,” but with the exception of the Abqaiq strike in 2019 Saudi Arabia and the UAE have had no need to defend against direct Iranian attacks. The principal danger of aerial attacks against Saudi and Emirati territory has come from Yemen, and it has come from Yemen because these governments have been intervening in Yemen.

The provision of these missiles is more proof of the failure of the Saudi-led intervention, which has not only devastated Yemen, but has also undermined the security of the coalition states that have been attacking it. When it began, the Saudi government sold the war as a way to stabilize Yemen and bring security to the region, but it has resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe for the former and instability and increased danger for the latter. 

The surest way to protect these countries against further aerial attacks is for their governments to end their war and to stop interfering in Yemeni affairs.

The State Department’s explanation of these sales described Saudi Arabia and the UAE in very flattering but inaccurate terms, calling the UAE “a vital U.S. partner for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East” and referring to the Saudi government in similar terms. These lines are just so much official boilerplate, but they reflect our government’s mistaken belief that these two governments are working to stabilize and improve the region when the evidence of the last seven years proves just the opposite. 

In addition to the latest missile sales, the Biden administration has also been working on the creation of a new mechanism for monitoring human rights abuses in Yemen after the Saudi government successfully lobbied to terminate the Group of Eminent Experts last year. Unfortunately, the new mechanism would reportedly be deeply compromised and biased in favor of the Saudi coalition and the recognized government of Yemen from the start.

In place of the independent group that the Saudi government quashed, the new committee would include representatives of the Yemeni government’s new presidential council. According to Abdulrasheed al-Faqih, a Yemeni human rights activist and co-founder of Mwatana for Human Rights, this would be like having the Russian government investigate itself when it is accused of war crimes. 

Only a truly independent body that has no allegiance to any of the belligerents can conduct credible and thorough investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by all parties. The Saudi government has already shown that it will not tolerate a genuinely independent investigative body. The Biden administration is making a mistake if it backs the creation of a new mechanism that allows the Saudi coalition and the Yemeni government to escape accountability for their abuses.

Even before the president’s unfortunate meeting with Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah last month, the Biden administration had been cultivating warmer relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Despite a brief pause in arms sales in the first part of 2021, the U.S. has gone out of its way to show support for both governments, up to and including increased military deployments to defend their territory. The new arms sales are the latest in a series of gestures intended to placate these client states, but they are unlikely to stay satisfied for very long. Experience suggests that this will just whet their appetite for more demands in the future.  

The weapons deals approved by the Biden administration are liable to encourage U.S. clients to become more aggressive because they will assume that they can protect themselves more effectively against drone and missile attacks. More arms sales to despotic governments will not produce a more peaceful and secure region in any case. If anything, they are much more likely to fuel a regional arms race and increase tensions with Iran, and that could pave the way to another destabilizing conflict. 


Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman fist bumps U.S. President Joe Biden upon his arrival at Al Salman Palace, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, July 15, 2022. Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.