Follow us on social

2022-07-15t161833z_263984144_rc2gcv9a9tiq_rtrmadp_3_usa-saudi

Dems propose full break from Saudi Arabia, UAE after OPEC's 'hostile act'

House lawmakers say decision to cut oil production yesterday is a "turning point" in the US-Gulf State relationship.

Analysis | Europe

It seems OPEC's major snub to the Biden Administration has done what the war in Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi could not: get members of Congress mad enough to call for the dissolution of the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The OPEC+ decision to cut oil production by two million barrels yesterday has been described as "a blow against (President) Biden", and members on both sides of the congressional aisle have been fuming. But a trio of House members are taking it one step further, introducing a bill that would take all U.S. troops, weapons, and missile defense systems out of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. From a statement by Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and Susan Ellis Wild (D-Penn.):

“Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s drastic cut in oil production, despite President Biden’s overtures to both countries in recent months, is a hostile act against the United States and a clear signal that they have chosen to side with Russia in its war against Ukraine. Both countries have long relied on an American military presence in the Gulf to protect their security and oil fields. We see no reason why American troops and contractors should continue to provide this service to countries that are actively working against us. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE want to help Putin, they should look to him for their defense. 

This decision is a turning point in our relationship with our Gulf partners. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE hope to maintain a relationship with the United States that has been overwhelmingly beneficial to them, they must show a greater willingness to work with us — not against us — in advancing what is now our most urgent national security objective: the defeat of Russia's aggression in Ukraine."

Biden has drawn fire for months for his deferential treatment of the Arab dictators in an apparent attempt to stem a global economic crisis unleashed in part by the Ukraine War, subsequent Western sanctions, and Russian counter moves, including the decision to cut off gas flows to European countries. In other words, it is a mess, and critics say it has forced the administration to overlook the human rights abuses of both countries while sweetening the pot with massive new arms deals.

After a high-profile visit to the region and the infamous "fist bump" with Crown Prince (and now Prime Minister) Mohammed bin Salman, the White House announced deals totaling $5 billion worth of missile defense systems for Saudi Arabia and UAE. Bipartisan attempts to question such deals, dating back to the Trump administration, continue to fall flat.

As for the number of troops in the region, it's hard to pinpoint, but it's certainly nothing to sneeze at. According to the New York Times in 2021:

"There are between 45,000 and 65,000 American military personnel — the number can vary by the day — now deployed in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations, including around 5,500 troops in Iraq and 600 in Syria."

Unfortunately, astute analysts all over the political spectrum have been warning the president that these dictators are looking out for their own interests — and the Western investment in Ukraine is not on the priority list. In fact, they may be working against the West's goals, keeping their own connections with Russia front and center. They certainly don't buy into the 'democracies versus autocracies' frame.

As Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argued after Biden's Middle East trip in late July:

The trip was meant to present Biden at his best — a foreign policy giant who dealt with the world as it is and who understood when geopolitical imperatives must trump values and human rights. The problem with this framing was not that human rights were sacrificed at the altar of security interests (they always are, notwithstanding American rhetoric), but that the prospects of securing any major geopolitical gains were minute at best and never sufficient to justify the humiliation of Biden’s caving to MBS.

As the humiliations keep coming, it's not surprising that some in his party are pleading for Biden to stop. It's time to truly take U.S. interests into account, and sending our troops and resources to fair-weather friends is clearly not one of them.


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 | Europe
Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18
Top Photo: Incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on ABC News on January 12, 2025

Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18

QiOSK

Following a reported push from the Biden administration in late 2024, Mike Waltz - President-elect Donald Trump’s NSA pick - is now advocating publicly that Ukraine lower its draft age to 18, “Their draft age right now is 26 years old, not 18 ... They could generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers," he told ABC This Week on Sunday.

Ukraine needs to "be all in for democracy," said Waltz. However, any push to lower the draft age is unpopular in Ukraine. Al Jazeera interviewed Ukrainians to gauge the popularity of the war, and raised the question of lowering the draft age, which had been suggested by Biden officials in December. A 20-year-old service member named Vladislav said in an interview that lowering the draft age would be a “bad idea.”

keep readingShow less
Zelensky, Trump, Putin
Top photo credit: Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (Office of Ukraine President/Creative Commons); US President Donald Trump (Gabe Skidmore/Creative Commons) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (World Economic Forum/Creative Commons)

Trump may get Russia and Ukraine to the table. Then what?

Europe

Russia’s dismissive response to possible provisions of a Trump settlement plan floated in Western media underscores how difficult the path to peace in Ukraine will be. It also highlights one of the perils of an approach to diplomacy that has become all too common in Washington: proposing settlement terms in advance of negotiations rather than first using discreet discussions with adversaries and allies to gauge what might be possible.

To achieve an accord that Ukraine will embrace, Russia will respect, and Europe will support, Trump will have to revive a tradition of American statesmanship — balancing power and interests among capable rivals — that has been largely dormant since the Cold War ended, and U.S. foreign policy shifted its focus toward democratizing other nations and countering terrorism.

keep readingShow less
Tulsi Gabbard
Top photo credit: Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, is seen in Russell building on Thursday, December 12, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Tulsi Gabbard vs. the War Party

Washington Politics

Not long after Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to serve as his director of national intelligence (DNI), close to 100 former national security officials signed a letter objecting to her appointment, accusing her of lacking experience and having “sympathy for dictators like Vladimir Putin and [Bashar al-]Assad.”

Trump has now made many controversial foreign policy nominations that stand at odds with his vows to end foreign wars and prioritize peace and domestic problems — including some who are significantly less experienced than Gabbard — yet only the former Hawaiian Congresswoman has received this level of pushback from the national security establishment so far.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.