Follow us on social

Almadi1

Why is Saudi Arabia jailing Americans for mean tweets?

A 72-year-old man was visiting when he was tortured and imprisoned for criticizing the kingdom while living in the US.

Analysis | Middle East

As clamor over Saudi Arabia’s recent decision not to increase oil production as part of OPEC+ continues to rise, the Saudi regime has once again proved itself an unreliable ally, this time sentencing an U.S. citizen to 16 years in prison for tweeting. Saad Ibrahim Almadi, a 72-year-old project manager, was convicted and sentenced earlier this month, after having spent nearly a year in detention.  

This is certainly not the first time that the kingdom has targeted Americans in a brutal crackdown that has ensnared regime critics, women’s rights activists, and business and political elite. Under MbS’s leadership, Saudi has also more readily engaged in the targeting of dissidents, defectors, and rights defenders abroad, including in the United States. These activities, often seen from adversaries like China, Russia, or Iran, are part and parcel of rising global authoritarianism, a trend that is disastrous both for U.S. strategic interests and any values of human rights or democratic ideals.  

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has become one of the worst perpetrators of transnational repression, utilizing a variety of tools and techniques to silence those outside its borders. Abdullah al-Odah, Saudi scholar and research director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, has been the subject of a years-long surveillance, intimidation, and harassment campaign at the hands of the Saudi regime — all while living in supposed safety in the United States. Over the course of the last decade, al-Odah, who is the son of detained Saudi cleric Salman al-Odah, has had his phone tapped, was followed by Saudi officials while attending the University of Pittsburgh, and faces almost daily attacks online. 

One such message, sent as demonstrations against police brutality swept the country, read: “You think that you are safe, but we will take advantage of the protesting and chaos in the U.S. and we will take care of you.”  

Particularly chilling are acts of state hostage-taking, a common tool used by the Saudi government, where family members are kidnapped, detained, or tortured to pressure their relatives abroad. 

In 2018, Canada-based Saudi exile Omar Abdulaziz learned that his mobile phone had been infected with Pegasus spyware; later, Saudi authorities detained two of Abdulaziz’s brothers and dozens of his friends to coerce his return to the kingdom. Since former top intelligence officer Saad Aljabri fled Saudi Arabia in 2017 and settled in Canada, the Saudi regime has also used spyware against him, kidnapped and imprisoned his two youngest children, and arrested dozens of his other family members, including his son-in-law Salem Al-Muzaini, who was rendered from Dubai and tortured in detention.

Other forms of transnational repression are more insidious. The Saudi government has used its deep pockets to exploit the American legal system, in one case risking exposure of American state secrets. In an unprecedented move, U.S. intelligence chief Avril Haines intervened as MbS, through a holding company, pursued Aljabri in Massachusetts District Court. The suit, Haines herself asserted in a declaration, risked causing “exceptional harm” to U.S. national security, as it would have exposed details of joint operations overseen by Aljabri.   

After the murder and dismemberment of U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi — arguably the most brutal example of Saudi transnational repression and certainly the highest-profile — it seemed political winds were shifting against the Saudis. After making public an intelligence report that pointed to complicity at the highest levels of the Saudi government, a number of Saudi officials were sanctioned and a new “Khashoggi Ban” mechanism was put in place to target perpetrators of transnational repression. A series of bills were introduced that would require further certification that Saudi Arabia was not involved in the targeting of dissidents, like the Protection of Saudi Dissidents Act of 2021, which would otherwise limit arms sales to the country.  

But today, four years later, these actions — and the more recent calls for an end to business as usual — feel too little and too ephemeral. None of the bills introduced in Congress have yet been passed into law, and the United States remains among the top arms suppliers to Saudi Arabia. And of course, mere months ago, President Biden traveled to Jeddah despite warnings that doing so would only embolden the Saudi regime. Since his trip, Almadi has received his egregious sentence, and another U.S. citizen, Carly Morris, has been placed on a travel ban.  

Recent calls from Congress to reconsider ties with Saudi Arabia have focused almost exclusively on its failure to support the U.S. position on Russian aggression in Ukraine by resisting an increase in oil production. But a reconsideration of the relationship based only on Saudi’s actions with OPEC sends a chilling message that even the most brazen crimes will pass with impunity, as long as the oil keeps flowing.  

U.S. officials are right in their desire to reconsider ties with this repressive regime but must not lose sight of the fact that any path forward must center human rights concerns as prerequisites for a future relationship. We must continue to insist on the reunification of U.S. families with loved ones detained or banned from travel in Saudi. Congress should pass legislation to pave ways for accountability for acts of transnational repression and to hold the administration accountable to U.S. law that prohibits arms sales to countries that engage in intimidation and harassment of individuals on U.S. soil. 

It is long past time for Saudi Arabia to be seen for what it is: a brutal dictatorship seeking to assert itself in a world that is increasingly perilous for those who believe in the values of human rights and democracy. 


This handout photo released by the Almadi family, shows Ibrahim Almadi (L), posing for a picture with his father, Saad, at a vacation resort in Florida on June 20, 2021. (VOA)
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.