Snubbed by Saudi Arabia, what can Obama salvage from Arab summit?

May 12, 2015
U.S. President Obama walks with Saudi King Salman to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) walks with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh January 27, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

While hosting the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Washington and at Camp David this week, President Barack Obama faces a hard sell: assuring the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia that the United States has an Iran policy that encompasses their security needs. He must also encourage the six countries to work together for their own collective security, but in a way that dovetails with American strategic goals.

But doing so won’t be easy. Only three of the six GCC nations are sending heads of state. The leaders of Oman and the United Arab Emirates pleaded health issues as their excuses to stay home; Saudi Arabia says its ruler, King Salman, won’t be traveling due to humanitarian commitments to Yemen. The Saudi snub in particular reflects the concern, among America’s Sunni Arab allies, that the United States isn’t taking a hard enough stance toward Iran and its proxies.

The Saudis’ commitment to ensuring that the United States is ready to oppose Iranian-proxy forces even as rapprochement moves forward is clearly seen in Yemen. After tamping down the Arab Spring in Sana’a and easing a sympathetic government into power with Saudi support, America militarized Yemen. This approach was intended to be a model for a new “small footprint” strategy, where a compliant local government would be paired with drones and Special Forces to conduct joint strikes against Islamic militants fueled by intelligence from the United States. Obama cited Yemen as a successful example of this strategy as recently as September 2014. Yet the dissolution of that country, and the chaos that followed a tail-between-the-legs evacuation of American diplomats and Special Forces, instead planted an Iranian-supported rebellion on Saudi Arabia’s border.

When Washington did not decisively move to counter Iranian gains in Yemen, the Saudis lashed out in late March of this year. The recent Saudi royal succession, which concentrated power in a smaller circle, may have also put pressure on the new king to act aggressively. Though the Saudi attacks in Yemen are tactically aimed at securing its southern border, strategically they send a message to Iran to step back. They signal to the United States that Saudi Arabia wants Washington to become more engaged in the situation and perhaps use air strikes and covert forces, similar to what it is doing in other parts of the Middle East.

Increasing hostilities, including the Saudi use of American-supplied cluster bombs, forced Obama into that rock-and-a-hard-place that increasingly defines Washington’s policy in the region. He needed to ensure Saudi military action did not bleed over into open conflict with Iran, while demonstrating the United States would stand up for its allies. Obama’s tepid answer — saber rattling in the form of an aircraft carrier moved into the area — seemed to back down the Iranians for now, but said very little about long-term strategy.

The Saudis demonstrated in Yemen what might be called unilateral collective defense; though they could not assemble a robust pan-Arab force and have conducted most of the bombing themselves, they acted with regional assistance in the form of limited air strikes, reconnaissance help and statements of support. This is very much at odds with Washington’s idea of what pan-Arab collective defense should look like. After all, how far can relations with Iran progress — never mind the goal of regional stability — when America’s allies start new wars against Iranian proxies?

No matter who shows up for this week’s conference, Obama will propose his own version of collective defense, a region-wide missile defense system. This will be a significant step down from the NATO-like agreement with the United States the GCC would prefer. (Stated plans to create an “Arab NATO” are still in process.) Obama’s offer will likely include new arms sales to GCC states that, while afraid of Iran, still remain wary of one another. The United States wants to be the glue that holds the arrangement together. That would seem to be an optimistic goal since American glue failed to hold together any substantive pan-Arab force in Iraq and Syria, and tens of billions of dollars in arms sales over the years apparently have not been reassuring enough.

If Washington doesn’t reassure the GCC countries that it will oppose Iran in proxy wars across the region, expect more independent action from America’s allies in the Gulf. America cannot walk away from these countries; oil, long-standing alliances and U.S. strategic facilities and bases housed across the GCC are factors. This may lead to Washington finding itself dragged into any number of fights it does not want, or stuck playing intermediary between the Saudis and Iran, as it is now doing to help broker a short cease-fire in Yemen. Think Syria next, where the Saudis are already working on a deal with Turkey that is at odds with American policy.

Obama and the GCC nations are likely to conclude this week’s meetings with little resolved, even as all sides know they must ideally find some resolution ahead of the June 30 deadline for the U.S.-Iran nuclear treaty.

The old order is in flux. Iran is no doubt watching traditional allies snap at each other over its ascendancy with some satisfaction; discord only plays to its advantage. All three sides — the United States, the GCC and the Iranians — are watching the clock. What will be their next moves if time runs out?

 

10 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Irritating Saudi Arabia is a GOOD thing. The Princes need thicker skin. Saudi Arabia is a state terror sponsor. The 9/11 hijackers were primarily Saudi nationals, and Cheney coddled Saudi Arabia through the whole thing. Sheltered them from the hell they deserved, and instead sent them more money and weapons. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist nation.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

Another American who hopes Saudi Arabia loses pilots and money in their bombing campaign over Yemen.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

Obama has been a feckless president, with nearly everything he touches turning to lead rather than gold. It really makes a statement when even the president of France (or all places) shows more backbone dealing with Iran and the Arab countries than does Mr. Obama.

Posted by CharlesParisFR | Report as abusive

Disliked by Saudi Arabia is a badge of distinction. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist nation. I spit on their princes.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

And amazing that there is no UN condemnation of cluster munitions, or civilians killed. Nope… save that for the only democratic country in that region.

Posted by spaceb8ll | Report as abusive

Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11:

Number who were Saudi: 16

Number who were Iranian: 0

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

ARAB NATO, guess who will pay for that one too. The bankrupt US.

Posted by americangrizzly | Report as abusive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew s/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Sau di-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-fund ing-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

With Saudi and other Gulf rulers snubbing David Camp summit, the unusual warmer China-Russia tie stands out starkly. A new world order in the making? Why not?

Posted by boontee | Report as abusive

Number of Israeli soldiers deployed to fight ISIS: 0

Number of Saudi soldiers deployed to fight ISIS: 0

Number of IRANIAN soldiers deployed to fight ISIS: 53,287

We are on the wrong side over there. Seriously.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive