Rethinking the US-Saudi Relationship in the Name of Regional Security

Saudi Arabia has long been a staunch United States ally in the Middle East. Although the two countries values are fundamentally at odds, the US has looked past their differences in the name of energy and regional stability. However, the time may have come for a change in this relationship. Saudi policies aimed at checking Iranian influence have made the kingdom a hindrance to regional stability. By funding and training extremist militias bound for Syria, offering aide to a military autocracy in Egypt, and arguing against the Iranian nuclear agreement, not to mention the grievous human rights violations against its own citizens and those in neighboring Bahrain, Saudi Arabia pushes a volatile region away from peace and long term stability. American support grants a degree of legitimacy and security to the al-Saud regime, thereby giving its actions tacit US support. As shale and other alternative fuels become more prominent in the global market, and US foreign policy begins to pivot towards Asia, the time has come to alter current Middle Eastern alliances. If the US is serious about bringing long-term peace and stability in the region, it must begin to rethink its relationship with one of its oldest allies in the Middle East.

Civil war in Syria served as a proxy battleground for Saudi Arabia and Iran. Claiming to support the rebels because they fight against a brutal dictator, Saudi Arabia has publically supported and funded many rebel groups, including those with ties to terrorist organizations such as Jabhat al-Nusra, and the Islamic State of Iraq. Funding, arming, and training these extremist groups intensifies the violence within Syria. It also reduces the possibility of a moderate Syria after the revolution, as well-armed extremist groups quickly take the place of moderate militias. These groups will not be contained within Syria’s borders, but will spread violence and extremist throughout the region, and possibly the world. The regime’s support of such terrorist organizations is unacceptable and endangers international security.

After the June 30^th revolution in Egypt, when the US threatened to end its aid to the Egyptian military, Saudi Arabia offered to more than make up for the loss. The $12billion aide package was an effort to curb the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, who challenges domestic Saudi hegemony, and to gain another friend in the region. Their actions reduced US influence and supported a military government that shows no signs of relinquishing their power to the people. This money has financed a military regime in Egypt responsible for violating basic human rights and killing hundreds of its own citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Military rule has also caused a flare up of violence in the Sinai, threatening the tenuous relations between Egypt, Israel, and Hamas. Saudi Arabia is supporting a regime that endangers both domestic and international stability.

The recent nuclear agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran is obviously threatening to Saudi interests. If sanctions are permanently lifted on Iran, they will begin selling oil to the global market, threatening Saudi Arabia’s own share in the market. Saudi Arabia has employment estimated at anywhere from ten to thirty percent, and no other developed sectors of the economy other than oil and banking. Without a steady influx of petro-dollars, the Saudi government would be unable to continue its generous program of subsidies that form the basis of the government’s legitimacy. Economic competition could prove disastrous for the Saudi economy, and therefore its political stability. Iran also poses a geo-strategic threat. Iran’s influence can be strongly felt in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, and with the new promise of US and European friendship, they seem to have many more friends than Saudi Arabia. Perhaps most importantly, Saudi Arabia fears that a rise in Iranian power will encourage rebellion amongst its own Shia population. Long oppressed and marginalized by Riyadh, Shias in the Eastern Province have been a source of unrest, challenging the Saudi royal family. If encouraged by Iran, they could be a serious problem for Saudi economic and political interests.

Although it is understandable, Saudi attempts to block this deal show them to place their own narrow interests above regional security. Tensions over Iran’s nuclear program are at an all-time high, with Israel threatening unilateral action that would surely thrust the region, and perhaps the entire world, into conflict. Opposing diplomatic progress, halting the regulation of nuclear cites, and even threatening to obtain their own nuclear weapon are not the action a true friend to the US or to the region as a whole. The threat of nuclear war is too serious a topic to be used as a political tool.

Shias within Saudi Arabia have been victims of persecution and oppression since the country’s formation. Although they inhabit the most resource rich area of the country, they suffer from inadequate access to resources, economic opportunity, and basic freedoms. Saudi Arabia has also helped its neighbor, Bahrain, brutally repress Shia uprisings in the name of regional stability and countering Iran. Their blatant disregard for basic rights and human life indicate the lengths the al-Saud family will go to crush any challenger.

Saudi Arabia’s domestic and regional politics show that it has no interest in peace or conflict resolution, let alone democracy and human rights. Instead, its actions are simply calculated to preserve the al-Saud’s influence both within its own borders and throughout the region. In an effort to challenge Iran, Saudi Arabia spreads repression, weapons, and dangerous ideology, escalating conflicts and funding destabilizing groups. If the US is serious about long-term peace and stability in the region, it can no longer support the Saudi regime that brutally oppresses its own people, funds military rule and terrorist militias, and threatens nuclear conflict.

Sofi Smith

An Opportunity Waiting to be Blown

Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) has made public his desire to increase sanctions against Iran. He argues that the sanctions have crippled Iran to the point of coming to the negotiating table, and easing off pressure now would ruin any chance of striking a meaningful deal. Rogers share Israeli concerns that Rouhani is a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and that the deal currently offered is biased towards the Iranians, giving them relief from the sanctions without asking for enough in return.

The exact details of the deal have not been made public. However, sanctions relief would last for only six months, to be renewed or even made harsher if the Iranians do not hold up their end of the bargain. Moreover, sanctions will not be lifted on the energy and banking sectors will not be lifted. Iran would be allowed to repair roughly 10,000 of their existing centrifuges but would not be allowed to build any new ones. They would also have to cap their enrichment at 20%, halt the growth of its stockpile, and convert it to benign form, as well as allow international inspectors at the heavy water reactor at Arak. The Obama administration has said that the deal will actually improve Israel’s security. Secretary of State, John Kerry explained, “It seems to me that Israel is far safer if you make certain that Iran cannot continue the program. Now every day that we don’t have it, they’re continuing it.”

Israel’s position is that all centrifuges must be removed from Iran, all enriched uranium must be removed from the country, and the reactor at Arak, which could be used to create weapons grade plutonium, must be shut down. If Iran reaches 250kg of 20% enriched uranium, Israel has promised military action.

However, a recent report by the IAEA shows that Iran is below this point at 196kg. The report showed that since Rouhani’s ascendance to the presidency, Iran has stopped expanding its nuclear program all together. They have also postponed the start up of the Arak plant and have not installed any additional advanced centrifuges.

The veritable freeze of the program and the increased transparency are positive signs that Iran wants a deal. Even Khamenei has voiced his support for the negotiations. These are the most positive signals the US has received from Iran since 1979, and if they are rebuffed there is no telling when another leader so progressive and willing to negotiate will come to the table. If the US passes another round of sanctions, it would a slap in the face of all those putting their political reputations on the line by working towards a deal. The history US-Iranian relations are littered with missed opportunities, and one can only hope that the upcoming talks do not fall into this category.

Sofia Smith

Barriers to Peace

In a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented that he was “concerned” about the progress of talks and remarked, “I see the Palestinians continuing with incitement, continuing to create artificial crises, continuing to avoid, run away from the historic decisions that are needed to make a genuine peace.” However, this statement ignores the provocative actions Israelis have taken in recent days that threaten to undermine the process.

Just two days ago, Israel issued almost 2,000 home tenders for new settlements in the West Bank.  They claim that this is part of the deal struck with Palestinians in exchange for the release of the release of 104 prisoners currently jailed. So far they have released about half. This issue of settlements is nothing new but the timing of these settlements seemed to be a policy of appeasement by Netanyahu’s government to assure his country that he has not ‘gone soft’ on the Palestinian issue by engaging in talks.

More troubling still is the news of a wall to be built through the Jordan Valley, one of the fertile areas in the region. It would annex an area roughly the size of Chicago, full of most of the water resources Palestinians now access. This is consistent with their statements that borders must be built in accordance with the already existent separation barrier or apartheid wall. This means that the future Israeli state would include lands captured after 1967 in violation of UN resolutions and international law.  It also directly counters the US plan, which is based on 1967 borders and land swaps.

If the peace talks are to succeed a new formula of Israeli leadership is needed. One can only hope that Netanyahu realizes the incredible opportunity these talks offer before it is too late.

Sofia Smith

First Sect-less Baby Born in Lebanon

Kholoud Sukkarieh and Nidal Darwish of Lebanon have been blazing quite a trail towards equality for the Lebanese. Not only were they the first couple to ever obtain a civil marriage license back in January 2013 but now they have just given birth to the first child in modern Lebanese history to not have a sect.

Background:

Lebanon’s political foundation has been built upon the identification of different religious sects. In an attempt to avoid any sectarian conflicts the government is set up as a confessionalist system. Through the identification of people’s sect on birth records, the government is divided by 18 different representational groups based upon the population. This means that the President is always a Maronite Christian, Prime Minister-Sunni Muslim, Parliament Speaker-Shia Muslim, etc.

Ever since this this was put in place  (and based on a 1930’s census) there has been considerable backlash about the inequalities and prejudices that this creates.

Impact: 

Following the birth of their son Ghadi, Kholoud Sukkarieh and Nidal Darwish were greeted with many opinions from both sides of the spectrum. The most prominent well wisher was current Lebanese President who congratulated the couple as well as all Lebanese for the birth of a sect-less child.

Those who opposed the couple’s choice to not register their child as a certain religion believed that the child would be lost growing up without a certain faith.

Here is Kholoud Sukkarieh’s interview with Al Jazeera regarding her and her husband’s choice.

Overall, this is a huge step towards equality for all in Lebanon, the country has for years struggled with this division of their population in both politics and economics. A small step like this will have majority implications in the coming years especially as Ghadi and others born without a specified sect become political involved.

-Kelly Kirk

An Update on Syria

Although Syria is in the news nearly ever day, knowing exactly what is going on can be challenging. Although there is more in depth analysis coming soon, here is a bare bones update on what’s going on in this brutal civil war:

Chemical Weapons: Good progress has been made on assessing, obtaining, and developing a plan to get rid of the Assad regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons. The regime has been highly cooperative over the course of this process and the Chief of the joint OPCW-UN mission is pleased so far.  Recently, the regime has met what officials are calling a ‘significant deadline’ in the destruction of all production facilities. Although there has been some confusion as to the location where stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas will be destroyed, Albania is emerging as the most likely locale.

Geneva II: Progress in establishing Geneva II is looking less rosy. Although talks are set to begin November 23, they will likely be postponed. More will be known after US, Russian, and UN officials meet next week. Russian officials are adamant about the talks, believing a diplomatic solution is the only way to guarantee Syria does not become a failed state and regional security vacuum. Yesterday, Assad met with the UN Envoy, Brahimi, and set preconditions for his participation. He demanded an end to foreign intervention and the promise of self-determination for the Syrian people. Entrance to these talks has been highly controversial for both regime forces and rebels. Yesterday, Assad fired his Vice Premier because the man had had an ‘unauthorized’ meeting with the US regarding regime participation. Although attitudes towards the conference differs across the varius rebel groups many, especially those associated with Jabhat Al-Nusra and ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) refuse to participate in the regime is represented or the explicit objective of the talks is the removal of Assad from Power.

Refugees: European nations have pledged an additional $431 million in humanitarian assistance days after President Obama announced an additional $339 million. Jordan, on of the main hosts of Syrian refugees say that the refugees could make up 20% on the Jordanian population by 2014.  Syrians now make up roughly 30% of Lebanon’s population. Both Jordan and Lebanon have asked for more support.

For more detailed information and a daily Syria Update from Alexander Innes go here.

Sofia Smith