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

Hope for Egypt?

Despite the widespread civilian violence and deeply divided society, there remains hope that the country can fulfill the promise of democracy it reached for in early 2011. Hope comes from the continued activism of the Egyptian people, exemplified by the student movements. Paying serious attention to their goals and organization offers a telling glimpse into the future of Egyptian mass politics. The key indicators of Egypt’s future lie in its economic development, which must be focused on job creation and financial sovereignty, and the role of the ‘deep state’, which must be challenged to make way for genuine democracy.

Students have been the catalysts for all of the revolutionary movements, either united around the fall of Mubarak during the January 25^th revolution, or divided between leftists and Islamists following June 30^th. In the wake of the recent laws forbidding mass protest, Egyptian students united once again. Following the raids of universities the death of a medical student at Al-Azhar University, students have begun to band together to protest a law that seeks to criminalize even peaceful protest. They retook Tahrir square, protesting what those they say have betrayed the Egyptian people, Mubarak, Morsi, and the Military. Their commitment of the political participation and justice show offer encouragement that Egypt’s future leaders have taken these values to heart and will continue to mobilize Egypt towards a more inclusive future. No doubt, more organization, and agreement among the divergent groups is needed before real progress can be achieved. Yet, as long as students refuse to settle for autocratic rule, Egypt will continue to move forward. Those hoping to shape the future of Egypt should take these groups seriously, and consider working with them rather than traditional political elites.

Egypt’s poor economic performance led many to the streets on January 25. Egypt suffers from a trade deficit problem, meaning that its exports cannot earn enough to cover its imports and its foreign debt commitments. This external debt stems largely from by Egypt’s dependence of foreign grain and fuel, as well foreign aide. The IMF, World Bank, and other Western, neoliberal economic institutions have taken this as an opportunity to push through neoliberal reforms in the form of an austerity program of cutting back subsidies, privatizing government owned companies, and promoting foreign direct invest and tourism. However, contrary to the orthodox economic policies of these institutions, these reforms have worsened economic development by increasing unemployment and economic stratification. If these plans continue, Egypt will likely see increased external debt, dependence of foreign aide, and poverty. In turn increaseing social and political turmoil. If Egypt is able to focus on job creation, lessen its foreign debt and thereby gain financial sovereignty, as well as seriously reform its food and fuel sectors, the positive economic effects will no doubt transfer over to political stability as well. The Egyptian government has recently met with delegations from both Saudi Arabia and the World Bank in order to secure more loans. Both Saudi and World Bank officials recognize the need for job creation and an active government present in the economy at this time, which is a positive sign for Egyptian development as it marks a turn from the usual dogma of austerity. However, a continued dependence on foreign aide limits Egyptian financial sovereignty, which effectively determines its ability to conduct monetary and fiscal policy, and limits is capacity to run a budget deficit. Unless Egypt is able to focus on internal economic solutions and find a way to cancel its foreign debt, there is little chance for substantial economic growth.

The role of Egypt’s deep state will also be a telling signal in its movement forward. There is no doubt that the military, who largely controls the police, intelligence services, judiciary, and state media, has played a significant role in Egypt’s trajectory after January 25^th by actively working to discredit President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, and then supporting the June 30^th protests. Despite earlier promises to handover the country to civilian government, General Sisi’s recent comments on a potential presidential bid have made it clear that the military has no plans to relinquish control. Backed by the over billion dollars the Egyptian military receives annually from the US, and his close relationships with Washington, Moscow, and Riyadh, the military is daunting to challenge. Egypt needs serious structural change. However, as many in Egypt begin to reject the pervasive military power in all aspects of Egyptian life, their days of unchallenged hegemony may be numbered. The role of military in government offices and key institutions offers a clue as to whether Egypt will form its own path or continue to be led by this shadow government.

The path of revolutions is never quick or easy, so despite recent set backs, it is too early to discount Egypt’s transition yet. Egypt’s trajectory depends on the organization of its student groups, a new economic path, and the decreased power of the military in political institutions.  It is a challenging course, but not an impossible one.

What We’re Watching

We have been anticipating the release of Jehane Noujaim’s The Square for quite some time now. The documentary focuses on a small group of people in the Tahrir Square during the downfall of Hosni Mubarak and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood within Egypt. The film is already getting some Oscar buzz and by the looks of the film, it is well deserved.

The film opened on October 25th in New York and is showing at select theaters across the country. If you are lucky enough to be located close to one, please go check it out! 

Here are some reviews:

New York Times

Time Magazine

Kelly Kirk