The Belgravia Dispatch: The Kingdom's Increasing 'Go It Alone' Posture

April 04, 2007

The Kingdom's Increasing 'Go It Alone' Posture

Why are the Saudis increasingly going it alone, whether convening the Palestinian factions in Mecca, meeting with Ahmadinejad, condemning the American occupation of Iraq at the Arab League summit rather vehemently ("illegal"), or more trivial perhaps (though not without symbolic subtext), cancelling state dinners in D.C? Doubtless many factors, to include that they're underwhelmed by Condi Rice's 'C' level shuttling (in fairness to her, she's been dealt an even tougher hand than usual, given how incredibly weak each of Olmert and Abbas are, but still...), never bought into the crudely naive grand 're-alignment' strategy (Sunnis of the World Unite, Under U.S. Tutelage, as we Face Down Together the Shi'a Threat from Teheran!), or continue to be worried by the implosion in Iraq, surge or no surge, to include the continued rise to power of Shi'a groupings there. Rachel Bronson explains the root cause, however:

...a faltering global partner unable to help Saudi Arabia secure its regional interests--the United States. Whether it was fighting communism together during the cold war or keeping oil prices stable (especially after the dramatic rises and collapses of prices in the 1970s and 1980s), Riyadh and Washington have long been able to overcome differences on Palestine to secure other mutually beneficial political ends. Today, Saudi Arabia looks across a conflict-prone region spiraling ever faster into chaos and sees that the United States has sometimes hastened, rather than stanched, the bleeding in places like Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. With the United States regionally hamstrung and President Bush domestically neutered, Abdullah has clearly decided to take matters into his own hands...
...Today, Iran is successfully entrenching its influence across the region. It is slowly encircling the kingdom, filling the vacuum created by American missteps. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, Iran's influence grows ever larger with each passing day. In Palestine, U.S. and European cessation of aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas joined the government gave Iran the freedom to step in and offer its own aid package, one that quickly attracted Hamas's attention. This is why Abdullah brokered the Mecca Accord between Hamas and Fatah. It was done to dangle before the parties an aid package far in excess of what Iran could offer.

American missteps in the Middle East have been so large, and our credibility in the region is at such a low ebb (though Bob Gates will help some at the Pentagon), that the Saudis have been forced (faute de mieux) to take a more pro-active stance and free-lance more without necessarily coordinating all their moves with Washington. If Iraq worsens and there are no break-throughs on the Israeli-Palestinian front (both likely events), look for this trend of increasing Saudi independence to intensify, as they see too many of their vital interests at risk, and a U.S partner they have less and less confidence in.

Oh, and that cancelled state dinner? Bronson, again:

The Saudis have clearly decided that, in order to do what they must regionally, they need to portray distance from the United States. The king sees little value in being viewed as the Tony Blair of the Middle East, which would hinder his attempt to build the regional will to confront Iran and push through his peace plan (which, he believes, will also reduce sympathy for Iran). It is certainly a gamble--Arab unity has not brought significant benefits for leaders who invested heavily to achieve it. And the current Saudi moves are no pleasure for Washington to watch. But, given its own precarious position in the region, being a spectator for this round may, for Washington, have its own advantages.

I don't think we're quite at spectator status yet, with battle carriers in the Gulf and 150,000 plus men in Iraq. But certainly regional parties are more often taking matters into their own hands (look for this trend with Turkey too), underwhelmed and increasingly concerned by the growing weight of accumulating U.S. blunders in the region this past half decade.

Posted by Gregory at April 4, 2007 12:26 PM

Comments

The "Tony Blair of the Middle East?" Ouch! I agree with Bronson: With adult supervision unfortunately absent in the U.S. government, the Saudi government is apparently trying to fill the void. The scary part is that, obviously, their interests don't necessarily coincide with ours across the board. If you've read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, you know they helped us out in Afghanistan in the 80's but also reached a lot of frightening accommodations with the Taliban and Pakistani extremists along the way in the 80's and 90's, while we ignored what they were doing after the Russians left. It just points out that the Saudis can be helpful in the region and have some shrewd diplomatic insights (and great intelligence networks, mostly bought) but that it's dangerous for us to cede control of the initiative to them. All this seems to fly blissfully over the heads of our current overlords.

In the interest of furthering my lamentable education, can anyone tell me what this usage by Greg means - faute de mieux? Thanks!

Posted by: scott at April 4, 2007 01:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

We are only one of many actors in Iraq, perhaps the largest one, but first among equal at best in terms of our influence and effectiveness. That this is eating into the perceptions of our power is only exacerbated by whatever the latest Bushian idiocy happens.

Also remember it was from Saudi Arabia that many seeds of our current problems with terrorism first sprouted.

Posted by: MNPundit at April 4, 2007 04:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

'faute de mieux' means for lack of anything better..

that the Saudis have been forced (faute de mieux) to take a more pro-active stance and free-lance more without necessarily coordinating all their moves with Washington.

Posted by: gaspard at April 4, 2007 04:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

You're examination of the issues at hand is comprehensive. You ask when the 35% will crack. It's interested to examine public opinion on the matter, especially when Iran is in the mix. Overwhelmingly, the public embraces diplomatic measures, with 44% of those surveyed favoring diplomacy with Iran and an addition 28% backing economic sanctions. Favor for military action is in the single digits.

You mentioned plenty of domestic and international issues. Our anxiety indicator is currently at 137 on a 200-point scale, edging toward the 150 point mark that we would consider a crisis of confidence in government policy. Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to check out the fourth edition of our “Foreign Policy Index.”

Posted by: William at April 4, 2007 06:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Could anyone post some links or analysis on Iranian influence on the current Afghanistan situation? Since Iran nearly went to war with the Taleban some years back, I can't figure that one out.

Posted by: Klaus at April 4, 2007 08:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

You're back! And quoting Atrios? The gods tremble.

Your reappearance at full throttle hints at a negotiated timetable for re-engagement, other priorities having taken exclusive precedence in the interim. The unguarded anger of your first post has attenuated to a more studied, yet focused, sarcasm, suggesting that your activity in this medium is beneficial to the long-term balance of your Weltanschauung. Speaking in lay terms, you have released your inner snark without, yet, quite becoming a DFH. Take care. It's a fine line.

Post 1: "Really, what exactly does this mean, pray tell?" A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Post 2: "Are readers less pessimistic?" All the scenarios are at least conceivable, but none is irreversible over time. I'm more worried about "junking of habeas, Guantanamo, CIA authorized torture, and other grievances we civil liberties types wail on about like pansies from the sidelines…" like warrantless wiretapping, FBI procedural abuses of National Security Letters, etc. Particularly troubling are erosion of the "checks and balances" that protect individual citizens from the exercise of unrestricted governmental intervention and control, and increasing evidence of deliberate, systematic, widespread government manipulation of the electoral process.

Post 3: "I don't think we're quite at spectator status yet,…" Certainly not militarily, but we are increasingly and definitively marginalized diplomatically. Everyone is smiling and nodding at the official diplomats, while sending those subtle diplomatic messages that mean: I don't really know this person, but I have to be (sort of) polite. Meanwhile they're cultivating alternative means, methods and channels. The Bush-Saud connection has become a liability. Anyone seen Prince Bandar around Crawford lately?

Post 4: "…do you think the Gang of Three, "alien graft" that is, will "nevertheless [start] taking over the body,…" Probably not, as long as Condi is one of the Gang. See BD, Jan 23, 2007: DIPLOMACY 101. Also, Dead-Eye Dick, or what's left of him, is lurking in the shadows. El Presidente is dissolving into the ether. The body is already partially decomposed. There's something rotten in Denmark.

Welcome back. Your voice is needed.

Posted by: Adams at April 5, 2007 06:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

On the Saudis' not accepting the dinner invitation:

While there's certainly a political aspect to it, there's also a very real barrier. The King is going to be busy over the next several months in trying to consolidate issues dealt with at the summit. The peace plan, Lebanon, and Darfur are going to require extensive follow-up and bureaucratic competence doesn't run very deep within the Saudi government. Top-level people, including the King, are going to be deeply and personally engaged.

Another facet is one of protocol. The Saudi ruler has been to the US at twice since 2000. Bush hasn't yet gone to the KSA. That matters, as you know.

Posted by: John Burgess at April 7, 2007 03:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Reader Poll \| Main \| Site Issues » April 04, 2007 The Kingdom's Increasing 'Go It Alone' Posture Why are the Saudis increasingly going it alone, whether convening the Palestinian factions in Mecca, meeting with Ahmadinejad, condemning the American occupation of Iraq at the Arab League summit rather vehemently ("illegal"), or more trivial perhaps (though not without symbolic subtext), cancelling state dinners in D.C? Doubtless many factors, to include that they're underwhelmed by Condi Rice's 'C' level shuttling (in fairness to her, she's been dealt an even tougher hand than usual, given how incredibly weak each of Olmert and Abbas are, but still...), never bought into the crudely naive grand 're-alignment' strategy (Sunnis of the World Unite, Under U.S. Tutelage, as we Face Down Together the Shi'a Threat from Teheran!), or continue to be worried by the implosion in Iraq, surge or no surge, to include the continued rise to power of Shi'a groupings there. Rachel Bronson explains the root cause, however: ...a faltering global partner unable to help Saudi Arabia secure its regional interests--the United States. Whether it was fighting communism together during the cold war or keeping oil prices stable (especially after the dramatic rises and collapses of prices in the 1970s and 1980s), Riyadh and Washington have long been able to overcome differences on Palestine to secure other mutually beneficial political ends. Today, Saudi Arabia looks across a conflict-prone region spiraling ever faster into chaos and sees that the United States has sometimes hastened, rather than stanched, the bleeding in places like Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. With the United States regionally hamstrung and President Bush domestically neutered, Abdullah has clearly decided to take matters into his own hands... ...Today, Iran is successfully entrenching its influence across the region. It is slowly encircling the kingdom, filling the vacuum created by American missteps. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, Iran's influence grows ever larger with each passing day. In Palestine, U.S. and European cessation of aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas joined the government gave Iran the freedom to step in and offer its own aid package, one that quickly attracted Hamas's attention. This is why Abdullah brokered the Mecca Accord between Hamas and Fatah. It was done to dangle before the parties an aid package far in excess of what Iran could offer. American missteps in the Middle East have been so large, and our credibility in the region is at such a low ebb (though Bob Gates will help some at the Pentagon), that the Saudis have been forced (faute de mieux) to take a more pro-active stance and free-lance more without necessarily coordinating all their moves with Washington. If Iraq worsens and there are no break-throughs on the Israeli-Palestinian front (both likely events), look for this trend of increasing Saudi independence to intensify, as they see too many of their vital interests at risk, and a U.S partner they have less and less confidence in. Oh, and that cancelled state dinner? Bronson, again: The Saudis have clearly decided that, in order to do what they must regionally, they need to portray distance from the United States. The king sees little value in being viewed as the Tony Blair of the Middle East, which would hinder his attempt to build the regional will to confront Iran and push through his peace plan (which, he believes, will also reduce sympathy for Iran). It is certainly a gamble--Arab unity has not brought significant benefits for leaders who invested heavily to achieve it. And the current Saudi moves are no pleasure for Washington to watch. But, given its own precarious position in the region, being a spectator for this round may, for Washington, have its own advantages. I don't think we're quite at spectator status yet, with battle carriers in the Gulf and 150,000 plus men in Iraq. But certainly regional parties are more often taking matters into their own hands (look for this trend with Turkey too), underwhelmed and increasingly concerned by the growing weight of accumulating U.S. blunders in the region this past half decade. Posted by Gregory at April 4, 2007 12:26 PM Comments The "Tony Blair of the Middle East?" Ouch! I agree with Bronson: With adult supervision unfortunately absent in the U.S. government, the Saudi government is apparently trying to fill the void. The scary part is that, obviously, their interests don't necessarily coincide with ours across the board. If you've read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, you know they helped us out in Afghanistan in the 80's but also reached a lot of frightening accommodations with the Taliban and Pakistani extremists along the way in the 80's and 90's, while we ignored what they were doing after the Russians left. It just points out that the Saudis can be helpful in the region and have some shrewd diplomatic insights (and great intelligence networks, mostly bought) but that it's dangerous for us to cede control of the initiative to them. All this seems to fly blissfully over the heads of our current overlords. In the interest of furthering my lamentable education, can anyone tell me what this usage by Greg means - faute de mieux? Thanks! Posted by: scott at April 4, 2007 01:39 PM \| Permalink to this comment We are only one of many actors in Iraq, perhaps the largest one, but first among equal at best in terms of our influence and effectiveness. That this is eating into the perceptions of our power is only exacerbated by whatever the latest Bushian idiocy happens. Also remember it was from Saudi Arabia that many seeds of our current problems with terrorism first sprouted. Posted by: MNPundit at April 4, 2007 04:10 PM \| Permalink to this comment 'faute de mieux' means for lack of anything better.. that the Saudis have been forced (faute de mieux) to take a more pro-active stance and free-lance more without necessarily coordinating all their moves with Washington. Posted by: gaspard at April 4, 2007 04:19 PM \| Permalink to this comment You're examination of the issues at hand is comprehensive. You ask when the 35% will crack. It's interested to examine public opinion on the matter, especially when Iran is in the mix. Overwhelmingly, the public embraces diplomatic measures, with 44% of those surveyed favoring diplomacy with Iran and an addition 28% backing economic sanctions. Favor for military action is in the single digits. You mentioned plenty of domestic and international issues. Our anxiety indicator is currently at 137 on a 200-point scale, edging toward the 150 point mark that we would consider a crisis of confidence in government policy. Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to check out the fourth edition of our “Foreign Policy Index.” Posted by: William at April 4, 2007 06:30 PM \| Permalink to this comment Could anyone post some links or analysis on Iranian influence on the current Afghanistan situation? Since Iran nearly went to war with the Taleban some years back, I can't figure that one out. Posted by: Klaus at April 4, 2007 08:32 PM \| Permalink to this comment You're back! And quoting Atrios? The gods tremble. Your reappearance at full throttle hints at a negotiated timetable for re-engagement, other priorities having taken exclusive precedence in the interim. The unguarded anger of your first post has attenuated to a more studied, yet focused, sarcasm, suggesting that your activity in this medium is beneficial to the long-term balance of your Weltanschauung. Speaking in lay terms, you have released your inner snark without, yet, quite becoming a DFH. Take care. It's a fine line. Post 1: "Really, what exactly does this mean, pray tell?" A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing Post 2: "Are readers less pessimistic?" All the scenarios are at least conceivable, but none is irreversible over time. I'm more worried about "junking of habeas, Guantanamo, CIA authorized torture, and other grievances we civil liberties types wail on about like pansies from the sidelines…" like warrantless wiretapping, FBI procedural abuses of National Security Letters, etc. Particularly troubling are erosion of the "checks and balances" that protect individual citizens from the exercise of unrestricted governmental intervention and control, and increasing evidence of deliberate, systematic, widespread government manipulation of the electoral process. Post 3: "I don't think we're quite at spectator status yet,…" Certainly not militarily, but we are increasingly and definitively marginalized diplomatically. Everyone is smiling and nodding at the official diplomats, while sending those subtle diplomatic messages that mean: I don't really know this person, but I have to be (sort of) polite. Meanwhile they're cultivating alternative means, methods and channels. The Bush-Saud connection has become a liability. Anyone seen Prince Bandar around Crawford lately? Post 4: "…do you think the Gang of Three, "alien graft" that is, will "nevertheless [start] taking over the body,…" Probably not, as long as Condi is one of the Gang. See BD, Jan 23, 2007: DIPLOMACY 101. Also, Dead-Eye Dick, or what's left of him, is lurking in the shadows. El Presidente is dissolving into the ether. The body is already partially decomposed. There's something rotten in Denmark. Welcome back. Your voice is needed. Posted by: Adams at April 5, 2007 06:51 PM \| Permalink to this comment On the Saudis' not accepting the dinner invitation: While there's certainly a political aspect to it, there's also a very real barrier. The King is going to be busy over the next several months in trying to consolidate issues dealt with at the summit. The peace plan, Lebanon, and Darfur are going to require extensive follow-up and bureaucratic competence doesn't run very deep within the Saudi government. Top-level people, including the King, are going to be deeply and personally engaged. Another facet is one of protocol. The Saudi ruler has been to the US at twice since 2000. Bush hasn't yet gone to the KSA. That matters, as you know. Posted by: John Burgess at April 7, 2007 03:55 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch