Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Arab Spring Stalls as U.S. Defers to Saudi ‘Counter-revolution’

Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, seemingly encouraged by Washington acquiescence, push back against Arab Spring movements as part of a regional proxy war with Iran.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

As the so-called Arab Spring enters its sixth month, it appears to have run into seriously wintry headwinds.

While some observers here have blamed Saudi Arabia and its neighbouring Sunni-led sheikhdoms as a major source of the icy winds that are blasting through the Gulf, the growing contradictions between the U.S. and Western "values" and their interests are adding to the unseasonable weather.

Thus, while Washington has privately expressed strong doubts about the wisdom of the increasingly brutal and indiscriminate crackdown against the majority Shia population in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, its failure to clearly and publicly denounce the Saudi-backed repression is only the most blatant example of this trend.

Far less noticed – let alone condemned – are actions such as Thursday's dissolution by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of the board of directors of the Jurist Association, one of the country's most prominent civil society organisations, which earlier this month had the temerity to sign a petition seeking political reform.

Human Rights Watch said the move was part of a "broader crackdown on peaceful dissent" by the government, whose de facto defence minister, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, will meet with President Barack Obama here next week, the White House announced Friday.

Indeed, despite his growing – if reluctant – military investment in "regime change" in Libya, Obama's avowed efforts to put Washington "on the right side of history" in the Arab world appear increasingly lame and hypocritical.

Not only is the U.S. – not to say the rest of the West – effectively deferring to Saudi policy, particularly in the Gulf, but it also appears to be hedging its bets against truly democratic change elsewhere in the region by, for example, bolstering its support for Egypt's military – while withholding substantial economic aid – in the apparent hope that the army will retain control over the country's defence and foreign policies, especially toward Israel.

Meanwhile, the more idealistic youth-led movements that initiated the early "pro-democracy" demonstrations that succeeded in ousting Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt have in some cases, as in Yemen and Libya, been displaced or marginalised by less altruistic forces acting on behalf of narrower sectarian, tribal, or clan interests.

Current efforts by the Saudi-dominated Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) to mediate the terms of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh's departure – to which Washington has also somewhat reluctantly deferred – could well end up with the replacement of one group of elites by another, with little or no prospect for a significant expansion of democratic freedoms or governance.

"Is the United States confident that the dominant narrative today, of democrats vs. oppressor, will continue to play out – and will not be overtaken by latent ones such as tribe vs. tribe, haves vs. have-nots or, worse, Islam vs. 'crusaders'?" asked former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former CIA chief Michael Hayden in an op-ed published by the Washington Post Friday.

The deference shown to the Saudi kingdom, the clear leader of the region's counter-revolutionary wave, is explained by a number of factors, not least of which is its role as the world's swing oil producer at a time when the price of petrol at the pump here has hit the four-dollar-a-gallon level.

Political analysts here warn that Obama's chances of re-election – which are currently considered pretty favourable – could be reduced in politically significant ways unless the price comes down by this time next year.

"My poll numbers go up and down depending on the latest crisis, and right now gas prices are weighing heavily on people," Obama himself noted at a fund-raising event in California earlier this week.

In addition to its great influence over oil prices, Saudi Arabia – and the UAE, for that matter – buys tens of billions of dollars in advanced U.S. weapons systems whose manufacturers are worried about the implications of a declining defence budget at home, and the risks of strained ties between Washington and their big clients overseas, for their bottom lines.

"Most Americans, to the extent that they think of it, do not understand how little leverage …the U.S. has with the Saudis," wrote Col. Pat Lang (ret.), the former top Mideast analyst at the Defensee Intelligence Agency (DIA) on his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, last week. "They have decided to change the basic nature of their relationship to the U.S., taking from now on a much more independent course and encouraging resistance to revolutionary groups throughout the region."

Finally, Saudi Arabia, eagerly backed by the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, has emerged as the principal regional rival of Iran in what Riyadh and its allies are increasingly depicting as an existential conflict between the Mideast's Sunni and Shia communities.

Their eagerness to charge Tehran with foreign interference in the Arab world's internal affairs is music to the ears of the powerful "Israel Lobby" whose patient cultivation of the idea of a "strategic consensus" uniting Israel with the Sunni-led states against Iran finally appears to be bearing fruit over their shared anxieties about the possibly dire consequences of the region's democratisation.

Thus, Congressional reluctance to provide substantial aid or even debt relief to the wounded and sinking Egyptian economy at such a critical moment in that country's political evolution is due as much to the desire for assurances that its future government will remain faithful to the Camp David Accords and co-operate with Israel on Gaza as it is to the budget-cutting mania that has seized Washington. Cairo's decision last week to begin normalising ties with Tehran will bolster those who believe that a democratic Egypt may not be such a good investment.

But the winds that are chilling the Arab Spring could make for a scorchingly hot summer, warn some analysts who believe that the growing polarisation caused by the Saudi counter-revolution both within countries and across the region carries major and increasing risks for the U.S. and its current allies there.

"The situation is increasingly urgent, especially given the intensification of acrimony between Iran and its Arab neighbors," according to a paper by Toby Jones, a Gulf expert at Rutgers University, published this week by the U.S. Institute of Peace. It warned that Washington could get "dragged into another military conflict" if it fails to take a more assertive role.

Noting that Washington's quiet appeals to the Saudis and their allies for restraint and reform have been ignored or rejected, he added that the feared expansion of Iranian influence could become a self- fulfilling prophecy – certainly in Bahrain, a point with which the prominent neo-conservative hawk, Elliott Abrams, emphatically agreed in a blog post this week entitled "Bahrain Heads for Disaster" – if not the wider region, including Saudi Arabia itself.

"Should Riyadh continue on its current path, the U.S. should make clear that a reconsideration of U.S. military commitments may be necessary," according to Jones, who suggested that Washington can protect its regional interests from "over the horizon" as it did before the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share