Obama's Visit … and Continuing Issues
There is no doubt that relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States have been historically and strategically considered strong for close to seven decades, ever since the meeting between American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and King Abdullaziz, may God grant him bounty. It is reasonable and natural that a second relationship will evolve between the two nations as a result of differences around regional issues, or even as a result of big changes and upheavals in the political realm, including the conflicts that come along with them. In the past, history has been stamped by some other coups, such as the overthrows during the era of President Truman, when the existence of Israel was recognized in the year 1948.
In the context of President Obama’s visit to Riyadh tomorrow there are, naturally, a number of important political issues before him that remain open-ended, and without palpable resolution in respect to the efforts that the United States exerted in the recent past. To be precise, these efforts include the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, the Syrian conflict and the Iranian nuclear confrontation, as well as Egypt’s situation, all in addition to the issue of terrorism and the rise of sharp sectarian conflict in the region, not to mention the fallout from the crisis in Ukraine on the stability of the region.
From its point of view, the kingdom has maneuvered strongly from several directions and on several fronts since Obama’s first visit in 2009. Since then, Saudi Arabia has supported its sister across the peninsula, Bahrain, with its forces and stood with them against the ambitions of Iran in its attempt to destabilize the security and stability of Bahrain. The Saudi kingdom also stood beside the people of Egypt in the process of restoring and strengthening segments of the Egyptian nation and lending support to the concept of Western indemnities, which the West has cut off in order to put — unjustifiable! — pressure on Egypt. This is what forced the European Union to retreat from its stance. In regards to the Syrian crisis, the kingdom has implemented critical, fundamental changes following the royal imperatives that demanded the return of the volunteer Saudi fighters killed fighting in Syria and the roll out of sanctions against those who violated those directives. Saudi Arabia also inserted extremist and sectarian groups into Syria such as Daiysh, the Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood and others among the terrorist ranks. This was in addition to its firm position of support for the Syrian resistance and its support for the transitional government, including the recommendations which the first and second Geneva Conventions made for this government.
President Obama’s administration, on the other hand, exerted several noticeable efforts to solve the Syrian crisis and take care of the Iranian nuclear issue. However, there have been no results of these tangible efforts on the ground, and the reality of the current circumstances makes us feel a kind of relaxing of the effort made at deciding these issues. Furthermore, there is a qualitative change in how Obama’s administration is dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue; using greater flexibility while opening several channels for dialogue, either through the P5+1 Group or through direct diplomacy. This is in addition to the stance of the United States in regard to the Muslim Brotherhood organization and its cutting off of aid and support for Egypt, not to mention the obvious stumbling around the issue of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, and even regarding the American-Russian crisis: It has become clear that Russia no longer pays attention to what the United States says at the United Nations. Russia was able to realize several political and military gains, whether in dealing with the Arabian Peninsula or in its support of the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The result of all of these circumstances raises fears in the region and serves to weaken it at the same time. This is what forces us to pose several questions to ourselves. Most importantly: “What is the secret behind the great American political retreat in the region?”
Thus we hope that the opportunity is still favorable for President Obama, during what remains of his term in office, to make the best of things, harvest several of the innovations and repair some of the differences, especially after the conclusion of many of the principal pressures: primarily extending his presidency, withdrawing from Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. This is a golden opportunity. A golden opportunity that was presented in the past to President Bill Clinton when he almost reaped several historical gains in his final term, if not for a series of scandals that fouled them at the last moment and stole his thunder.
In the context of President Obama’s visit to Riyadh tomorrow there are, naturally, a number of important political issues before him that remain open-ended, and without palpable resolution in respect to the efforts that the United States exerted in the recent past. To be precise, these efforts include the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, the Syrian conflict and the Iranian nuclear confrontation, as well as Egypt’s situation, all in addition to the issue of terrorism and the rise of sharp sectarian conflict in the region, not to mention the fallout from the crisis in Ukraine on the stability of the region.
From its point of view, the kingdom has maneuvered strongly from several directions and on several fronts since Obama’s first visit in 2009. Since then, Saudi Arabia has supported its sister across the peninsula, Bahrain, with its forces and stood with them against the ambitions of Iran in its attempt to destabilize the security and stability of Bahrain. The Saudi kingdom also stood beside the people of Egypt in the process of restoring and strengthening segments of the Egyptian nation and lending support to the concept of Western indemnities, which the West has cut off in order to put — unjustifiable! — pressure on Egypt. This is what forced the European Union to retreat from its stance. In regards to the Syrian crisis, the kingdom has implemented critical, fundamental changes following the royal imperatives that demanded the return of the volunteer Saudi fighters killed fighting in Syria and the roll out of sanctions against those who violated those directives. Saudi Arabia also inserted extremist and sectarian groups into Syria such as Daiysh, the Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood and others among the terrorist ranks. This was in addition to its firm position of support for the Syrian resistance and its support for the transitional government, including the recommendations which the first and second Geneva Conventions made for this government.
President Obama’s administration, on the other hand, exerted several noticeable efforts to solve the Syrian crisis and take care of the Iranian nuclear issue. However, there have been no results of these tangible efforts on the ground, and the reality of the current circumstances makes us feel a kind of relaxing of the effort made at deciding these issues. Furthermore, there is a qualitative change in how Obama’s administration is dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue; using greater flexibility while opening several channels for dialogue, either through the P5+1 Group or through direct diplomacy. This is in addition to the stance of the United States in regard to the Muslim Brotherhood organization and its cutting off of aid and support for Egypt, not to mention the obvious stumbling around the issue of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, and even regarding the American-Russian crisis: It has become clear that Russia no longer pays attention to what the United States says at the United Nations. Russia was able to realize several political and military gains, whether in dealing with the Arabian Peninsula or in its support of the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The result of all of these circumstances raises fears in the region and serves to weaken it at the same time. This is what forces us to pose several questions to ourselves. Most importantly: “What is the secret behind the great American political retreat in the region?”
Thus we hope that the opportunity is still favorable for President Obama, during what remains of his term in office, to make the best of things, harvest several of the innovations and repair some of the differences, especially after the conclusion of many of the principal pressures: primarily extending his presidency, withdrawing from Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. This is a golden opportunity. A golden opportunity that was presented in the past to President Bill Clinton when he almost reaped several historical gains in his final term, if not for a series of scandals that fouled them at the last moment and stole his thunder.