Biden and Saudi Arabia: The Alliance Is Stable Despite Possible Differences

If your understanding of politics focuses on fundamentals and principles, then you’ll analyze the new American administration’s positions as of Jan. 20, i.e., Inauguration Day. However, if your understanding of politics involves “wishful thinking” and focuses on previous campaign statements where the context for presidential candidates is different, as is normally the case for American presidents during their campaigns, then surely your takeaway for the Saudi-American alliance will be very negative.

Defining his administration’s foreign policy priorities in his speech the day before yesterday in what was the first presentation of his policy concerning the Kingdom, President Joe Biden promised to continue cooperation with Saudi Arabia and to help the Kingdom face the threats against its sovereignty and territories. In addition to this policy, the new American administration declared last Sunday in its first official statement on relations with Saudi Arabia that it would help the Kingdom hold accountable all who lead attacks on its territories, with the State Department saying, “The United States strongly condemns the latest attack on Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.”*

These two positions, taken by the Biden administration in the same week, may have surprised some political speculators, by whom I mean those who project certain scenarios based on their personal impressions and, perhaps, wishes. Those who see the truth of alliances between countries as based on interests and benefits were not surprised by these two positions, which they consider to be normal. Given that Saudi Arabia only considers statements made by the president after his inauguration and not during his candidacy, it welcomed the president's promise to continue cooperation with Saudi Arabia and to help the Kingdom face the threats against its sovereignty and territories.

Does this mean that the Saudi-American positions are completely identical? Does it mean that there is no difference in political positions between them? Of course not.

Political differences, not disputes, are a natural occurrence between allies, and they arise no matter how close countries are politically and with respect to their positions. There is a difference between disagreements over strategic issues such as the war against terrorism, regional stability, global oil market stability and standing against Iranian expansionist policy, and differences over other details in which each state has its own views about how to deal with the situation. Even Washington's review of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is temporary, was an expected step, since it is a decision that has always occurred during previous presidential transitions. All incoming U.S. administrations review current policies before making their final decisions.

What about the war with Yemen, regarding which the president said that he will end “all American support for offensive operations?” Of course, the U.S. administration has the right to take a position as it sees fit, and likewise, the Kingdom has the right to take a stance that preserves its security and stability. The origin of the war is the Houthi overthrow of the legitimate government in Yemen. Over the course of the war, the Houthi regime has also turned its back on every political solution proposed by the United Nations and agreed to by all parties. While stressing its desire to end support, Washington wishes to strengthen its diplomatic efforts to end the war in Yemen. The Saudis hold this position themselves, and have have worked, and are working, to support a comprehensive political solution to the Yemen crisis. This was the sentiment expressed in the Saudis' statement supporting the U.S. position about the importance of diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis. Riyadh confirmed that it had “undertaken in this regard numerous vital steps to strengthen opportunities for political progress, such as the alliance’s announcement of a unilateral ceasefire in response to United Nations’ call.” In other words, despite their differences over details regarding the issue of the war, Washington and Riyadh agree on supporting diplomatic efforts to end it.
Furthermore, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced that the Biden administration has consulted with Saudi senior officials on this issue. If this is not high-level coordination and understanding between the two allied countries, then what is?

There is no question that President Biden has a lot of political experience, after having served 35 years in the Senate followed by his vice presidency under Barack Obama. Thanks to his vast experience, he realizes that his country has a critical need for an ally such as Saudi Arabia to play a role in regional and global security. The two countries will agree on strategic issues and differ on lesser issues, as is normal given that every country is entitled to have its own interests. There is no dispute that a country such as Saudi Arabia has consistently been able to impose its political realism throughout its historical alliance with the United States, and that it has the tools to preserve its interests and maintain its allies, just as its allies have held on to Saudi Arabia. An alliance between countries is not one country having power over another, but rather derives from mutual interests and what the ally possesses in terms of sought-after capabilities and power. This applies to superpowers as well, and we must not ignore or forget it.

*Editor's Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be independently verified.