Daily Times

Future US historians may well look back on the Barack Obama presidency as a foreign policy curio that pulled away from traditional alliances while seeking rapprochement with sworn foes. By pivoting towards the Asia-Pacific, his administration also reoriented America’s national interest towards containing China’s rise as a military power rather than managing the power dynamics in the Middle East. This US obsession with China is inexplicable, let us be honest, considering Beijing’s firm no-first-strike policy and bilateral trade worth over half a trillion dollars. Still, safeguarding Arab crude no longer seems to top Washington’s priority list.

Increased US oil production from shale deposits could be one reason. Another is the global rush for green energy to avoid a climate change catastrophe. If burning fossil fuels at present rates for another half a century will usher in doomsday, then it stands to reason that major powers will stop warring over them in the next decade. Ironically, through President Obama’s eight years in office, US relations with steadfast allies Saudi Arabia and Israel have strained even as he strove for peace with the hostile regimes in Cuba and Iran.

The Saudis have long complained that Obama is purposely slow-walking the necessary military solution to Syria’s civil war, despite clear evidence that Ayatollah-proxy, President Bashar al-Assad will not relinquish power voluntarily. Unfortunately for them, Russia coming to Assad’s aid in fighting off the armed Syrian opposition has Obama convinced that US boots on the ground could trigger a larger conflict that he has no appetite for, especially with coalition strikes against Islamic State militants in full swing. Furthermore, Washington needs Moscow and Tehran’s cooperation to wrest back IS-ruled areas in Iraq and Syria even if it is loath to openly admitting so. The goal, of course, is to prevent Paris or Brussels style attacks on US soil.

More surprisingly, bipartisan opinion about Riyadh among US lawmakers has turned sharply negative in recent months, something unimaginable during the Bush years. No sooner had the Saudis swallowed the bitter pill of Obama calling them “free riders” in the global war on terror, than the US Senate on May 17 passed a bill allowing families of 9-11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the terror attacks. Sponsored by Republican Senator John Cornyn and his Democratic colleague Chuck Schumer, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was a rare instance of unity in a largely fractious legislature.

Nevertheless, the Saudis knew what was coming and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir in March had even threatened Washington with divestment of $750 billion in American holdings if the bill became law. Obama himself has repeatedly indicated that he would veto JASTA even if it sails through both houses of Congress, for allowing its passage would “make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters recently. In short, Obama worries that post JASTA the next Raymond Davis will not be able to plead diplomatic immunity once he guns down locals in a Muslim country.

This does not worry Senator Schumer though. He is confident that “We can easily get the two-thirds override [in Congress] if the president should veto.” Further insinuating that Riyadh’s hand-wringing held a deeper meaning, he added “If the Saudis didn’t participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court. If they did, they should be held accountable.” Cornyn, meanwhile, dismisses the Saudi threat of offloading US treasury assets as mere bluster, claiming “They’re not going to suffer a huge financial loss just to make a point.” With the kingdom’s riyal pegged to the dollar, financial experts suggest a wholesale selloff would be highly disruptive to Saudi plans of transitioning their economy away from its historical dependence on oil exports.

Adding impetus to the Cornyn-Schumer bill are some 28 redacted pages of the 9-11 Congressional Commission report from 2002. Citing national security, the then US president George W Bush had these pages classified amid rumors the FBI covered up Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the strikes to protect the Bush family’s deep ties to its royals. Today, however, Senator Bob Graham, a former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is leading a chorus of irate congresspersons demanding the Obama administration make them public.

If these pages do, as Graham claims, “Point a strong finger at Saudi Arabia,” they will become the prosecutory bedrock of all lawsuits filed through JASTA, though a small loophole allowing the secretary of state to “certify” his engagement “in good-faith discussions” with Riyadh could delay verdicts indefinitely. It bears noting also that stories of prominent Saudi families being spirited out of the US in the frenzied days following 9-11 were already rife when, in 2005, Washington released records proving it had tasked FBI personnel with escorting many such individuals directly to the tarmac without exit immigration interviews.

Deep down, the Saudis too know that as all good things must end, so must their hitherto unimpeachable partnership with the US. White House spokespersons insist Obama “really cleared the air” with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud during the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in April, but the kingdom’s former spymaster Prince Turki Al-Faisal believes “a recalibration of our relationship with America” is nigh.

Al-Faisal is also not naive about the future consequences of Obama softly backpedalling his way out of the Middle East. The relationship changes underway, he opines, will replace the status quo as opposed to following the incumbent out of office: “I don’t think that we should expect any new president in America to go back to the yesteryear days when things were different.” The Saudi press also spit venom in response to JASTA’s passage, with a hard-hitting op-ed by legal expert Katib al-Shammari in the daily Al-Hayat deploring “the nature of the US” that “cannot exist without an enemy.” Will the House of Saud be able to survive in the long term without Washington’s steadying hand? Only time will tell.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist