Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has convincingly advocated a reassessment of U.S. alliances around the world. President Obamas recent visit to Saudi Arabia should prompt such a re-evaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The United States no longer needs to coddle the despotic monarchy and should end this alliance of convenience.
The informal U.S.-Saudi alliance began during World War II, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt realizing that the likely substantial oil deposits under the sands of the Saudi kingdom could satisfy the increasing American need to import foreign oil. He and the founder of the Saudi dynasty in Arabia, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, agreed that the United States would provide security for the monarchy in exchange for oil.
Obamas trip to Saudi Arabia was designed to smooth Saudi ruffled feathers over the U.S.-led agreement among the great powers and Iran, the Saudis regional arch rival, which froze Irans nuclear program for ten to fifteen years. The United States, however, should not be sheepish about an agreement that at least delays Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state. In fact, Irans neighboring enemiesIsrael and Arab Persian Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, are the biggest beneficiaries of the Iranian nuclear programs freeze.
However, Israel and Saudi Arabia, nations with huge influence in Washington, wanted more: the United States to bomb, and thus weaken, the Iranian potential regional titan. Instead, the United States needs to improve relations with Iranwith its huge population and economic potentialto keep it out of the orbit of China, which is thirsty for Irans oil.
To further assuage Saudi Arabia over the nuclear agreement with Iran, Obama also has unnecessarily provided the new reckless Saudi leadership with military assistance, as the monarchy has militarily intervened in nearby Yemens civil warall the while bombing civilians indiscriminately.
Such disregard for human rights has a long history in Saudi Arabia, which has one of the worst human rights records on the planet, especially in the treatment of women and with its continuation of barbaric medieval punishments. In addition, the kingdom has been the biggest exporter of Islamist radicalism on the planet, with long-time credible suspicions that parts of the Saudi government even have been benefactors of terrorism.
Yet the United States mutes its criticism of such practices because of the pervasive myth among U.S. policymakers that the Saudis can manipulate world oil prices and that the American economy will crash if the Saudis wink and create a world price spike. Neither is true.
Contrary to popular belief, Saudi Arabia provides only 11 percent of U.S. oil imports. More importantly, although Saudi Arabia is the undisputed leader of the OPEC oil cartel, even before the U.S. fracking boomwhich has again restored the United States to being the worlds top oil producermost economists believed that resource cartels, including OPEC, had little long-term success in raising commodity prices beyond the levels of the world market. Thats because when any cartel tries to artificially raise the price, its members have an incentive to secretly cheat and sell more than their cartel quotas allowthus bringing the price back down.
So Saudi control over the worlds oil market is a myth. Second, industrial economies, such as that of the United States, have historically proven fairly resilient to oil price spikes.
Thus, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a bad ally, and the U.S.-Saudi allianceoriginally based on false premises and now out of date with the U.S. fracking boomshould be ended. There is no need to further indulge a medieval despotic abuser of human rights and exporter of worldwide radical Islamism with political backing, destabilizing arms sales, and military assistance for its reckless war. As I note in my book, No War for Oil: U.S. Dependence and the Middle East, simply paying the world market price has always been the best way to ensure that the United States gets all the imported oil it needs as cheaply as possible.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
A candid reassessment of the presidential scorecard over the past 100 years, identifying the hypocrisy of those who promised to limit government while giving due credit when presidents lived up to their rhetoric.