In an interview to valdaiclub.com, former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer revealed whether Obama really had a Middle East doctrine, and explained why US-Saudi relations are not in the crisis, in which many perceive them to be.
Particularly in the media, it has been said that Obama was received coldly in Riyadh. Are US-Saudi relations really in crisis, or is this simply a juncture of circumstances: the 9/11 lawsuit bill in Congress, the upcoming elections, concerns over Saudi ties with fundamentalist rebel groups in Syria, etc.? Would it be going too far to say that Washington is on a course of rapprochement with Iran, and is therefore willing to sacrifice some of its ties with Saudi Arabia?
US-Saudi relations are not in crisis, but there are several serious problems that have led to significant differences in policy and action. The most significant issue appears to be whether the United States under Obama has begun to tilt away from Saudi Arabia in favor of improving relations with Iran. This is an overstatement, but the perception has been hard to dispel. Against this backdrop, the 9/11 lawsuit issue and other problems have been magnified.
Obama’s visit to Riyadh should help at least somewhat, as the president will have a chance to explain his thinking clearly and to reiterate strong American support for Saudi security. However, it will be harder to deal with the Iran issue over time, in view of the proxy battles that now engage the Saudis and the Iranians. This is why Obama has invested diplomatic hope in working with Russia on a settlement in Iran, while also pressing for a ceasefire and negotiation process in Yemen. To the extent that the proxy wars can be reduced in size, US-Saudi relations will have time to heal.
How would you evaluate the results of Obama’s Middle East policy, and would you say there was an overall strategy?
While it may be an overstatement to say that President Obama has developed a “doctrine” related to the Middle East, as suggested in a recent article in Atlantic magazine, several elements of his policy have been consistent since 2009:
- He has made clear his preference for diplomacy and multilateralism instead of military intervention and unilateralism. In this respect, he has been committed to ending US military involvement in Iraq – at least until the Daesh threat manifest itself – and limiting US military involvement in Afghanistan. This also accounts for his determination to work with the other countries of the P5+1 to reach a nuclear accord with Iran.
- The pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace has been high on Obama’s agenda, and the lack of success there has clearly been a disappointment. Obama sees the achievement of peace as a US national interest.
- The Obama administration’s response to Arab upheavals has been mixed, ranging from a willingness to engage Islamist parties – such as Morsi’s government in Egypt before 2013 – to an unwillingness to countenance the idea that Assad will remain in power in Syria. U.S. policy has been as unsuccessful as every other country’s policy with respect to dealing with the collapse of Arab governance and the return of authoritarianism.
What agenda will the US’ next president have to deal with in the region?
The most urgent item for the next administration will be the ongoing threat that Daesh poses. The next administration will also want to restore stability to traditional U.S. relationships, such as with Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. And the next president will need to ensure full Iranian compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA.
