Saudi pivots from US

[Sheilbh]

'Pivots' the foreign policy verb, right?

Saudi Arabia set for diplomatic shift away from US
Intelligence chief tells diplomats he plans to limit interaction with US in protest at its policies on Syria, Israel and Iran
Reuters in Doha
theguardian.com, Tuesday 22 October 2013 14.29 BST

Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief has said the kingdom will make a "major shift" in dealings with the US in protest at perceived American inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.

The source said that Prince Bandar bin Sultan had told European diplomats that Washington had failed to act effectively on the Syria crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed a 2011 anti-government revolt.

It was not immediately clear whether Prince Bandar's reported statements had the full backing of King Abdullah.

In an unprecedented move last week, Saudi Arabia rejected its first offer of a seat on the UN security council and denounced the UN for failing to resolve world conflicts. The move appeared largely directed at the US.

"The shift away from the US is a major one," the source said on Tuesday. "Saudi doesn't want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent.

"Prince Bandar told diplomats that he plans to limit interaction with the US. This happened after the US failed to take any effective action on Syria and Palestine.

"Relations with the US have been deteriorating for a while, as Saudi feels that the US is growing closer with Iran and the US also failed to support Saudi during the Bahrain uprising."

The source declined to provide more details of Bandar's talks with the diplomats, which took place in the past few days. But he suggested that the planned change in relations would have wide-ranging consequences, including on arms purchases and oil sales.

Many US economic interests in Saudi Arabia involve government contracts in defence, other security sectors, healthcare, education, information technology and construction.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, appeared keen to play down suggestions of a serious rift between Washington and Riyadh. Speaking after talks about the Syria crisis in London on Tuesday, he said he had held two meetings with the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal in as many days.

"Saudi Arabia signed on to this [Syria] communique," he said. "Saudi Arabia and the US agree on a great deal going forward. We know they were disappointed that the strike [against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons] didn't take place and have concerns about other things taking place in the region" – an apparent reference to the thaw in US relations with Iran, the conservative kingdom's strategic rival in the Gulf.

On Iran, Kerry said he had told his Saudi counterpart. "I reiterated our position - in any negotiation [with Iran] -that our eyes are wide open, actions are what will speak to us, not words, and 'no deal' is better than a bad deal."

I wonder how much of this (and Putin's aggressiveness and Iran's hints at openness) could be down to domestic oil and gas production in the US and, soon, Europe

[Barrister]

You know, the Saudis are more than welcome to try and deal with Syria, Iran and Palestine themselves if they wish...

[Eddie Teach]

Either a bluff or they're gonna try to cozy up to China. 

[DGuller]

I think it would be good for US to pivot away from the Saudis.  Saudis are exceptionally evil even by the standards of the region they're in.  I'd rather have us ally with secular dictators in that region rather than radical missionaries.

[crazy canuck]

Either a bluff or they're gonna try to cozy up to China. 

China wasnt exactly a cheerleader for military action in Syria.  Pivot to who is the question.  And perhaps a better question is who cares now that the West has more secure access to oil.

[KRonn]

No surprise. Lately there have been a few news stories of Saudi annoyance over US policy in the region. The US and Saudis in the past have acted in concert quite surprisingly at times. For instance in the 60s or 70s to thwart Egypt's attempt to pull more Arab nations into a closer sphere of cooperation, back when the USSR was an Egyptian ally. Plus other events using US-Saudi cooperation. Even some which generally received approval by the Wahabis, which is important to the Saudi Royals to retain a good working relationship.

Then also there is the possible US energy independence by 2020 which will affect the Saudis. That has to be having  worrying the Saudis quite a bit, especially given that some European companies are starting to shift drilling to the US, which may bring more self reliance to some Euro nations.

[The Minsky Moment]

I wonder how much of this (and Putin's aggressiveness and Iran's hints at openness) could be down to domestic oil and gas production in the US and, soon, Europe

The Saudis don't have to worry that much about that, because they are the low cost producer and can still swing world prices given the size of their production and flexibiltiy on capacity.
A key thing always to keep in mind about the fracking revolution is that it has come about as an economic response to triple digit oil prices.  Prices must remain high in order to cover costs.
Geopolitically and strategically, emnity between Iran and the US never made much sense; it is an artifact of the ideological dysfunction of the Islamic Republic.  The second that ideological pressure is relaxed even slightly there is a natural tendency to rapprochment, as we see now.
The Saudis can pivot around as much as they wish, but their really isn't anywhere for them to go.  The Chinese would be glad to be chummy but would have even less interest to signing on to the Saudi agenda re Iran and Syria.

[mongers]

Perhaps 'pivot' in this context means to cover up extremism with the fig-leaf of being sincere ally?

[derspiess]

Don't worry, Obama's got this.  He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.

[Sheilbh]

Don't worry, Obama's got this.  He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.

Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?

[Berkut]

I think we need a reset with SA.

[The Brain]

There's left shift and right shift. Major shift sounds fake to me.

[grumbler]

I think we need a resetload with SA.

FYP

[KRonn]

Don't worry, Obama's got this.  He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.

Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?

I think growing apart could be a bit of a more a problem. SA is a very influential and important nation in the Mid East and the US and Saudis have often worked together, even though that aspect doesn't really get as much attention.

[Barrister]

The article mentions the Saudi rejection of a Security Council seat.  But there's more to that story.  Saudi Arabia wasn't merely offered that spot - they had lobbied for it for years.  They had extra diplomats in New York ready to take on those additional responsibilities.  But at the last moment they had new orders from Prince Bandar to turn down the seat.

So this "pivot", together with rejecting the security council seat, sounds a lot like a carefully thought out plan, and more like a fit of pique.