In late June, less than two weeks after the Trump administration signed its much-ridiculed memorandum of understanding with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to the Middle East. The journey was as much about damage control as anything else. While Washington’s regional allies were relieved the shooting had tapered off, many had concerns about what the deal left out.
It turns out that the disagreements between Washington and the Gulf monarchies are more serious behind closed doors than U.S. officials would like us to believe. According to reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the war with Iran, and the way President Donald Trump opted to fight it, has injected a strong dose of truth serum into alliance relationships. Take Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, who ordered the kingdom to bar the U.S. military from using Saudi airspace and military bases as Trump was attempting to reopen the strait militarily in May. The Saudis viewed the U.S. operation, code-named Project Freedom, as an unnecessary escalation that would result in Iran lobbing yet more missiles and drones at Gulf energy facilities. The situation got so tumultuous that the White House threatened to block delivery of missile defense interceptors to Riyadh.
This specific dispute eventually evaporated after the Saudis reversed their position. But the fact that the spat occurred at all will no doubt rub the U.S. foreign policy establishment in Washington the wrong way. Like clockwork, people will begin worrying that Trump’s war with Iran is eviscerating Washington’s traditional strategic ties with Gulf states, which give the United States basing rights and enhance the U.S. military’s ability to project power. But what if this development is a net positive rather than a net negative?
After all, there’s a sound case to reassess America’s strategy in the Middle East.
Author
More on Middle East
