The delegation that recently accompanied US President Barack Obama on his recent visit to the Kingdom was an interesting mix of people with opposing viewpoints over different regional and global issues. The selection of delegates indicated Obama’s perception about the difficult task of meeting with Saudi officials.
Obama had to put aside his pride by including some of his bitter opponents to join him during the visit to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps he knew that some members of the delegation would help facilitate his mission or maybe he thought some might have more credibility than him. Noteworthy delegates included Republican Sen. John McCain and the former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who had resigned from his position in protest against the administration’s decisions in its war on terror.
McCain was likely selected by Obama to bridge and regain some of the lost trust as a result of his policies in the region. McCain is an expert on the region and his views toward Iran and its nuclear issue are very much in line with the aspirations of the people of the region.
The US Middle East policy has been problematic under Obama in sharp contrast with the policies pursued by the GOP, whether we agree with them or not. The GOP usually leaves no ambiguity in its policies and strategies. On the other hand, the foreign policy approach of the Democrats appears to be immature and inconsistent. It lacks strategic depth and primarily focuses on short-term solutions. Charles Krauthammer, a writer for the Washington Post, accurately described Obama’s foreign policy, “It has lost any sense of reality.” These policies certainly lack reality when it comes to the complicated situation in the Arab world, as they have led to consequences that not only threatened the security of this region, but US interests in the region as well.
For example, the self-ascribed Islamic State (IS), which Obama wants Saudi Arabia to help weaken and demolish, demonstrates the adverse consequences of US policies in the region. IS could not have expanded in the region had it not been for the political vacuum in Syria and Iraq. The IS would not have been able to find social support in these areas had it not been for armed Shiite militants wreaking havoc on those areas and killing Sunni leaders and clans. Both a weakened central authority and the spread of Shiite militants were the results of US policy decisions under Obama administration. It was the US that decided to withdraw its forces without ensuring or planning for a viable alternative, and it was also the US administration that helped train Shiite militants and turned a blind eye to the absence of power in Syria, which was later grasped by Iran and Hezbollah.
In an attempt to end the Iranian nuclear standoff, the US has dangerously overlooked the expansionist designs of Tehran. At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee in Congress, Henry Kissinger reportedly highlighted the expansionist ambitions of Iran in the Middle East, noting that its foreign policy since the 1979 revolution has consisted of a mix of religion and imperialism.
According to Kissinger, the Iranian regime will not give up on its vision and ambition to restore Persian influence and control in the region, noting that obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of its specific tools to achieve this goal. “Has the Iranian political vision changed? We cannot judge that by its nuclear ambitions alone, and this is the challenge we are facing,” said Kissinger.
Regardless of the fact that Kissinger’s views focus on threats to US interests in the region, his views are not much different from ours. We also share the same apprehensions but Obama administration has been unable to link the nuclear issue with Iran’s imperialistic ambitions. This reflects a string of policies based on isolated issues; the US is waging a war on terrorism in isolation from the Iranian issue and its expansionist goals, which in turn has undermined the role of its Sunni allies, including regimes, tribes, and the vast majority of the region’s population in the war on terrorism. The result has been a lack of public participation in counterterrorism efforts and a hike in sectarian sensitivities, making the task of those in charge of the fight against terrorism all the more difficult.
Furthermore, when the Democratic administration announces that it does not see any Iranian role in Bahrain, Iraq or Yemen, such comments only reflect its sheer ignorance and illogical reasoning. Such statements are simply false, especially as Iranian support to Shiite militants in these countries is not only political, but also involves training and funding.
So, the presence of John McCain was clearly very important in the delegation. Despite the different points of view of Saudi Arabia and Sen. McCain on Egypt’s issue, they align when it comes to the Iranian issue. They even share similar views about energy and petroleum, as evidenced by McCain’s statement requesting the White House to thank Saudi Arabia for its policies that affected the Russian economy after the failure of US sanctions.
If Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states insist on the presence of a Republican such as McCain at meetings to discuss regional issues, it might help prevent further degradation of the Saudi-US ties. There is no doubt that the terrorism issue, which is linked to the Iranian issue, must be discussed with the US and thus requires experts who are connected and familiar with the realities on the ground.
