Obama Visits Saudi Arabia to tell them
Iran is no threat!
===
More eloquent expression of what I have been trying to write. (See 1 below.)
===
Obama cannot acknowledge Palestinians as terrorists because it undercuts his appeasement, look the other way policy and failed personality. What a pathetic president we have had to endure these past 7 plus years. (See 2 below.)
Rush's brother gives an excellent recapitulation of what I have been writing about Obama and explains the genesis of Trump's popularity.
One of the interesting characteristics of Americans is their tolerance for stupidity but even they have limits and now some 7 plus years later I believe their utter disgust with Obama has reached the boiling point.
I have only one question for Americans - What took you so long? (See 2a below.)
This from one of my oldest friends and fellow memo readers: "Dick, I am glad I’m old enough to not have to watch our nation continually be destroyed by a president who will not admit he is trying to destroy us. D----"
My response: "Since you are an old and dear friend I hate to curse you with a prayer that you live a long life. Me"
Should Trump be the nominee and should he defeat Hillarious, if the FBI and Obama allow her to be the nominee, voters must give Trump an even greater Congressional plurality so he can be reasonably successful in trying to carry out his campaign commitments. Half measures will not work this time. We must go all the way ! This is one time where checks and balances should be cast aside.
===
Obama arrived in Riyadh this week to repair the damage his policies have caused. From reports, he plans to sell the Saudis on the idea they should make nice to Iran.
I suspect the Saudis will take this as another sign of Obama's weakness and lack of understanding of the fear Saudis have now that Obama helped strengthen Iran.
What our set in stone ideologue of a president does not comprehend and cannot admit is everything he does strengthens the budding relationship between Egypt, Jordan,Saudi Arabia and Israel. Why? Because Obama has helped a dangerous common enemy grow stronger.
Can you conjure what the Saudis must think while talking to a president who cannot even acknowledge the connection of Islam with terrorism about the threat Islamist Terrorism poses for them. It would be like going to a doctor to discuss your cancer who is unwilling to admit cancer exists. (See 3 and 3a below.)
(Our son worked as an intern with Dr. Anthony "Tony" Cordesman, whose Arleigh Burke Chair is largely financed by The Saudi Royal Family giving him keen insight into the Saudi mind and posture.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) We have reached a dangerous place – a juncture, beyond which lies either hope of recovery and restoration of our Constitutional Republic or the continuing erosion and eventual erasure of our protections as citizens against a rapacious government.
This proverbial fork in the road holds more peril than merely choosing the wrong path; we face that choice in every election – indeed, with hundreds of choices we all make each day. The greater concern is the way in which we make our choice – the resources we consult and the methodology we employ.
Very few wise choices have risen from such a miasma of misinformation, mischaracterization, and unreasoning fear and hatred as we are witnessing today.
This cycle has seen the rise of Donald Trump, a candidate who doesn't fit the central casting mold. He is unusual and bold, brash and unapologetic in his statements. Yet he is not without precedent. We are witnessing the rebirth of the populists, nothing more.
The political structure with which most of us are familiar is in truth a relatively new thing. People think of primaries as full-blown elections. They are not. The word that appropriately precedes "primaries" is "party." These are party primaries, designed by political parties to choose the candidate behind whom the party intends to coalesce support for the real election – the general election.
For most of our nation's history, primaries were not the method of choice for determining nominees.
The primary is merely a means of gauging support for this or that candidate, not a federally mandated or constitutionally established election. Parties can choose their nominees in whatever methods that state chooses – with a party primary election, a caucus or convention, or, as done in Colorado, with a decision by party leadership. As long as the established rules are followed, these choices are the business of the party, not the general public, who gets their say in November.
This is one of the reasons our founding fathers eschewed party structures, hoping instead for ideological constructs based on merit and competence, not on membership. In other words, they wanted the best candidate to emerge from among many by virtue of having been lifted above the others by a groundswell of public support.
"But isn't that why we have primaries? To determine that?" you might rightly ask. The answer is yes, but with a difference that holds a transformative distinction.
Marshaling support is always a difficult thing, and doing so without the benefit of an organization makes that task far more imposing, so rather than disbanding the ideological coalitions that formed around past candidates, these free associations of like-minded people became standing parties, charged with safeguarding the views around which they originally formed, and providing a beacon to others who may hold similar views.
In other words, they became a brand, known for an ideology. Those who agreed with that ideology shopped within that brand; those who did not shopped elsewhere. Following that retail analogy, the pre-party "Mom & Pop" stores became national chains, with similar marketing and presentation.
There has always been a political yin and yang within any nation of free people. There are those who believe that each of us should be empowered to make his own decisions – for good or ill – finding our path to success or failure depending on our own efforts. Government exists to ensure we have that freedom by protecting the rights with which we entered this world from infringement by those who would "stack the deck" through corruption rather than merit.
The other side views individuals as messy pieces within a larger collective. Individual liberty must be suborned to collective goals, as determined by a central group of planners, who presumably know better than you how your life ought to be lived. To these, government exists to establish the definitions of success and then ensure that people receive it equally.
Of course, these myopic "Solomons" never assign such restrictions to themselves, as that would be far too limiting for them to achieve their utopian goals, which thankfully makes them easier to spot, as their neon hypocrisy shines like a "vacancy" sign on a lonely nighttime highway.
To these people, we are always just one regulation away, just one program short of peace on Earth and a chicken in every pot.
There appears to be a harder edge to the disagreements between members of the two parties. Trump is no doubt a polarizing figure. He has managed to appeal to those conservatives among the Republican faithful who are tired of being misled, lied to, and beaten down by the Democrats and the leadership of their own party.
They have good reason to feel this way.
However, a rift is appearing – a fissure that is widening between those who support Trump and those who do not. The tenor of the disagreement has grown entirely negative, with statements like "you're not a real Republican" or "only my candidate can save the nation!"
Whenever we resort to absolutes to make sense of a circumstance that are anything but absolute, we are setting ourselves up to be either proven wrong in an embarrassingly public way or proven right at the cost of losing close friends and associates.
There is very little in this life that is all of one thing and none of another – and nothing illustrates this more than politics, where little is ever as it seems anyway.
The parties make their rules and choose their methods for determining a nominee. One candidate making more effective use of those rules isn't "cheating" or "stealing"; he is merely making more effective use of the rules, just as their opponent might've. Period.
Don't let these arguments; misunderstandings; and, in many cases, misapprehensions of the rules create in you a heart hardened against people you have known and loved. Don't let your anger define you. Losing or winning doesn't proffer a characterization of value on a person, and as long as laws are not violated, then losing or winning will be a thing we can each accept with grace and humility.
While losing doesn't mean you were cheated, winning doesn't mean you are vindicated. We are all judged by how we treat one another and, most importantly, how we treat ourselves. Tell yourself the truth, even if it hurts, because lying to yourself only prepares the soil of your heart for the seeds of discord, which, come November, will surely reap a bitter harvest.
The author is the communications director for the Global Faith Institute (globalfaith.org) and welcomes visitors to his own site, readmorejoe.com.
2a) The Establishment birthed Trump!
Much of the establishment's criticism of Donald Trump comes from its failure to comprehend the reasons for his soaring popularity. Establishment types seem untroubled by the problems facing America, so they can't understand the urgency that fathered Trump's rise. Minor adjustments to the Hindenburg's dining room menu just aren't going to get it.
Their overwrought analysis, their hand-wringing and their contemptuousness for Trump betray a disdain not only for Trump but for Americans who recognize the gravity of America's predicament -- and who, in desperation, have turned to Trump for bold action.
It's hard to overstate Americans' concern for the state of the nation. Horrified by President Obama's Sherman-esque march through America, they are tired of hearing that nothing can be done. They are through with empty promises from establishment politicians.
People are tired of Obama's pitting blacks against whites, women against men, gays against heterosexuals, rich against poor, non-taxpayers against taxpayers, citizens against cops and his Muslims against Christians. They can no longer stomach Obama's apologizing for America and excusing terrorists while rushing to attack Christians at every turn.
People are sick of being called racists for things that happened in this country before they were born or before they could vote, for opposing Obama's destructive agenda, or for simply being Republicans. They abhor the war on cops orchestrated by racial hucksters and pandering politicians. They are incredulous that any president would deliberately engineer America's decline and degrade our military. They are tired of the nation's chief executive officer's flouting laws and thwarting the people's will.
Americans are sick of Obama's trashing America's founding, assaulting capitalism, and bellowing about man-made global warming as a pretense to impose more liberty-smothering regulations. They are nauseated by politicians who are more interested in bipartisanship with scofflaws than with saving the nation.
People are mortified by the nation's fiscal instability, its unbridled national debt, its spiraling entitlements and Washington's refusal to address them. They are sick of the fraudulent spending "cuts." They have had their fill of the lies, especially about Obamacare, whose costs dwarf Obama's promised projections and are getting worse by the day. They've reached their limit with this administration's rewarding unemployment and laziness while punishing work, its honoring socialism and demonizing capitalism.
People are sick of politically correct bullies. They are exhausted by lectures about not paying their fair share when half the income earners don't pay income taxes. They are fed up with lies about decreasing unemployment rates when tens of millions have dropped out of the workforce.
Every other week, we face a new existential threat to the nation -- threats perpetrated or enabled by Obama and the Washington establishment. But the establishment meets these perils with barely disguised indifference. Islamic terrorism is overrunning the Middle East and has reached our mainland, and Obama doesn't dare whisper its name. Obama refuses to enforce the borders; he orders his administration not to enforce immigration laws; he lawlessly grants amnesty to millions of immigrants who are here illegally; and he and his party set up sanctuary cities that harbor criminal immigrants.
Last year, we faced an invasion from Central America; now, in the name of compassion, we are inviting in Syrian refugees -- some 72 percent of whom are, curiously, men. Are we afraid to wonder aloud whether those who sidestep the legal immigration process will embrace the American idea.? Whether they will end up on the welfare rolls.?
With Congress' help, Obama bypassed the Constitution's treaty clause and entered into a reckless, non-verifiable nuke deal with Iran and will give the Iranians a $150 billion signing bonus to fund terrorism and build ballistic missiles.
So where does that leave us?
People have heard one too many times that the Republican Party, if it regains control, will turn things around. Republicans have been so timid in opposing Obama's agenda that many have quit believing they'll reverse this madness if they acquire full control.
Along comes Trump, who gives voice to these legitimate grievances instead of calling people racist, selfish or hysterical. He emphasizes the urgency of these problems, and he denounces the status quo, the establishment, Washington inertia and political correctness without an ounce of apology. People are dehydrated, and he's their Gatorade®.
Whether Trump could or would deliver on his promises is one thing, but the establishment's arrogant failure to acknowledge, let alone decry the horror of, the status quo is his lifeblood. If Trump is a monster, the establishment is Dr. Frankenstein, so please spare us the lectures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Obama Lands in Saudi Arabia for Talks with Gulf Leaders
The U.S. president faces frustrated leaders who are already looking ahead to the next administration
President Obama arrived in the Saudi capital on Wednesday, where his visit is expected to focus on further
cooperation and military backing in the fight against Islamic State, and a foreign-policy agenda that has positioned
Washington as a broker between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Photo: AP.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—President Barack Obama arrived here Wednesday on a trip
meant to provide reassurances to Gulf allies and to bolster his foreign-policy legacy.
With just nine months left in office, Mr. Obama is aiming to steady what have become
rocky relationships in the region and to tackle such issues as the fight against Islamic State
and countering Iranian aggression. But in Riyadh, the president will find frustrated allies
who already have begun to look ahead to the next administration.
Mr. Obama plans to spend about 28 hours in the Saudi capital, holding talks with King
Salman followed by a summit with leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.
His arrival in Riyadh was relatively low-key, lacking much of the pomp and circumstance
that often greets Mr. Obama as he travels abroad. A red carpet was rolled out on the
tarmac for Air Force One, and a handful of Saudi officials welcomed Mr. Obama as he
emerged from the plane.
Meanwhile, King Salman was greeting Gulf leaders at another air base downtown. The
Saudi monarch often personally welcomes visiting Arab leaders, but not always others.
The king didn’t see Mr. Obama until the president arrived at Erga Palace.
There, the two publicly exchanged greetings, with the king saying that he and the Saudi
people “are very pleased that you, Mr. President, are visiting us.” Mr. Obama thanked the
monarch for his hospitality.
Also in Riyadh on Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter reiterated America’s commitment to the security of Saudi Arabia and its other Gulf allies, despite the historic
nuclear deal reached between Iran and the U.S. and five other world powers last July. Mr.
Carter said the U.S. has agreed to more than $33 billion in arms sales to Gulf states since
May.
“The United States shares with our GCC partners the view that even as the nuclear accord verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there are many more
issues to be concerned with regarding Iran’s behavior in the region,” he said after meeting
defense ministers of the GCC, which also includes Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and the
United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Obama’s trip, perhaps the last of his presidency to the region, serves as a bookend for
an administration that once sought a “new beginning” for the U.S. and the Islamic world,
but now is confronting the prospect of a tense conclusion to this chapter.
During his first year in office, Mr. Obama traveled to Cairo to deliver what was intended
as a hopeful message and bold appeal for an end to a cycle of suspicion and discord,
urging a relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world based on mutual interest and
respect.
Now, with the end of his second term approaching, Mr. Obama is returning to the region
with relations strained and expectations lowered.
A stew of issues, including tensions surrounding the Iran nuclear deal and conflicts in
Syria and Yemen, have contributed to the friction. So, too, has Mr. Obama himself.
In a recent interview in the Atlantic magazine, the president complained about Persian
Gulf allies, castigating nations that urge the U.S. to act but are unwilling “to put any skin
in the game” and calling them “free riders.”
The article also recounts a conversation between Mr. Obama and Australian Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
“Aren’t the Saudis your friends?” Mr. Turnbull asked the U.S. president. “It’s complicated,” Mr. Obama told him.
Those comments added pressure to an already stressed relationship.
“This is kind of an awkward visit for Obama,” said David Ottaway, a senior scholar in the
Middle East Program at the Wilson Center in Washington. “I’m sure they’re going to ask
him what he means by these comments.”
Administration officials say that the U.S. remains committed to supporting the security and the sovereignty of its allies in the region. But they acknowledge that the relationship is
complex.
“Given how different our two countries are, there are inevitably going to be differences
that emerge,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama.
Administration officials expressed confidence that this trip would yield progress for U.S.
regional partnerships, but observers questioned what Mr. Obama could accomplish during
his day-and-a-half in Riyadh.
“I suspect the outcome of this meeting is going to be...some kind of reassuring broad
statement about how everything is all right,” said Anthony Cordesman, who holds the
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “But in practice, you have really serious questions on the Saudi part as to
what it is the U.S. is seeking to do.”
With the U.S. campaign season in high gear, U.S. allies in the region are beginning to turn attention away from the Obama administration and starting to contemplate the next one.
“We also have to face the fact this is a lame-duck president,” Mr. Cordesman said. “You
have an American president going out to these countries, and everyone looking at the
political debate going on in the U.S. has to realize this is not the voice of the future.”
—Ahmed Al Omran contributed to this article.
3a)
Obama’s Mideast Mission: Get Saudis, Iran to Make Nice
President to encourage Mideast stability through better relations
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but America is seen as part of the problem
By Carol E. Lee i Washington and Margherita Stancati in Riyadh Saudi Arabia
policy agenda that has positioned Washington as a broker between Saudi Arabia and Iran,
which are locked in an increasingly dangerous series of standoffs across the Middle East.
But within the region, the U.S. is widely seen as a contributor to the accelerating friction
between Riyadh and Tehran, which is fueling a new period of regional instability.
The completion of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 drastically reduced the
American footprint and its perceived influence in the region. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, pushed by Mr. Obama over Riyadh’s wishes, lifted international sanctions against Iran but hasn’t met hopes of more-responsible behavior by Tehran’s clerical rulers.
Conflicts in Syria and Yemen have raged on with little U.S. involvement, encouraging the
use of proxy forces by Iran and its Gulf rivals. And a sharp reduction in U.S. foreign-oil consumption has added to disarray in energy markets.
The White House is pinning its hopes for a more stable Middle East in years to come on
the uncertain prospect that it can encourage a working relationship—what Mr. Obama has
called a “cold peace”—between Saudi Arabia and Iran. He meets beginning Wednesday
“Ultimately there is this conflict between the GCC and Iran, in particular between Saudi
Arabia and Iran, and it has been a driver of some of the chaos and instability and the
sectarianism that we have seen in the region,” a senior administration official said.
“You need a different kind of relationship between the Gulf countries and Iran—one that’s
less prone to proxy conflicts—and that’s something that would be good for the region as a
whole,” the official said. “Promoting that kind of dialogue is something the president will
want to speak to the leaders about.”
U.S. officials see political talks to resolve the conflicts in Syria and Yemen as possible
vehicles for such a shift, which they said also could help moderate disagreements over
energy policy and other issues.
But the strategy requires at least some buy-in from highly skeptical Saudi leaders and
other Persian Gulf states that will be meeting at a summit in Riyadh, even assuming Iran is
willing to do its part. Thus, a key risk is that matters could get worse on both fronts if Iran
remains intransigent and Saudi Arabia drifts away from the U.S. in disagreement over the approach.
“It’s not that the intent of the president is necessarily an intent that doesn’t have some
logic to it,” said Dennis Ross, a longtime diplomat who’s served in Republican and
Democratic administrations, including Mr. Obama’s. “The problem is at this point it’s
going to be very difficult for [the Saudis] to be responsive because they see the Iranians as a predator and they don’t believe that he sees the threat as he needs to see it.”
Saudi Arabia, suspicious of Iran’s ambitions and burgeoning relations with the U.S., has
already made moves in an attempt to isolate Tehran. The Kingdom severed diplomatic ties
with Iran in January after a mob ransacked its Tehran embassy and its consulate in the
city of Mashhad in protest against Riyadh’s execution of prominent Shiite cleric, Nemer
al-Nemer.
Riyadh also has moved to blunt the economic gains Iran stood to realize from the lifting of international sanctions—required in last year’s nuclear deal in return for dismantling its
program—by ramping up its oil production.
In Iran, distrust of Saudi Arabia extends from the top of the country’s political pyramid
down to average Iranians. The discord was exacerbated last year after a stampede during
the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca killed some 2,000 people, including more than 400
Iranians.
Iran has repeatedly said it wants harmony in the region and blamed Saudi Arabia for
stoking tensions. “We are not a threat against any country,” Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani said earlier this month, according to the official IRNA news agency. “We
consider the security of other neighboring states and the region as our own security.”
An Iranian official at the country’s United Nations mission didn’t immediately return a
request for comment on Mr. Obama’s objectives in Saudi Arabia and the mending of
Saudi-Iranian ties. Saudi officials couldn’t be reached for comment.
A key problem for Mr. Obama as he tries to nudge the two countries toward a dialogue is
the long-standing and deep mistrust between the U.S. and Iran, and growing doubts in
Riyadh that Washington is a reliable ally.
“If the administration hoped that the U.S. stepping back would lead our allies and
adversaries to resolve their problems, that hope has been dashed,” said Michael Singh, a
managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If anything, the
region has only grown more chaotic, and President Obama will leave his successor a
proliferation of Middle East crises and no clear policy for navigating them.”
White House officials have said Mr. Obama’s Mideast policy has been designed to
strengthen security and counterterrorism cooperation with the Gulf states while broadly
advancing American interests, including by negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and avoiding large-scale military invasions.
“The region has seen quite a bit of instability in recent years, so they’ve had to adjust to
account for a lot of turmoil around them and to address what they see as very challenging
regional environment,” the senior Obama administration official said. “I think we’re very
clear-eyed about the state of the relationships across the region, about some of the
concerns that we have with Iran’s behavior. But we’ve also seen what’s possible with
dialogue and some effort to de-escalate, and we’re going to continue to push that forward.”
The crux of the current friction between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is their disagreement
on an approach to Iran, which both see as a destabilizing force. Mr. Obama entered office
in 2009 after campaigning on the idea of U.S. outreach to Iran, a shift from the George W. Bush administration policy and at odds with Riyadh’s push for isolation.
But Saudi Arabia was dismayed by a series of other U.S. moves that followed, including
the White House’s decision to encourage Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak to step down
during 2011 Arab Spring protests, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq,
negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal and Mr. Obama’s 11th-hour reversal on
launching military strikes in Syria after the Assad regime crossed his “red line” by using
chemical weapons.
Saudi Arabia’s anxieties deepened further as the oil glut created by U.S. production grew
and sent prices plummeting in 2014.
The nuclear deal, achieved in July 2015 by the U.S. and other world powers over Saudi
Arabia’s objections, freed Iran to expand oil production, often in direct competition with
Saudi Arabia. Iran now aims to increase production by as much as 1 million barrels a day
by year’s end.
That has made competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia a dominant theme of oil
markets as petroleum states increasingly look for ways to restrain production.
Saudi Arabia has so far refused to go along with any plan by producers to rein in
production without Iran’s agreeing to participate. Iran has flatly ruled that out. Riyadh’s
position prompted the collapse of talks among oil states last weekend.
“Iran has made clear all along that it wasn’t going to restrain production,” said Jim Krane,
a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
Saudi Arabia has used its position as the largest producer in the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries to keep Iran from profiting. Saudi Arabia and its Sunni
Gulf allies have kept the oil taps wide open over the past year and a half, flooding the
global market and keeping prices low.
“Saudi Arabia has supplied so much oil that oil is now cheaper than water,” said Hassan
Fadai, an electrical engineer in Tehran. “It thinks it can harm the Islamic Republic in this
way.”
While officials in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia say the two still cooperate closely on security, particularly on counterterrorism, Riyadh has become more self-reliant.
On one hand that is a success for Mr. Obama, who has sought to create an environment in
which America’s Middle East allies rely less on the U.S. White House officials have
described this week’s summit with Gulf states in Riyadh, which follows one last year in
the U.S., as intended for the U.S. to help them enhance and integrate their military and
security capabilities so they can be more self-reliant.
“Ultimately, it’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in
the Middle East,” Mr. Obama said last year after securing the Iran nuclear deal.
But fostering more independence among allies risks reduced U.S. leverage in the region.
Saudi Arabia has adopted a more aggressive foreign policy and military posture that
increasingly defies Washington. “Although we do not like Obama’s withdrawal policy, he
did us a favor: He made us realize our own strengths,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent
Saudi columnist and political analyst. “Now, Saudi Arabia takes initiative. We take
matters in our own hands.”
Since Saudi Arabia severed ties with Iran, it has pursued a with-us-or-against-us strategy
in efforts to assemble a broad anti-Tehran bloc among its allies. A meeting last week of
the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, for instance, ended with a strongly-
worded statement accusing Iran of supporting terrorism and interfering in Arab affairs.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has blamed Saudi Arabia for the censure. “Conflicts
between countries should be solved via bilateral diplomatic efforts and should not be on
the agenda of a multilateral meeting,” Mr. Zarif said, according to IRNA.
Those who haven’t joined Saudi Arabia in efforts to isolate Iran have found themselves
isolated. Riyadh recently suspended $3 billion in pledged military aid to Lebanon, citing
the rising influence of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed political and militant group.
U.S. officials have warned Saudi Arabia that its hard-line stance risked driving Lebanon
further into the hands of Iran.
The challenges in the U.S.-Iran-Saudi dynamics have played out most prominently in
Syria and Yemen. In Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states wanted the U.S. to
intervene early into the five-year conflict. They saw the conflict as an opportunity to
topple Iran-backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and pushed the U.S. to back
opposition fighters.
Mr. Obama resisted but drew his “red line” on Mr. Assad’s using chemical weapons.
When the Syrian regime did so in 2013, Mr. Obama prepared to take military action, then
pulled back after Russia offered to negotiate a deal to remove chemical weapons from
Syria.
Mr. Obama has since launched a military campaign to fight Islamic State in Syria and Iraq
but has left the future of Mr. Assad up to negotiations over a political transition in Syria. Disappointed, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have questioned whether they can rely
on the U.S. after Mr. Obama softened his position that Mr. Assad must step down as part
of any political agreement. Now the White House says he could stay in power as part of a transition.
In March last year, Saudi Arabia began the military campaign against Yemen’s Houthi
rebels with the aim of restoring Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to the presidency. The
Houthis practice an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and Riyadh and its Arab coalition allies see
the group as a proxy of Iran.
Saudi Arabia sees the fight as part of its broader confrontation with Iran for power and
influence in the Middle East. Iran supports the Houthis politically but has denied
supplying them weapons, despite several seizures of weapons caches by Western navies in
recent months near the Yemeni coast.
While the U.S. isn't part of the Saudi-led coalition, it supported the intervention and over
time stepped-up its logistical and intelligence assistance to campaign.
Saudi Arabia also has become more of a target within the U.S. Last week, two U.S.
senators introduced legislation that would restrict the sales of air-to-ground munitions to
Saudi Arabia until it can demonstrate its commitment to combating terrorism and
preventing civilian casualties.
Riyadh also has come under renewed scrutiny for long-reputed ties between prominent
Saudis and the Sept. 11 attack plotters, and U.S. lawmakers are pushing legislation to
permit lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and other countries. The White House has threatened to veto that bill, if passed.
—Asa Fitch in Dubai and Bill Spindle in New York contributed to this article.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment