TRUMP’S SAUDI ARMS DEAL

THINKING THEORETICALLY with MACHARRY CONFIDENCE


TRUMP’S SAUDI ARMS DEAL: EXIGENCIESOF GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY AND HYPOCRITICAL IMPERATIVES


On May 20th, US President Donald Trump signed what is widely regarded as the biggest arms deal in the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is reported that this deal (as brokered by Trump’s son in-law, Jared Kushner) is worth $109.7 billion—approximately 110 billion dollars with a keen expectation that the deal is to grow to about 380 billion dollars in Saudi investment within ten years.

 The news, which was published by press secretary Sean Spicer suddenly topped the bulletins of a many a news outlet because of its attendant controversies. It is a bit controversial of his decision to visit Saudi Arabia on his first foreign visit—a departure from the norm in which new presidents either visit Europe or Asia on their first official foreign trips.

The relationship between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States is just as geo-strategic as it is economical. Saudi Arabia played a huge role in the establishment of American hegemony in the internal and external geopolitical realpolitik of the Middle East. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 in which radical Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the monarch, Shah Palavi, America has increasingly relied on Saudi Arabia as a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the region.

For independent observers, the strain in relations between the US and Saudi Arabia considerably deteriorated during the closing phases of the Obama Administration most tellingly as a result of the Congressional report that indicted the government of Saudi Arabia as one of the sponsors of 9/11. The report may not have been assented to by President Obama (who did his best to stifle it), but the mere public knowledge of it had strains in the two countries’ relations as it would have subjected the Saudis to lawsuits filed by families of the victims of the terror attack. Obama—with all his denials—agreed that such a report would make the US government liable to lawsuits from all over the world. That, in itself is a face saving narrative, because in the face of mounting pressures and threats from Riyadh that American assets worth over 500 billion in Saudi Arabia could be frozen.

It is not out of place for American presidents to make outrageous arms deal with countries of interests. It is not novel either. During the latter years of the Obama administration, the US and the state of Israel signed an arms deal worth over ten billion dollars. This came against the backdrop of the strain in mutual friendship between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Barrack Obama due to the lacklustre attitude the administration showed in backing the alleged crimes against humanity Israel carried out against Palestinian civilians. Obama’s instruction to erstwhile UN representative, Ambassador Samantha Power to abstain from a vital UN vote to put the bulk of the responsibility of these crimes on Israel (rather than veto it) earned Obama the title of The most anti Jewish American president ever.

What makes this US-Saudi arms deal so special?

First, Trump took the pivot to the Saudis because of the strategic position of Saudi Arabia in the defeat of the Islamic State (Daesh or ISIL or ISIS). It is no secret that the Islamic state has financial links with the Saudi Arabia (no less more linked with Qatar and Turkey). The unity in religious ideology (Sunni Islam) and accusations of moral and financial support have stuck over the years. America may want the world to think it is fighting ISIS—through non effective airstrikes, however—but it is world knowledge that the number of airstrikes that hit the terrorists amount to nothing without the support of regional allies, of which Saudi Arabia is key. The same strategy Trump developed with China to deal with the North Korean problem could be at play here.

In some quarters and in some special way too, this arms deal could serve as a countermeasure to Iran’s growing strategic influence in the region. From a relatively isolated angle at the turn of the century to a very important and indispensable power, Iran has risen to be the balancer of power in the Middle East—a move which has seen the formidable challenge to Saudi hegemony. While not a direct alliance itself, the relationship between Iraq, Iran and Syria has seriously decimated whatever gains the Saudis have made these years. Trump came into office verbally tearing down Obama’s landmark historical Iranian Nuclear Deal (July 2015) or the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (P5+1). The current president launched series of media attacks claiming the deal was a bad one as it is inimical to US interests because “it emboldens Iran to develop nukes rather than prevent them…an also detrimental to the security of Israel”. Upon assuming office, Trump’s rhetorics have favoured a possible war with Iran (with a possible planned invasion). Due to Russian interests in the region and cordial relationship with Iran, this is highly improbable.
In the consideration of these factors, shelving an idea of a war with Iran when encouraging Saudi Arabia to do so may just save America some war expenses. The arms deal doesn’t just bolster Saudi Arabia’s defense, it is also more like an open cheque to open belligerency between the regional superpowers.

Furthermore, a deal like this could be seen to bring about favours such as additional investments (as opined by Phillip Gordon, former assistant secretary of state and was White House coordinator for the Middle East) in the United States and an expansion of preferential treatment of US airlines, Arab steps to normalize relations with Israel, public defenses of Trump’s immigration policies and also deals beneficial to Trump’s businesses. According to Gordon, the price of US support could rise over time, while a failure to pay up could cause resentment and vindictiveness.

Trump’s barefaced hypocrisy

Since the 9/11 terror attacks, Donald Trump has been very vocal in his accusation of Saudi Arabia being a prime financier of the attacks led by Osama bin Laden. His stubborn maintenance that in lieu of this, the US hold the Saudis responsible has also led a lot of his followers and possibly a large swathe of American public opinion into believing this. Based on this, one would have thought that when he became president, he would take a hard line against the Saudis and perhaps force them to pay compensation to families of the victims.
Also, after the election, he said Saudi Arabia should be banned from exporting oil to the US, while also accusing the kingdom of killing homosexuals and women enslavement.

During the run up to the election, Trump launched a fierce campaign of calumny against the Clinton Foundation on grounds that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton received millions of dollars in donation from the government of Saudi Arabia to the Clinton Foundation. Accusing Clinton of being a puppet to Saudi interests, he made it a public knowledge that the Foundation operated on a no donation, no meeting policy. This is five months into his administration and the moral high ground he so much stood upon has lost its bearing in so little time.

The influx of arms in the 21st century—as it were—is not a catalyst for a direct confrontation between states of equal capabilities. The already nascent Cold War strategy of proxy wars is not so nascent in its usage and application. There is no gainsaying the fact that as much as Trump would like Saudi Arabia to deal with the rise and influence of Iran, these arms would not necessarily go into a war with the latter, but would be used to prosecute the Yemen civil war which has claimed lives of thousands of civilians. Almost daily, Saudi Arabia carries out atrocities and war crimes, but for a morsel of a juicy arms deal, the United States, Britain and with all their media establishments have turned  blind eyes to it and all the more emboldening the Saudis through such a deal. If Trump cared so much about human rights like his national ideologies portend, dealing with Saudi Arabia—as he would have learnt—requires something more than a ten foot pole.

But hey, this is Trump. One could barely expect him to keep up with his moral suasions seeing that almost all his campaign promises have been rescinded. Therefore, hoping to deal with the murderous regime in Riyadh on a different and perhaps much less hypocritical platter (which doesn’t include preaching Islam to the Meccans with the hope of grandiose reception to feed over bloated egos) is even a crime—maybe not against humanity, but the Orwellian enigma of Crimethink.

If this deal  shows us anything, it shows that for a fact, Trump doesn't care about the Middle East. We are at a critical point in history where conflicts break out each passing minute and disarmament or arms reduction has been pinned as a veritable prophylaxis, and although not for the short term, but a strategic plan to control crises. In the Trump doctrine, however, his idea of making America great again is to fuel the arms race, exacerbate conflicts through rhetorics and deliver arms to belligerents while Washington sits and enjoy the view.

I would like to conclude by saying that to give the devil his due, Trump may not be the one with this idea of this outrageous arms deal. I indicated earlier that this deal was brokered by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Since assuming office on January 20th 2017, the Trump administration has been filled with establishment policy makers such as neoconservatives and neoliberals. For a neocon like Kushner, writing this script and engineering Trump would not have been a difficult job because the president himself lacks self honesty and in the face of scandals engineered by the same political and foreign policy establishment which he (Trump) promised to expunge in his famous drain the swamp mantra during campaign, it is only natural to say that they (the neocons) have enamored Trump and has influenced him. It’s all influence, and the results have been relative. Mind you, like Oscar Wilde said, there is no such thing as a good influence, because to influence a person is to give him one’s own soul.
He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins—if there are such things as sins—are borrowed. He becomes an echo of someone else’s music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him.

The picture of Trump’s acts so far are summed above and could be a perfect interpretation of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Trump era!

By the way, who has heard from Steve Bannon lately?



--MacHarry “Cowans” Confidence, an international affairs analyst and a socio-political issues commentator, is a student of International Studies and Diplomacy, in the department of History and International Studies, University of Benin, Benin City Nigeria.
Follow him on Twitter: @Raw_Diplomat.