The U.S. needs to rethink its Saudi strategy

In the run-up to Christmas last year, I covered an annual event at Dees’ Nursery in Oceanside. Trees for Troops, it was called, and for the past 14 years, the family-owned business has collaborated with a shipping service to send Christmas trees to American troops serving in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

It was a gaudy press event, replete with bagpipes, Santa Claus and USO dancing girls, all meant to draw news media cameras like bees to honey. But what really struck me was that number: 14 years.

It had been 14 years since the nursery’s owners initially decided to support American soldiers newly deployed in Afghanistan, and by that time Iraq as well, and for 14 years they have remained there, fighting and dying. And now, with the news that the Pentagon is sending an additional 4,000 troops to shore up the flagging American-backed government in Afghanistan, the question I raise is: When does it end?

When asked why, for more than 15 years, American troops have been fighting in faraway lands such as Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq, most people would point to Sept. 11, 2001. In his State of the Union address weeks after the attacks, President George W. Bush said he would starve terrorists of resources, turn them against one another and, crucially, crack down on countries that provided support to them.

At the outset, Bush appeared to give the war a mission statement, but more than 6,000 dead American soldiers later, how have we done? At best, the results have been mixed, and reveal fundamental flaws in our strategy in the Middle East.

Since 1979, the United States has singled out Iran as the chief villain and, later, the chief sponsor of terrorism in the region. But by most accounts, Iran is a relatively small player on the international terrorism scene. That is not to excuse its government of the atrocities it has visited on the people of Syria while backing the vicious regime of President Bashar al-Assad, or the political disruptions in Lebanon partially caused by Iran’s support for Hezbollah, that country’s Shia Muslim wing of government, or the conservative social doctrine it has forced on its own population.

But these crimes pale in comparison with those of Iran’s chief regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies. And while nobody wins when the two spheres collide, the U.S. has consistently backed the ultra-conservative theocratic Saudi kingdom, exacerbating tensions while simultaneously undercutting moderate political elements in Iran that could turn the country into a force for good.

There are two main arenas in which powerful states spread influence beyond their borders: cultural and economic. In both, Saudi Arabia’s sway dwarfs that of Iran. On the cultural side, Shiite Muslims, which are in the majority in Iran, account for only 10 to 20 percent of Muslims worldwide, meaning that, compared with Saudi Arabia, Iran is vastly limited in the maximum number of people to whom it can make cultural overtures.

And while both countries have large oil reserves, sanctions and a larger population mean that revenue from fossil fuel sales is stretched thin in Iran. In contrast, Saudi Arabia has vast oil-generated wealth, which it can and does use to spread its state-sponsored brand of Islam, which preaches violence and intolerance. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

Saudi-funded religious schools as far afield as France and Indonesia have succeeded in radicalizing local Muslims and creating political tensions that, in many places, had never existed before. Additionally, Persian Gulf money funds many of the militant Islamist groups the U.S. is purported to be fighting.

There would have been no Sept. 11, and no Al Qaeda or Islamic State, without Saudi Arabia, yet the U.S. continues to turn a blind eye to its bad practices, and has even supported it with a $110 billion arms deal partially meant to bolster the kingdom’s senseless war in Yemen. The deal was orchestrated by the Obama administration and finalized under President Trump.

Ultimately, American troops are fighting an uphill battle that we cannot win with military might alone. While there are many things the U.S. could do to alleviate the numerous political crises in the Middle East — a complete withdrawal of American support and presence in the region would help — addressing the elephant in the room that is Saudi Arabia would be the most direct, if not the easiest, way to meet the goals originally set out by Bush.

Until then, our soldiers will continue to face well-funded and well-motivated opponents. While the prospect of isolating Saudi Arabia continues to dim under the current administration, at least the soldiers forced to spend Christmas away from their families can look forward to a tree from Dees’ as a small comfort.

Peter Belfiore is the editor of the Oceanside/Island Park Herald. Comments about this column? Pbelfiore@liherald.com.