Beyond The Lines | Why meddle in the muddle: Middle Kingdom in the Middle East?

In September 1943, two of Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud’s sons — Princes Faisal and Khalid — travelled to the United States to explore a potential relationship with the country. When they returned, they let their father know that American president Frank D Roosevelt was a philatelist. A gift box of Saudi stamps was sent to Roosevelt, which set the stage for a meeting between the King and the president. As the Second World War promised to reach its climax with the impending defeat of the Germans, an intriguing affair began on Valentine’s Day, 1945. Aboard the cruiser, USS Quincy on the Suez Canal were the two leaders. Their needs were mutual: The Saudis had oil and wanted technology to extract oil. Besides, the King’s sons had returned with the feedback that the Americans were now going to be the foremost power in the world. The Saudis also wanted a security guarantee, given the volatility in the region. By October 1945, the Americans emerged as a dominant global power. As the world grappled with spoils over Germany, a deal was quietly struck on the Suez, ushering in a relationship that would last eight decades. Bruce Riedel, the American analyst, writes that Ibn Saud had never been to sea before, or outside the Arabian Peninsula except for a brief trip to Basra, Iraq. He was a warrior who had created the modern Saudi kingdom through endless battles and had little experience in international diplomacy. America’s security guarantees and its role in opening up the Saudi oil supplies to the market ensured the Saudis became wealthier and felt safer. The Americans, astute and clever, decided to up the ante. In 1974, the oil prices had quadrupled following an oil embargo by OPEC’s Arab states. William Simon, an American treasury secretary, flew to the Middle East on a special mission. The aim was to persuade Saudi Arabia to use petrodollar to finance America’s deficit by stashing billions of oil money in US treasuries. The US dollar became the currency of oil trading. With the security guarantees, the Americans ensured the presence of their own troops that kept at bay Soviet influence in the region during the Cold War End of an affair and a new suitor? After the Soviet Union collapsed, the Americans developed a unilateral hold over the affairs in the Middle East, monopolising the politics, accords, and relations. America had an unchallenged run in the region for three decades. Recently, China stepped in to broker a peace accord between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The timing was significant. In an astute move, the Asian power pivoted to address a traditional enmity in the region, while the United States and Europe were entangled in the Russia-Ukraine war. In the Middle East, China stayed away from taking sides because it believes that as business with Europe dries up, its trade relationship with the Middle East will become vital. China has been exporting surveillance devices to the UAE and depends on Israel for technology benefits from a peaceful Middle East. In 2020, during President Trump’s tenure, Israel, the UAE and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accord which brought together the three nations under a peace umbrella. This accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran is, unsurprisingly, the next progressive step in the Abraham Accord in the region — but one that is marshalled by China, instead of the US. Saudi Arabia, America, China: Why make friends with no benefits The United States, which has enjoyed the role of a power broker in the region for most of the century, doesn’t quite agree that China has stepped into the gap left by a disinterested America. “I would stridently push back on the idea that we are stepping back in the Middle East — far from it,” said John Kirby, the spokesman of the National Security Council. The fact of the matter is that the Americans have already deprioritised the region over the last three years. The US has re-focused now towards eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific, in the long run. The United States, under President Joe Biden, has witnessed a lack of essential diplomatic presence in various countries. There are two dozen countries waiting for a US ambassador after he has taken over. Until Michael Ratney was confirmed recently, Saudi Arabia did not have an American ambassador since John Abizaid left in early 2021. It is evident in the military numbers too. In 2020, there were close to 100,000 troops stationed in the Middle East, which is now down to a little more than half. The US still has a sizable presence in the Persian Gulf and in the air base in Qatar. However, its ability to influence countries in the Middle East has waned. Additionally, its relations with Saudi Arabia has nosedived under President Biden. In 2019, when Saudi air bases were attacked by Houthi rebels backed by Iran, the American response was tepid and slow. Recently, MBS decided to cut oil production before the US midterm elections which fuelled a wave of anger amongst American politicians. In the last two years, the American absence in the Middle East has served the cause of peace well. Neighbours who have been previously hostile to each other, have begun to take the first steps towards mending fences. In the past two years, Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett and UAE’s Sheikh Zayed met to discuss thorny legacy issues. Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud met up with the Emir of Qatar to open a direct line of discussion that had been stonewalled, owing to American interference earlier. Under MBS, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to be tied down to American pressures such as his predecessors and instead, wants to open up options available to the country – on oil pricing, developing trading partners, business diversification. He leads a generation of people, including himself, who don’t carry the baggage of the Cold War. The outcome is that MBS sees a role for himself, instead of America — that of a mediator and leader in the region. Has American hegemony brought peace to the Middle East? Since the 1970s, the US government monopolised the role of brokering peace processes in the Middle East, without ever finding a solution to the raging fires in the region. Francis Fukuyama writes, “The height of American hubris was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it hoped to remake not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but the whole Middle East. America overestimated the effectiveness of military power to bring about deep political change, even as it underestimated the impact of its free-market economic model on global finance. The decade ended with its troops bogged down in two counterinsurgency wars, and a financial crisis that accentuated the inequalities American-led globalisation had brought about.” In the Middle East and surrounding regions, the saga of conflicts ensnaring Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Kuwait, and Sudan have involved America. American oil interests have often been the rationale for its direct involvement in conflicts in the region. However, a key reason has been the burgeoning weapons industry whose advancement has depended on continued conflicts and complex threat perceptions in the region. Between 1981 and 1986, the US secretly sold arms to Iran, then under an arms embargo. The US allegedly were using the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras, a right-wing rebel group, in Nicaragua. In recent years, more sophisticated weapons have meant big ticket sales to wealthy, oil exporting countries. Jeffrey Sachs wrote that “the United States is ensnared in a perpetual, indeed expanding, Middle East war, with drones and air strikes increasingly replacing ground troops.” Perpetual conflicts in the region helped find consistent buyers. Saudi Arabia, the signatory to the agreement with Iran, have been regular buyers of American weapons, including recently delivered Patriot missiles against the Houthi rebels, who have been supported by Iran. However, the Saudis find it difficult to continue buy expensive weapons from the US while on the other side, the conflicts in the region seem interminable. This is where China entered the fray. China’s eye on the future? A reconciliation between the Saudis and the Iranians is a good start, but there is a long way to go before conflicts in the region are close to being resolved. The Yemen conflict, for instance, goes beyond sectarian roots and has embedded, overlapping local interests. China is planning to host meetings of Arab and Iranian leaders soon and wants to keep its eye on the ball. Xi is eyeing a potentially influential role in the Middle East for a few reasons. One, it can get closer to the American military bases in the region and advance prospects of espionage and discreet influence. Two, it wishes to influence the political decisions of states that it can lean on, in the case of UN support of their reunification bid on Taiwan in future. In recent times, abstentions by African nations in the UN General Assembly have marred American interests, which points to a powerful, clawing Chinese footprint in the region over the years. Africa, like the Middle East, was also once a weapons market for the US. By building influence in the Middle East, China aims to cultivate global constituencies and garner support in its favour — critical for Xi’s larger projects in due course. The writer is the author of ‘Watershed 1967: India’s Forgotten Victory over China’. His fortnightly column for FirstPost — ‘Beyond The Lines’ — covers military history, strategic issues, international affairs and policy-business challenges. Views expressed are personal. Tweets @iProbal Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.