Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Revisiting Obama's Riyadh meeting

U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are always something of a proverbial black box. And President Barack Obama's meeting with Saudi King Abdullah last month was no exception. A late add-on to Obama's planned June itinerary to Egypt, Germany, and France and conducted at King Abdullah's horse ranch outside of Riyadh, the June 3 meeting was quickly overtaken by coverage of Obama's high-profile June 4 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo.
But two sources, one a former U.S. official who recently traveled there and one a current official speaking anonymously, say the meeting did not go well from Obama's perspective. What's more, the former official says that Dennis Ross has told associates that part of what prompted Obama to bring him on as his special assistant and NSC senior director for the "Central Region" last month was the president's feeling that the preparation for the trip was insufficient. The White House vigorously disputes all of that, some of which was previously reported by the New York Times.
Sources say Obama was hoping to persuade the king to be ready to show reciprocal gestures to Israel, which Washington has been pushing to halt settlements with the goal of advancing regional peace and the creation of a Palestinian state.
"The more time goes by, the more the Saudi meeting was a watershed event," said the former U.S. official who recently traveled to Riyadh. "It was the first time that President Obama as a senator, candidate, or president was not able to get almost anything or any movement using his personal power of persuasion."
"The bottom line is that the Saudis were not prepared," the former official continued, for Obama to ask them to take steps toward Israel. Obama changed his trip to go to Saudi Arabia, he pointed out.
"Senior sources in the Saudi national security team," he said, "think the president's trip was poorly prepared." From their perspective, "he was coming and asking them for big favors with no preparation," but "the Saudis never give big" in that situation.
The former official said that Ross has told associates that Obama was "upset" about the meeting "because he got nothing out of it." Ross didn't respond to a query.
The former official said Ross's move to the NSC was in discussion before the Riyadh summit. "But the meeting may have been 'the final straw,' he said. "People at the NSC will obviously strenuously dispute that, but Dennis Ross is saying it to everybody. That's his narrative about the NSC and I have heard it from a number of people."
Another official, speaking not for attribution, said last month that the 85-year-old Saudi monarch had launched a tirade during Obama's long meeting in Riyadh, and that other Saudi officials had later apologized to the U.S. president for the king's behavior. The official seemed to imply that the tirade was related to Israel, and that the king may be showing his age.
The Obama administration pushed back hard on those allegations about the meeting, and said furthermore that the sources could not know what went on. "It was a very small group of folks who planned that trip," a White House official said, disputing every aspect of the accounts. "The Saudi addition came on late."
The meeting included the two principals -- the king and Obama -- plus two advisors each, the White House official said. So "only four people" beyond the two leaders "know the real story," the White House official continued. "It was deliberately designed to continue building their relationship and not to bring home deliverables," and any source who says differently is "making things up."
Among those involved in the prep work, he said, were three top White House foreign-policy advisors: deputy national security advisor and chief of staff Mark Lippert, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications Denis McDonough, and White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, who previously served as CIA station chief in Riyadh.
"I can't imagine Obama pressing the Israelis on settlements without expecting the Arabs to do something," University of Vermont Saudi and Persian Gulf expert F. Gregory Gause told Foreign Policy, while saying he had no specific knowledge about the meeting. "He is pushing the Israelis, but he wants to show that in pushing them, it's also bringing the Arabs closer" to peace with Israel. "He wants the Saudis to make some gesture to make it easier for the Israelis to stop settlements."
"And my reading of the Saudis," Gause continued, "is they are not interested. We can criticize. But their line on this is, ‘We have done that already and gotten nothing. We did that in 2002 with the Abdullah peace plan and renewed it in 2007, and got the entire Arab league to sign on. Now why do more? We did that and got nothing.'"
Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman said he is not surprised there may have been different expectations for the meeting. "I spoke to the king's advisors on the topic not long after the meeting, and they thought it went extremely well," Freeman told Foreign Policy. However, Freeman continued, "From the American side, Washington has repeatedly misunderstood or been deluded about the Saudis on issues connected with Iran and Israel. The notion that somehow or other the Saudis will turn a blind eye to an Israeli strike on Iran -- it does not compute."
Freeman also said Riyadh would reject the idea that an Israeli halt in settlement building "would bring forward some gesture from the Arabs."
"They have been around this road again and again with Madrid and Oslo," Freeman said. The Saudi-led Arab peace initiative of 2002 is very carefully framed, he explained. "If the Israelis and Palestinians work out something mutually acceptable whatever it was ... then this would be rewarded by wholesale normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel." But in Riyadh it's seen as a "bonus," Freeman continued, or an all-or-nothing proposition. "Not something to dicker over."
A Washington Middle East hand said on condition of anonymity that that may very well be the position of the Saudis, but it was not one that Washington had to accept as immutable and that Obama was perfectly wise to try to cultivate a relationship with the leadership and discuss these issues over time.
Obama's experience in Riyadh may be one factor prompting what some analysts see as recent adjustments and tonal shifts in the Obama administration's articulation of its Middle East policy.
"We don't know if sending more junior people before [Obama's] trip would have meant that the path would have been paved and everything would have been teed up for the presidential visit," said David Makovsky, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and coauthor with Ross of a new book on U.S. policy toward the Middle East, Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East. It's perhaps possible that better prep work, he said, might have made Riyadh more amenable to a presidential request for tangible, confidence-building measures, or alternatively, that it would have tipped the White House off that the Saudis were prepared to offer nothing but "the back of their hand."
"If he'd known that in advance, the president would probably not have visited," Makovsky said.
He described Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech this week as demonstrating "a kind of recalibration of the Obama administration's approach," making clear that "the president has expectations on both sides," as opposed to chiefly on the Israelis to halt settlements.
"Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States -- or Israel -- alone," Clinton said Wednesday. "Ending the conflict requires action on all sides.... Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than 20 nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now."
"When the secretary of state says she needs [Arab states'] help in word and deed and that the Arab peace initiative is just a beginning and there is much more to do," Makovsky said, "this administration is trying to resist easy characterizations that they are only leaning on one side."
Photo: AFP/Getty Images






Not a surprise
You can't always have your way with evrything
Very Interesting Report...
....that may indicate nervousness within the administration about where President Obama's pressure on Israel over the settlement issue may lead. If it leads to a protracted stalemate, Israel's longtime supporters within the Democratic Party could start bringing pressure on him to ease up on Netanyahu's government. The call for reciprocal steps from Arab governments would represent an attempt to preempt such pressure.
It may not have gotten enough attention in this country that, in laying down his marker with Israel on settlements a couple of months ago, Obama was engaging in something of a bluff. Yes, no Israeli government likes the prospect of a rupture with Washington -- but to make that prospect real would require Obama to be willing to back up his words with actions, for example imposing conditions on military aid to Israel, bound to provoke protests from Israel's friends among Obama's own supporters. Is Obama willing to do this, when push comes to shove?
I don't know the answer to that, but he'd clearly rather not have to. Obama has too much on his plate to have much time or political capital to spare battling over what most Americans are bound to regard as a detail of his Mideast policy. Netanyahu, aware of the intransigence of pro-settlement factions within Israel and of their importance to his coalition, may decide that Obama's is a bluff worth calling. If he does, what then?
The State Department is now
The State Department is now complaining about Israeli building in Jerusalem just over the Green Line. The vast majority of the Israeli public does NOT consider Jerusalem a settlement, so Obama has just given Bibi an issue where he can gather solid public support by standing up to Obama if he needs to. Plus Obama can lose Jewish American support for having lied in the campaign about not wanting to divide Jerusalem. Plus Obama won't gain a thing from the Saudis, who just gave him "the back of their hand". So it's a trifecta: Lose-lose-lose for Obama.
Did Obama really believe that the Saudis want a peace deal that leaves Israel standing as a Jewish state? That they would actually help him and risk the wrath of Al Qaeda? For nothing in return? When the conflict as it stands costs them little and is a helpful distraction for their masses and a shield against reformers? Was Obama really foolish enough to think the Saudis would help him just because they keep saying that the conflict must be ended? They mean ended by other people's efforts, not theirs.
Sounds like Obama was that foolish. One can only hope that he has learned not to be that foolish again.
I would appreciate if authors
I would appreciate if authors tried to discern what are claims, and what are probable truths. From the above article, little makes sense. Who was with Obama when he met the king? Was Denis Ross there or not. And even if there were but four participants, any number of persons who would have met Obama after the talks, could gauge his reaction.
As for the Saudi reaction. The Saudi's should not be central to any process. The wolf may wear sheep's clothing, but he is still a wolf. Saud should be penalized for any and all interference and support they provide to Hamas and Hezbollah. Why do we even have to deal with these desert demons?
The Saudi's should not be
The Saudi's should not be central to any process. The wolf may wear sheep's clothing, but he is still a wolf. Saud should be penalized for any and all interference and support they provide to Hamas and Hezbollah. Why do we even have to deal with these desert demons?
The saudis are in at least as good a position to penalise us as we are to penalise them. So we have to deal with them.
And while they aren't particularly friendly to us, still they are our only friends in the middle east except for jordan, which is small and weak.
The Saudis
Saudis were behind 9/11.
Bin Laden is a Saudi.
The Saudi government wants plausible deniability.
When the FBI went to Saudi Arabia to investigate 9/11 they were stonewalled by the Saudi government.
The US had repeated opportunities to get Bin Laden, and "muffed" each one.
The Saudis massively fund American academic and political opinion leaders.
The Saudis fund anti-Israel terrorist organizations.
The Saudis fund Mosques which serve as terrorist bases.
The Saudi lobby in the US includes the massively influential, secretive, and very well funded American Petroleum Institute.
It ain't quantum physics, boys and girls. Follow the money.
settlements
The Israelis continue to build settlements in the West Bank and Obama can't stop them. Why does the King waste his time meeting him?
Clearly Obama doesn't understand.
To get things done in this part of the world, you have to build relationships before getting down to business. That's the way the culture works. The "getting to know you" processs is essential.
No matter how charming you are, or how reasonable your proposal, if you haven't established trust with the folks acrosss the the negotiating table you won't get anywhere, and that can take some time. That's how things have always worked in the Middle East, in commerce, diplomacy or anything else.