Losing credibility is losing the world that listens to you

In international relations the credibility of a state is defined as ‘why the world listens to you’. Loss of credibility results in the loss of any state’s diplomatic ground and also in the loss of influence and control over the given state’s sphere of influence. Ordinary states or low or medium power states may experience periods of low or high credibility but when it comes to powerful states like the United States, China or Russia, loss of credibility means loss of global validity and legitimacy to lead the world.

The nature, shape and character of the bilateral relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is changing, and analysing this relationship clearly demonstrates how loss of American credibility is at the heart of this change. When Saudi Arabia announced in Oct 2022 that OPEC+ will cut down oil production targets by two million barrels per day it was not liked by America. Biden administration had asked Saudi Arabia to delay the cut but Saudi Arabia still went ahead with it resulting in the increase of the oil prices from $76 per barrel to $82 to $91 per barrel in a month’s time. Biden administration viewed Riyadh’s snubbing act as a lifeline given to Russia to increase its oil revenue and blunt the American sanctions against the country; and so in retaliation it announced that it would reevaluate its relationship with Saudi Arabia. The United States could block the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. It could even remove its troops stationed there. In fact many members of the Congress introduced a bill mandating the removal of the troops from the Kingdom but this was never done. What was done instead was that in Nov 2022 the Biden administration granted sovereign immunity to Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in a US civil case on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi brought against him by the fiancée of the murdered journalist.

The United States has been a guarantor of the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf of not only Saudi Arabia but all the GCC countries but this security guarantee took a major dent in Sept 2019 when Saudi Arabia’s oil processing facilities were attacked by Iranian drones flown from Yemen. Despite Riyadh’s demand for a response from Washington, nothing happened. This incident is considered as a major trigger to compel Saudi Arabia to review the security guarantees offered by the United States and so it decided to hedge. Not the United States but China brokered the deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran to restore their relations in March this year. Saudi Arabia did something incredible — it forged ties not only with its arch enemy and rival Iran but had China and not America to act as the guarantor of the deal. Iran also having been bitten by the American walkout from the JCPOA deal was comfortable with Chinese insurance and guarantees. Both countries acknowledged Chinese credibility and demonstrated that they agreed to consider China’s status as that of a rising power that provided a reliable fallback position in case either of them violated the principal decisions or violated the agreed matters of the deal. Why was China and not the United States preferred by both these countries to broker the deal? Part of the reason lies with the American grand strategy — a strategy that both countries don’t seem to be on board.

During the cold war the American grand strategy was the containment of communism. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed and supported the American geopolitical goals of containing and pushing back communism. Although Iran had a troubled relation with the United States after the Iranian revolution, during Shah of Iran’s time there was unlimited support of Iran to American geopolitical goals. In the American unipolar moment, a period from the disintegration of the USSR to 2010, both Saudi Arabia and Iran again supported the US grand strategy of fighting, containing and obliterating terrorism. Despite the fact that 16 out of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom offered all-out support to the United States in its war against terror. Even Iran offered its logistic support to the United States and use of its air space when the United States invaded Afghanistan. Iran, like Saudi Arabia, considered terrorism as a common enemy and common global challenge. The United States kept its credibility as a great power intact and had majority of the world on its side when it executed its two grand strategies to fight the two enemies, communism and terrorism.

But the United States’ unproportioned response in Afghanistan and an unnecessary war in Iraq became two big events that started eating into its credibility. Today, it has declared China and Russia as the greatest geopolitical threats of the 21^st Century and while it found global support in fighting the previous two threats it will be extremely difficult for it to unite the world to stand up against China and Russia and to consider them as global threats. The world at large doesn’t perceive these two great powers as the greatest geopolitical threats and so for the first time after WWII, the United States has an enemy and a grand strategy to fight that enemy that doesn’t have the popular approval of the world. This disconnect is shifting the global balance of power and leading the world towards multilateralism and multipolarity.

What China brokered between Saudi Arabia and Iran by no means lessens the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear and regional policies. In a very recent interview that MBS gave to Fox News, when asked what would be his response if Iran became a nuclear power, he replied they would have no choice but to acquire nuclear capability as well. MBS also spoke about the likely rapprochement with Israel. The Iranian President has already described this likely Saudi move as “the stab in the back to the Palestinians”. This is a conflicting position that two previously declared enemies and now friends are taking on the most important issue in the Middle East — recognition of Israel by the Arab world.

If the Saudi rapprochement with Israel comes at the cost of Palestinians then MBS must remain aware that he may also lose not only his new found friend Iran but his own credibility in the eyes of the Arab/Muslim world. Maybe MBS would like to reflect on Karl Marx statement that “individuals make history but not necessarily the way they chose”.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 24^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.