Democrats’ Bias against Saudi Arabia
In its editorial “Trump’s Middle East Deal Is Good, But Not that Good,” the New York Times argued that Israel’s threat to annex the Jordan Valley was not “the only ulterior motive in the peace agreements” between Israel, on one side, and the Emirates and Bahrain, on the other. “ Saudi Arabia and the Emirates — and the Trump administration — are united in their hostility to Iran,” according to the newspaper.
Saudi Arabia has yet to sign on normalization with Israel. Riyadh was not even represented at the White House peace ceremony. Still, the American daily included Saudi Arabia in its editorial, and went as far as saying that the kingdom is hostile toward Iran. For The New York Times, it does not seem to matter that the Iranian regime burnt down the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the consulate in Meshhad, an attack that violated international regulations on the protection of diplomatic missions. Iran regime also hit Saudi oil facilities, while Tehran supplies Yemen’s Houthis with missiles with which the militia hits Saudi territory. For The New York Times, Saudi Arabia is the aggressor and Iran as the victim.
The New York Times was not alone in its bias against Saudi Arabia. During live TV coverage of the peace ceremony, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchel brought up the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. How is that murder connected to the UAE and Bahrain signing peace with Israel?
Bias against Saudi Arabia among some Americans — especially in the Democratic Party whose foreign policy team seems to be dominated by “friends of Iran” — is not secret anymore. Contradiction in the party’s positions on Iran and Saudi Arabia is also flagrant, and is best articulated by former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who has repeatedly called for the removal of US sanctions on Iran. Sanders argues that he wants America to leave the world alone and focus on its domestic affairs. Great. But Sanders also wrote legislation in Congress against Saudi Arabia, and spares no opportunity to voice sharp criticism against the kingdom. The question thus becomes: Why does Sander seek a deal with Iran but show hostility toward Saudi Arabia?
Whoever knows Washington might remember that, over the past two decades, US officials and experts criticized Saudi Arabia on three counts: First, that the kingdom sponsored the global spread of political Islam, second, that Saudi Arabia suffered an aging leadership, which obstructed its ability to reform the bloated and inefficient state and raised questions about succession, and third, that Saudi Arabia was too dependent on the US for selfdefense.
In 2015, Salman bin Abdul-Aziz became king, and with him came his son Muhammad, also known as MBS, who became crown prince. MBS has been adamant on remaking the country in the image of the UAE, which means focusing on good governance that makes the state efficient, stimulates the economy, and weans it off its reliance on oil revenue. At the same time, the king and crown prince cracked on political Islam, so much so that the two poles of Islamism — Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran — both tried to tarnish Riyadh’s Islamic credentials by accusing its leadership of going against Islam. Finally, the Saudi war in Yemen minimized the Houthi threat and showed that the kingdom can defend itself without US troops.
Still, many Americans — such as former President Barack Obama — argue that while Iran is a reasonable and promising state with a liberal regime and freedom, Saudi Arabia is backward and Medieval.
Any comparison between Saudi Arabia and Iran shows that both states — like Turkey, Russia, China and all other countries that are not in the West, Japan or South Korea — are not liberal democracies. But if we put the nature of government aside, and compare good governance and quality of life, Saudi Arabia beats Iran by a mile. Saudi Arabia is where people go to find jobs, make a living and raise families, while Iran is the country from where families migrate because of corruption, poverty and the spread of the culture of martyrdom and death, with or without war.
Just ask any Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, Egyptian or Tunisian about the country where they go to seek better lives for themselves and their families? Do they seek Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, or do they move to Iran? The answer will certainly be Saudi and the Gulf, even though Iran enjoys oil and gas reserves as humongous as those of its Gulf counterparts.
Arabs who stay back in their countries can be asked: Which government has helped their countries most: Riyadh and Gulf capitals or Tehran? Over the past decade, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates and Qatar have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Lebanon, for example, where they parked foreign currency in Beirut’s Central Bank to stabilize the local currency and funded the construction of infrastructure and scholarships. What did Iran do? Funded the statelet and militia of Hezbollah that pledges allegiance to the supreme leader of Iran, instead of the state of Lebanon. Iran arms Hezbollah and funds its wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and against Israel.
That Obama considers Iran to be a country with a long history of civilization, and a country that calculates cost and benefit, and that he considers the Gulf to be a source of backwardness and radicalism, is a false statement that reflects a biased political agenda, one that the Middle East is reeling from. Such comparison is false. Good life is in Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, while poverty and misery are in Iran and its satellite countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza.
