I see that the editors of the Washington Post are coming around on Saudi Arabia:
Start with the oil. Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, supplied 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports in 2017, or about 960,000 barrels a day. But thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is essentially energy independent: It, not Saudi Arabia, is now the world’s largest crude-oil producer. Last year, U.S. daily oil exports averaged 6.38 million barrels, or nearly seven times the Saudi imports. If the Saudis cut back production or boycotted the United States, they could temporarily drive up prices, but the beneficiaries would be U.S. shale companies, which over time would fill the gap — and deal a devastating blow to the Saudi oil industry.
As for arms sales, someone needs to brief Mr. Trump on the actual results of the promises made to him when he visited Riyadh last year. As Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution sums it up, “The Saudis have not concluded a single major arms deal with Washington on Trump’s watch.†Moreover, an end to supplies of U.S. spare parts and technical support, something Russia cannot provide, would quickly ground the Saudi air force. That would have the welcome effect of ending a bloody bombing campaign in Yemen that a U.N. investigation concluded was probably responsible for war crimes.
and all it took was the murder of one of their own. That they perceive Jamal Khashoggi as one of their own is itself a sad commentary. He was a journalist but not a good guy.
Whatever measures they would take in the “fundamental reshaping of the relationship” would be pale by comparison with what I would do which would include ejecting the members of the Saudi royal family presently in the United States, preventing them from re-entering, and canceling the visas of Saudi clerics receiving stipends from the Saudi government.
I think the first point is somewhat silly. Oil is a global commodity and restrictions could precipitate a global financial unrest and political turmoil quickly, shale be damned. Longer term, (9 months to a year) adjustments would be made but the damage would have been done.
The spare parts arguments, I have no idea. It sounds plausible but maybe you or Andy have better perspective.
Your described action does seem like just a biff on the nose. Is it really commensurate with the offense?
It’s more than a “biff on the nose”. It interrupts their grand strategy. The hyper-conservative clerics they send here are almost all paid stipends and they’re radical Islamists. And disrespect is major harm when you’re a royal.
I take your point, not being in tune with Saudi culture. There are three former big time oil co execs I play golf with. All lived in SA for a significant period. I’ll be interested to get their take when I see them next.