More stories

  • in

    Democrats suggest shifting weapons from Saudi Arabia to Ukraine

    Democrats suggest shifting weapons from Saudi Arabia to UkraineDemocrats call for suspension of transfer of Patriot missiles in wake of ‘turning point’ in relationship with Saudis Democrats on Capitol Hill have suggested transferring US weapons systems in Saudi Arabia to Ukraine and suspending a planned transfer of Patriot missiles to Riyadh in the wake of what they call a “turning point” in Washington’s relationship with the kingdom.Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California who is a leading supporter of a weapons freeze, said he believed that “at the very least” Congress would move to halt the transfer of Patriot missiles to the kingdom, and probably pause other defense initiatives.US-Saudi rift grows over decision to cut oil productionRead moreKhanna is a longtime critic of Saudi Arabia and was one of the original sponsors of a 2019 measure that received bipartisan support and would have forced the US to end military involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. That resolution was vetoed by then-president Donald Trump.In an interview with the Guardian, Khanna said tensions had reached a boiling point that was comparable to US sentiment following the murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.The break in the relationship followed an announcement last week that Opec+, the oil cartel, had agreed to cut oil production by 2m barrels a day over the strong objections of, and lobbying by, the administration of Joe Biden. The move was seen as both a boost to Vladimir Putin and his war effort in Ukraine, and a stunning betrayal of Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the US, just weeks after the president had visited Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah.“I think President Biden is judicious and pragmatic by temperament but this was a real slap in his face,” Khanna said. While lawmakers like him have long advocated for a tougher response to Saudi on human rights grounds, Khanna said the Opec+ move had galvanized members across Congress.“This is a second moment like Khashoggi’s murder. I believe it is a total miscalculation by the Saudis,” he said, adding that there was still time for the kingdom to change course.Pressed on whether Democrats were likely to move beyond rhetoric, Khanna pointed to recent comments by his colleague Robert Menendez, a Democratic senator who as chairman of the foreign relations committee said he was prepared to halt Saudi weapons sales.“At the very least, the Patriot missiles will be suspended,” he said. “The fact that Menendez has spoken out means that at a minimum it is going to happen.”Meanwhile, Chris Murphy, an influential Democratic senator from Connecticut, said he believed the US ought to suspend the sale of advanced air-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia and repurpose these missiles to Ukraine.“For several years, the US military had deployed Patriot missile defense batteries to Saudi Arabia to help defend oil infrastructure against missile and drone attacks. These advanced air and missile defense systems should be redeployed to bolster the defenses of eastern flank Nato allies like Poland and Romania – or transferred to our Ukrainian partners,” Murphy said in a statement.While physically transferring existing weapons systems in Saudi Arabia to Ukraine would not be particularly complicated logistically, experts said it could risk accusations that the Biden administration was escalating its support for Ukraine beyond levels that it considered appropriate, because the systems might require on-the-ground US personnel for support.William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, said at a minimum, any such move to shift weapons would be met by serious debates within the White House and Congress. At the same time, he said, Russia’s continuing assault on Ukraine meant that “political considerations are shifting”.Changes to planned deliveries of Patriot missiles would probably cause “consternation” in Saudi Arabia, but changes to delivery of spare parts and maintenance could ground large parts of the Saudi air force, he said.Hartung said he believed the Saudis might be underestimating the impact of the sudden break in relations with Washington, given the relationship appeared to survive the Khashoggi murder. In that case, however, Trump was in the White House and steadfastly loyal to the Saudis. Hartung said he believed it was unlikely that Biden would veto a congressional resolution aimed at the kingdom, as Trump did in 2019.“It’s not a done deal, but the political tides are stronger against the Saudis than they have been – possibly ever,” he said.The Saudi foreign ministry this week rejected the criticism of its Opec+ decision and insisted the cartel had acted with unanimity and in its own economic interest. It also rejected any assumption that it could be forced into a policy U-turn.“The kingdom stresses that while it strives to preserve the strength of its relations with all friendly countries, it affirms its rejection of any dictates, actions, or efforts to distort its noble objectives to protect the global economy from oil market volatility,” it said.Khanna hit back at that claim.“The reality is that there is no economic case for what they are doing. This was punitive for Americans and it is aiding Putin,” he said.A spokesperson for the national security council said Opec’s decision last week to “align its energy policy with Russia’s war and against Americans” underscored Biden’s earlier call to set a “different sort of relationship” with Saudi Arabia.“We are reviewing where we are, we’ll be watching closely over the coming weeks and months, consulting with allies, with Congress – and decisions will be made in a deliberate way,” the spokesperson said.TopicsUS foreign policySaudi ArabiaUkraineDemocratsUS CongressUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Saudi Arabia has screwed over the US – and the world – yet again. Enough is enough | Mohamad Bazzi

    Saudi Arabia has screwed over the US – and the world – yet again. Enough is enoughMohamad BazziBy gouging global oil prices, Saudi Arabia has humiliated Biden and boosted Putin. The US must end this unofficial alliance In July, Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia and shared a fist bump with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. As a presidential candidate, Biden had promised to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for its human rights abuses and its seven-year war against Yemen. But a devastating global pandemic and Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine forced him to set these concerns aside in favor of realpolitik. Biden needed the Saudis to increase oil production in order to lower gasoline prices for American consumers, so he swallowed his pride and treated the crown prince as the world leader he aspires to be.Unfortunately for Biden, that cringe-inducing fist bump photo op has backfired in spectacular fashion.Earlier this month, the Saudi-led Opec+ energy cartel agreed to cut oil production by 2m barrels a day, which will mean higher fuel prices this fall and winter. In the days leading up to the vote, the Biden administration invested significant political capital in its efforts to dissuade Saudi Arabia and its allies from cutting production. In the end, Biden’s wooing of Prince Mohammed yielded nothing but a 2% reduction of the world’s oil supply.In fact, the prince has inflicted political damage on the Biden administration a month before the US midterm elections. After soaring to $5 a gallon in June, US gasoline prices fell for more than three months. Now they are rising once again, increasing by an average of 12 cents a gallon over the past week, to $3.92.Rising prices threaten the Democrats’ hopes of maintaining control over both houses of Congress after the November elections. The prince and his Gulf allies clearly preferred dealing with Donald Trump, whose freewheeling Republican administration gave Prince Mohammed a blank check in exchange for stable oil prices and multibillion-dollar arms sales.The Saudis also sided with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who needs higher oil prices to help fund his war against Ukraine. As part of their economic sanctions against Moscow, the US and EU are trying to impose a cap on the price paid to Russia for its oil exports. But that effort could now collapse as global oil prices rise and Europe heads into a winter season when heating costs are expected to soar thanks to the Ukraine war.While Prince Mohammed may believe he outmaneuvered Biden and demonstrated his influence over the global oil market, his power play has upset the foreign policy establishment in Washington. Even so-called foreign policy “realists”, who for years ignored progressive criticisms of the US-Saudi partnership, must confront an uncomfortable question: if Washington can’t count on a steady supply of oil, what does it get in return for its decades of unwavering support for the House of Saud?Technically, the US and Saudi Arabia are not allies – they’ve never signed a mutual defense agreement or a formal treaty. For decades, the US-Saudi relationship has been largely transactional: the kingdom used its leverage within Opec (and later the larger Opec+ cartel) to keep oil production and prices at levels that satisfy Washington. The US used to import significant amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia, but now that Washington is the world’s largest oil producer, it no longer relies as heavily on Saudi imports. In return for guaranteeing a steady global supply of oil, successive US administrations supported the House of Saud politically, sold it billions of dollars in advanced US weapons, and provided military assistance whenever aggressive neighbors threatened the kingdom.In 1990, after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, Washington sent half a million troops to Saudi Arabia, which feared it would be Hussein’s next target. The US still deploys hundreds of troops and advisers to train the Saudi military and help it operate American weapons, including advanced warplanes, helicopters, and Patriot antimissile systems, which the kingdom has used to intercept drone and missile attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.This oil-for-security arrangement has lasted through Democratic and Republican administrations, including multiple crises like the Arab-led oil embargo and Opec price increases in the 1970s and the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals recruited by Al-Qaida.Yet Prince Mohammed has now upended the decades-old understanding. Worse, he’s timed that decision so as to maximize Biden’s humiliation: a month before pivotal congressional elections, and as Washington and its allies are trying to maintain a united front against Russian aggression.If Biden doesn’t respond forcefully, he may embolden the crown prince to take more risks. So far, Biden has promised unspecified “consequences” in response to the Saudi maneuvering. But a growing number of Democrats in Congress, including centrists who hesitated to abandon the partnership despite the kingdom’s atrocious human rights record, are now demanding action.On 10 October, Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who chairs the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, called for an immediate freeze on “all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia”, and promised to block future US weapons sales. Senator Dick Durbin, another centrist and the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, was even harsher, writing on Twitter that the House of Saud “has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation. It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without their alliance”.Even before the ill-fated fist bump, Biden signaled to Prince Mohammed that he would carry out a business-as-usual relationship with the kingdom. In February 2021, weeks after taking office, Biden did follow through on a campaign promise to release a summary report of the US intelligence community’s findings on the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The report concluded that Prince Mohammed had approved the assassination at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. But Biden, worried about harming the US-Saudi partnership, decided not to impose sanctions on the crown prince.By abandoning his promise to hold Khashoggi’s killers accountable, Biden convinced Prince Mohammed that he was too powerful to punish. At the time, Biden aides argued that banning the prince from visiting the US or targeting his personal wealth would accomplish little. But the lack of even symbolic US sanctions or response likely emboldened the prince to overturn the basic premise of the US-Saudi relationship.Since Prince Mohammed rose to power with his father’s ascension to the Saudi throne in 2015, he has presided over a series of destructive policies, including the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen and the kingdom’s campaign to blockade its smaller neighbor, Qatar. But the crown prince keeps failing upward, consolidating more control over Saudi Arabia. And he continues to be wooed by foreign leaders and business titans, thanks to the world’s sustained dependence on oil and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.Prince Mohammed had clearly concluded that he can get away with keeping oil prices high and undermining the US and EU campaign to isolate Russia – and still secure US protection and military assistance because Biden can’t get past the decades-old policy of American support for the House of Saud.This is no longer a case of Biden choosing realpolitik over the stated, but rarely enforced, US ideals of supporting human rights and democracy over autocracy. It’s time for Biden to acknowledge that his supposed realist approach toward Saudi Arabia has failed – and tear up the oil-for-security deal.
    Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies and a journalism professor at New York University. He is also a non-resident fellow at Democracy for the Arab World Now
    TopicsForeign policyOpinionSaudi ArabiaMohammed bin SalmanMiddle East and north AfricaJoe BidenBiden administrationUS politicscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Democrat senators call for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia amid oil production cuts – video

    Two Democrat senators have called for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless it reverses a Riyadh-led Opec+ decision to cut oil production. They said the decision to reduce production would help Russia’s war in Ukraine. 
    ‘The only apparent purpose of this cut in oil supplies is to help the Russians and harm Americans. It was unprovoked and unforced, as an error,’ the Connecticut senator, Richard Blumenthal, said. His statement was echoed by his Democrat colleague from California, Ro Khanna, who said: ‘When Americans are facing a crisis because of Putin, when we’re paying more at the pump, our ally, someone who we have helped for decades, should be trying to help the American people.’
    The Biden administration said it was reviewing its ties with the Gulf kingdom. 
    Speaking to CNN, however, a Saudi minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said: ‘Saudi Arabia does not politicise oil. We don’t see oil as a weapon. We see oil as our commodity. Our objective is to bring stability to the oil market.’ Riyadh is not partnering with Russia, he added

    Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil production More

  • in

    Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil production

    Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil productionMembers of Congress raise prospect of one-year sales ban unless kingdom reverses Opec+ decision to cut output Democrats in the US Congress have issued a fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, giving the kingdom weeks to reverse an Opec+ decision to roll back oil production or face a potential one-year freeze on all arms sales.The threat came as Joe Biden reiterated his pledge to take action over Riyadh’s decision last week to cut oil output by 2m barrels a day, which Democrats have said would help “fuel Vladimir Putin’s war machine” and hurt American consumers at the petrol pump.The White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters the US president was also looking at a possible halt in arms sales as part of a broader re-evaluation of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, but that no move was imminent.On Capitol Hill, anger with the Saudi move was far more palpable, as was the desire for swift and specific retribution for what has been seen as a stunning blunder by a key ally in the Middle East.The tensions with Washington and vow to “rebalance” relations between the two countries could have ripple effects far beyond petrol prices, from determining the future of an apparent emerging alliance between Russia and the Saudi heir, negotiations over Iran, and Moscow’s financial strength in its continuing assault on Ukraine.Some analysts have pointed out that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman might have been seeking to tip the scales of next month’s critical midterm elections in Republicans’ favour, but Democrats downplayed the allegation that Riyadh was seeking to interfere in the polls.Instead, Democratic lawmakers emphasised that Prince Mohammed’s move bolstered Russia and would ultimately harm all US consumers in what they said was a brash betrayal after decades of support from Washington.“We provide so much not just in weapons, but in defence, cooperation and joint defence initiatives to the Saudis. They get almost 73% of their arms from the United States,” said Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California and longtime critic of the kingdom.“If it weren’t for our technicians, their airplanes literally wouldn’t fly … we literally are responsible for their entire air force.“What galls so many of us in Congress in the ingratitude.”Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic senator from Connecticut who is working with Khanna on the proposed legislation to cut sales, also pointed to broader security concerns.“We are selling highly sensitive technology, advanced technology, to a country that has aligned itself with an adversary – Russia – that is committing terrorist war crimes in Ukraine,” he said. “So there’s a moral imperative, but also a national security imperative.”He pointed specifically to sales of Patriot and anti-missile systems, air-to-air missiles, advanced helicopters, jet fighters, radar and air defences.“These continued sales pose a national security threat, and I am hopeful that the president will act immediately … and exercise his power on those sales,” he said.Blumenthal also suggested his proposed legislation was serving as a stick to prod Riyadh into action.“We hope that this legislation will provide an impetus for the Saudis to reconsider this and reverse,” he said. “There’s still time. The oil supply cuts don’t take effect until November.”If the Saudis did not reverse course, Blumenthal suggested the impact of defence cuts on US jobs and companies would be negligible.Any decision would likely have a ripple effect among other allies, including the UK and France, who are significant defence suppliers to Saudi Arabia.“There are issues of interoperability, of different weapon systems,” Blumenthal said. A freeze in US sales “will have an effect that could be supplemented by decisions by other countries. Certainly. They’re impacted by the economic effects of … oil supply cuts. They will make their own decisions … our allies like the UK and France may wish to join.”There was little evidence that tensions with Washington were having an effect on Prince Mohammed. A Saudi decree on Wednesday appointed an official alleged to have been involved in the cover-up of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist who was murdered by Saudi agents, as the president of the country’s counter-terrorism court.Dawn, a human rights group founded by Khashoggi, said the kingdom had also appointed other detectives and prosecutors who are loyal to the crown prince to serve as judges in the court.The appointments followed the arrest and removal of at least nine prominent judges by the State Security Agency in April, the group said..It is not clear whether the Democrats would be able to garner enough Republican support to pass legislation once Congress is back in session next month, but Blumenthal said he had reached out to Republican colleagues who were “receptive” and “favourable in remarks that there need to be consequences” for Saudi actions.The comments underscore that, while the his administration will ultimately determine the US stance on Saudi Arabia, Biden is facing considerable pressure from allies in Congress to move beyond rhetoric and take a tougher stance against the kingdom.Robert Menendez, the Democratic chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, suggested in an interview on MSNBC on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia had little choice but to re-evaluate its Opec+ decision if it wanted to maintain its security against regional foes.“Who are they going to rely upon to have greater security from Iran, which is an existential threat, than the United States? Russia? Russia’s in bed with Iran,” he said.“The bottom line is, Russia is not the bulwark against Iran … they have to understand that their actions have consequences.”TopicsUS foreign policyUS CongressOpecSaudi ArabiaMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden to ‘Re-Evaluate’ Relationship With Saudi Arabia After Oil Production Cut

    Angered by the kingdom’s decision to team up with Russia to slash petroleum output, the president signaled openness to retaliatory measures proposed in Congress, including a halt to arms sales and a new antitrust measure.President Biden is re-evaluating the relationship with Saudi Arabia after it teamed up with Russia to cut oil production in a move that bolstered President Vladimir V. Putin’s government and could raise American gasoline prices just before midterm elections, a White House official said on Tuesday.“I think the president’s been very clear that this is a relationship that we need to continue to re-evaluate, that we need to be willing to revisit,” the official, John F. Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council at the White House, said on CNN. “And certainly in light of the OPEC decision, I think that’s where he is.”Mr. Kirby signaled openness to retaliatory measures proposed by Democratic congressional leaders outraged by the oil production cut announced last week by the international cartel known as OPEC Plus. Among other things, leading Democrats have proposed curbing American security cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including arms sales, and stripping OPEC members of their legal immunity so they can be sued for violations of American antitrust laws.“The president’s obviously disappointed by the OPEC decision and is going to be willing to work with Congress as we think about what the right relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to be going forward,” Mr. Kirby said. He sounded a note of urgency. “The timeline’s now and I think he’s going to be willing to start to have those conversations right away,” he said. “I don’t think this is anything that’s going to have to wait or should wait quite frankly for much longer.”The comments came just a day after Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, assailed Saudi Arabia for effectively backing Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine and called for an immediate freeze on “all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia,” vowing to use his power to block any future arms sales.The Biden PresidencyWith midterm elections approaching, here’s where President Biden stands.Diplomatic Limits: OPEC’s decision to curb oil production has exposed the failure of President Biden’s fist-bump diplomacy with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.Defending Democracy: Mr. Biden’s drive to buttress democracy at home and abroad has taken on more urgency by the persistent power of China, Russia and former President Donald J. Trump.A Tricky Message: Even as he condemns Trumpism, Mr. Biden has taken pains to show that he understands that not all Republicans are what he calls extremist “MAGA Republicans.”Questions About 2024: Mr. Biden has said he plans to run for a second term, but at 79, his age has become an uncomfortable issue.“There simply is no room to play both sides of this conflict — either you support the rest of the free world in trying to stop a war criminal from violently wiping off an entire country off of the map, or you support him,” Mr. Menendez said. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia chose the latter in a terrible decision driven by economic self-interest.”Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said on Tuesday morning that Saudi Arabia clearly wanted Russia to win the war in Ukraine. “Let’s be very candid about this,” he said on CNN. “It’s Putin and Saudi Arabia against the United States.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Mr. Biden’s willingness to consider retaliatory measures represents a marked shift for a president who had sought to improve relations with Saudi Arabia in recent months and reflected deep anger in the White House about the decision last week by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus group to cut oil production by up to two million barrels a day.The president absorbed withering criticism for visiting Saudi Arabia in July and giving a fist bump to its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, despite a campaign promise to make the kingdom an international “pariah” for the killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post and a resident of the United States. The C.I.A. has determined that Prince Mohammed ordered the operation that led to the murder and dismemberment of Mr. Khashoggi in 2018.Overcoming his own reservations, Mr. Biden went along with advisers who argued that it was worth the political hit to restore ties with Saudi Arabia for a variety of reasons, including the need to bolster energy markets given the effort to isolate Russia, one of the biggest oil producers in the world. While no specific announcements were made during his visit to Jeddah in July, American officials said at the time that they had an understanding with Saudi Arabia that it would increase oil production in the fall and thus lower gasoline prices heading into the crucial congressional elections.The Saudi decision to do the opposite last week in defiance of American entreaties was a blow to Mr. Biden and opened him up to further criticism even from fellow Democrats who argued that Saudi Arabia should be punished. Three House Democrats announced legislation requiring the removal of American troops and defensive systems from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.After falling for more than three months, gas prices are rising again, increasing by 12 cents a gallon on average over the last week to $3.92, according to AAA, although they remain far below the June peak of just over $5. The White House was counting on dropping gas prices to buttress Democratic efforts to keep control of both houses of Congress in the Nov. 8 election.The anger at Saudi Arabia in Washington was exacerbated in the last couple of days by Russia’s latest airstrikes against civilian targets across Ukraine. Democrats increasingly framed the dispute with Saudi Arabia less in terms of concern over domestic gas prices in a campaign season and more about the kingdom’s willingness to aid Mr. Putin’s aggression. More

  • in

    Biden’s Choice After OPEC Cuts: Woo Saudi Arabia, or Retaliate?

    The announcement by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus energy cartel that it would slash oil production was widely seen in Washington as a stab in the back of President Biden.WASHINGTON — President Biden faces a dicey choice following the decision by the world’s oil giants to slash production just weeks before critical midterm elections that could turn on the price of gasoline: Should he stick with his policy of wooing Saudi Arabia or take measures to retaliate?The announcement by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus energy cartel that it would pump two million fewer barrels a day was widely seen in Washington as a stab in the back of Mr. Biden, who just three months ago jettisoned his vow to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” and traveled there to court the kingdom’s autocratic crown prince.The question now confronting Mr. Biden is what to do about this seeming betrayal. In intentionally bland comments, he told reporters on Thursday only that he was “disappointed” and considering unspecified “alternatives.” But fellow Democrats, frustrated by what they see as the president’s excessive deference to the Saudis and eager to demonstrate toughness before their constituents head to the polls, increased pressure on Mr. Biden to punish Riyadh.“He should just start withdrawing stuff,” Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, said in an interview, referring to the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. “That would get their attention. Action for action. Call their bluff. Do they really think they can trade their American security partner for a Russian security partner or a Chinese security partner? They know they can’t do that.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said Saudi Arabia’s decision to ally with President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia to shore up oil prices was a grave mistake.“What Saudi Arabia did to help Putin continue to wage his despicable, vicious war against Ukraine will long be remembered by Americans,” he said. “We are looking at all the legislative tools to best deal with this appalling and deeply cynical action.”Mr. Biden gave little indication of how far he would go.Asked about the production cut on Thursday, Mr. Biden said that “we are looking at alternatives” to oil from OPEC Plus countries. “We haven’t made up our minds yet,” he said.His administration counseled caution, holding out hope that at the end of the day, the cut in daily production would in reality amount to maybe half of the two million barrel goal because some oil producers were already not meeting their targets. Rather than penalizing Saudi Arabia, Biden aides appeared focused more on countering its move by releasing more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and possibly seeking rapprochement with oil-pumping Venezuela.“We are looking at alternatives” to oil from OPEC Plus countries, President Biden said on Thursday, adding, “We haven’t made up our minds yet.”Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe administration also appeared to be considering moves to pressure domestic energy companies to reduce retail prices, possibly including limits on the export of petroleum products. “We’re not announcing any steps on that front, but there are measures that we will continue to assess,” Brian Deese, the president’s national economic adviser, told reporters.The OPEC Plus decision could hardly have come at a worse time politically for Mr. Biden, who had staked his argument for the midterm campaign in part on falling gas prices. Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, has methodically tracked the price at the pump for months as it has declined, and Democrats felt renewed momentum as a result.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Standing by Herschel Walker: After a report that the G.O.P. Senate candidate in Georgia paid for a girlfriend’s abortion in 2009, Republicans rallied behind him, fearing that a break with the former football star could hurt the party’s chances to take the Senate.Democrats’ Closing Argument: Buoyed by polls that show the end of Roe v. Wade has moved independent voters their way, vulnerable House Democrats have reoriented their campaigns around abortion rights in the final weeks before the election.G.O.P. Senate Gains: After signs emerged that Republicans were making gains in the race for the Senate, the polling shift is now clear, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.Trouble for Nevada Democrats: The state has long been vital to the party’s hold on the West. Now, Democrats are facing potential losses up and down the ballot.But gas prices had already begun inching back up even before the Saudi-led move, in part because of refinery issues on the West Coast and in the Midwest. The national average rose by seven cents to $3.86 since Monday as demand increased and stocks fell, although it remained far below the peak topping $5 a gallon in June.The Saudis maintain that the production cut was not meant as a shot at Mr. Biden and have sent papers and charts to administration officials justifying it. With the price of oil falling just below $80 a barrel in recent days, the Saudis told American officials that they worried it would slide further into the $70s and possibly the $60s, making their own energy-dependent budget unsustainable..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Biden administration officials fear the real crisis might come in December when a price cap organized by the United States to restrict Russian oil profits goes into effect and a European Union ban on the purchase of Russian crude is set to begin.Mr. Biden’s options to counter the production cut are limited and carry trade-offs. He has already ordered more oil to be released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but since the reserve is now at its lowest level in four decades, that risks shortages in case of war or a natural disaster like another hurricane.He could push to limit exports of processed fuels like gasoline and diesel, which would expand supplies and lower prices domestically. But that would harm trading partners, particularly the European allies attempting to wean themselves off Russian energy and amplify global inflationary pressures.The administration could open more federal lands and waters to drilling and soften regulations on drilling, exploration and pipeline laying to increase domestic production, although that could incite a backlash among environmentalists.“They need to loosen regulations, they need to release all those permits sitting on someone’s desk for drilling on federal lands, and they need to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to come down to deliver the Canadian oil sands to American consumers,” said Darlene Wallace, a board member of the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance. “And the president needs to encourage investors to invest in the oil business.”Easing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela could free up more than a million barrels of oil a day, which would help lower prices and potentially replace some of the Russian barrels now sold to Chinese and Indian refineries. But nuclear talks with Iran have stalled with scant hope of a breakthrough, and the prospects of a deal with Venezuela are murky.Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the Saudi energy minister, at the OPEC Plus meeting on Wednesday. The Saudis have said they are worried about further drops in oil prices making their energy-dependent budget unsustainable.Christian Bruna/EPA, via ShutterstockThe Wall Street Journal has reported that the Biden administration was preparing to scale down sanctions to allow Chevron to resume pumping in exchange for a move toward elections in 2024. But in a statement, the White House emphasized that “there are no plans to change our sanctions policy without constructive steps from the Maduro regime.”In brief comments with reporters on Thursday, Mr. Biden did not deny a possible change toward Venezuela. “There’s a lot of alternatives,” he said. “We haven’t made up our mind yet.” Asked what Venezuela would have to do to persuade the United States to ease sanctions, Mr. Biden said, “A lot.”The president defended his decision to travel in July to Saudi Arabia, where he exchanged a fist bump with its de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, despite a campaign pledge to isolate the kingdom for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and United States resident killed on what the C.I.A. said were Prince Mohammed’s orders.While not formally announced, American officials said privately at the time that they had an understanding that Saudi Arabia and other energy powers would ramp up production by fall.But Mr. Biden insisted again on Thursday that he had other goals in going to Saudi Arabia, such as encouraging diplomatic relations with Israel.“The trip was not essentially for oil,” the president said. “The trip was about the Middle East and about Israel and rationalization of positions.”“But it is a disappointment,” he added about the production cut, “and it says that there are problems.”Mr. Malinowski and other Democrats said the president should go further than just expressing disappointment. He introduced a bill with Representatives Sean Casten and Susan Wild, Democrats from Illinois and Pennsylvania, requiring the removal of American troops and defensive systems from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.The bill was more a statement than anything else since Congress is out of session until the election, but Mr. Malinowski said he patterned it after a similar measure introduced by Republicans in 2020 and used by President Donald J. Trump to pressure Saudi Arabia to decrease production at a time when low oil prices were a concern.Mr. Malinowski said Mr. Biden should similarly use the legislation to push the Saudis. “The point of our bill is to give him the ammunition he needs. I hope he uses it,” Mr. Malinowski said. “He took a risk. He put himself out there for this relationship, and this is not how a friend should respond. So maybe they should find some new friends.”Clifford Krauss More

  • in

    US congressman accuses LIV CEO Greg Norman of pushing Saudi ‘propaganda’

    US congressman accuses LIV CEO Greg Norman of pushing Saudi ‘propaganda’ Australian visits Capitol Hill in attempt to promote rebel tourLIV’s role questioned by Democrats and Republicans Greg Norman faced accusations of promoting Saudi “propaganda” following meetings with Washington lawmakers, in which the Australian golfer sought to garner support for the Saudi-backed LIV Series in its bitter dispute with the PGA Tour.Norman, who serves as LIV’s CEO and has been the public face of the breakaway tour, ostensibly came to the US capital this week to criticise what he has called the PGA’s “anti-competitive efforts” to stifle LIV.But – apart from some lawmakers who allegedly sought to take their picture with Norman – the Saudi tour has instead faced a considerable backlash from both Democrats and Republicans, who have defended the PGA and accused LIV of being little more than a sportswashing vehicle for the kingdom.Tim Burchett, a Republican congressman from Tennessee, left a meeting of the Republican Study Committee on Wednesday at which dozens of his party colleagues had met with Norman, expressing dismay that members of Congress were discussing a golf league backed by Saudi funds. He also called Norman’s LIV pitch “propaganda”.‘I hate it. I really do’: McIlroy opens up on golf’s civil war after FedEx Cup winRead more“We need to get out of bed with these people. They are bad actors. We need to keep them at arm’s length,” Burchett told the Guardian. He cited the September 11 attacks on the US, the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the kingdom’s treatment of gay people and women, which he called “just unacceptable”.While Burchett is a conservative Republican, LIV has also come under fire from the left. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said earlier this month on Twitter that the LIV tour was using a “golf glove [to] try and cover a blood-stained hand” of the Saudi government. He added that the series was part of a “continued, desperate attempt to clean up [Saudi Arabia’s] image”.Durbin added in a second tweet: “Money shouldn’t be allowed to cover up the murder and dismemberment of a journalist or the imprisonment and harassment of activists like Raif Badawi, Waleed Abu Ak-Khair, and Salma al-Shehab.”The LIV spokesperson Jonathan Grella said: “Greg Norman had a very productive day on Capitol Hill today in front of some 60 members of Congress. His message about the benefits of competition was very well received, even if a couple members of Congress say otherwise.”Even as LIV and the PGA are engaged in litigation in the US involving allegations that the PGA has engaged in anti-competitive practices, some lawmakers have asked whether proponents of the Saudi-backed tour, which is owned by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, ought to be filing as foreign agents of the kingdom.Department of Justice rules require agents of “foreign principals” who are engaged in “political activities” to disclose their relationship with the foreign principal – in this case, Saudi Arabia – as well as receipts, contracts, and payments in support of those activities. The justice department has notably stepped up its enforcement of such rules – known as the Foreign Agent Registration Act (Fara) – over the last 12 months, and has charged individuals who the department has deemed have acted as foreign agents without disclosing their activities.Chip Roy, a conservative Republican congressman from Texas, in a letter in July called on the DOJ to investigate “potential violations” of the Fara rules.“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is funneling money through its Public Investment Fund (PIF) to stand up LIV Golf as an exercise in public relations. In other words, a foreign government’s dollars are being used to enhance that government’s brand and positioning here in the United States,” Roy wrote.One legal expert interviewed by the Guardian said that business ventures that are owned by foreign governments do sometimes escape scrutiny, but not when they are owned by a nation’s sovereign wealth fund, and not when there are legitimate questions about whether the business also has public relations goals involving the country’s image abroad.“I think there are a lot of signs that LIV is not a typical business interest. I think there are a lot of reasons for the DoJ to potentially kick tires on this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did,” said Matt Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who specialises in Fara cases. Sanderson said it was also unclear whether LIV intended to make a profit in the long run, raising further questions about its intentions.He added that while he did not think the golfers who have signed up with LIV would personally have to file under Fara, he said any individuals who talk to government officials or engage in PR activities would most likely come under scrutiny if they had not disclosed their activity.Asked whether LIV officials would file under Fara, Grella said: “Our lawyers have informed us that it is not applicable.”TopicsLIV Golf SeriesGolfUS politicsUS political lobbyingSaudi ArabiaMiddle East and north AfricaUS sportsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Egypt’s foreign policy under Al-Sisi and its relationship with Saudi Arabia

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More