Saudi Arabia takes tentative steps to ease tensions with the US

America and Saudi Arabia have been allies since the kingdom was formed in 1932. The relationship is mutually beneficial, giving Riyadh the protection of a powerful western military, and ensuring secure oil supplies for Washington. Despite periods of increased tension over the years, this alliance has remained more or less unbroken.

In recent months, the Saudi-US relationship has been under scrutiny. The key issue here is Syria. Saudi Arabia has been backing the Sunni rebels, and feels that the US has not done enough to tip the balance of the civil war, which has killed well over 100,000 people. In particular, it disapproved of the American decision not to carry out airstrikes on Syria. The US, meanwhile, is concerned that the Saudi government is not doing enough to counter extremism in the ranks of the Syrian rebels. Add to this tension over the US diplomatic softening towards Iran – Saudi’s archrival in the region – and it is easy to see why the relationship is under strain.

Late last year, the US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Riyadh in an attempt to shore up relations, after some figures in the Saudi administration had openly spoken out against US policy on Iran and Syria and threatened a rift. Next month, Barack Obama is to visit the country for a summit with King Abdullah. According to unnamed diplomatic sources, the meeting will address deteriorating relations and declining trust between the two allies.

In the meantime, other changes are in process. It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has relieved its veteran intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, from his duties on Syria. Bandar has led the kingdom’s programme of arming and funding the Syrian rebels for two years – during which time he clashed with the US over his approach. In summer 2013, Bandar acknowledged to European diplomats that the Saudi campaign against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was failing, blaming the US and its prohibition of more decisive military intervention. In the face of US resistance to arming the rebels further, he said he would step up support. According to the Wall Street Journal, senior US officials have described Bandar as “erratic” and “hot-headed”. The newspaper reports that Kerry has privately singled Bandar out as “the problem” and complained about his conduct with regard to Syria.

It seems, therefore, that handing the Syria portfolio instead to the interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, might pave the way for smoother relations between the US and Saudi Arabia. Mohammed has previously won praise in Washington for his counterterror work against Al-Qaeda in Yemen and other places. Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, son of the Saudi King and head of the National Guard, will also assume a bigger share of responsibility for Syria policy.

The Wall Street Journal‘s support suggests that this “may augur a stronger Saudi effort against militants aligned with Al-Qaeda who have flocked to opposition-held Syrian territory during that country’s three year war”. Some analysts have suggested that the move could mean a shift towards diplomatic means – including negotiations with Assad’s main backers, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Certainly, the move puts control of Syria policy into the hands of the princes who have been most consistently cautious about arming the rebels.

But this should not be seen simply as Saudi Arabia stepping into line with US goals. The kingdom still wants to provide heavy weapons to rebels, such as shoulder-fired missiles that can bring down jets. For three years, the US has refused to approve the transfer, fearing that the weapons could get into the hands of extremists. Some have suggested that Mohammed, a leading counter-terrorism figure credited with providing intelligence that stopped Al-Qaeda attacks on two western targets, could be the person to persuade the America that this transfer should go ahead.

While the change in personnel dealing with Syria may signal that US-Saudi relations are about to improve, there is clearly remains much to be discussed when Obama meets King Abdullah next month. A fundamental disagreement still remains on the best way of dealing with Syria. Some analysts have suggested that this may be the beginning of the end for this vital partnership; that in future the US may choose to place more emphasis on its strategic relationship with the Asia-Pacific region. Yet this seems premature. “What happened was a serious blow that requires a realistic diagnosis, and a willingness to adjust to new realities,” writes Raghida Dergham in the Huffington Post, referring to disagreements over Syria. But it seems that there is willingness on both sides to address these differences and continue to work together – for the time being at least.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.