clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

At Camp David US shored up GCC support, for now

May 15, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Over the years, the Camp David retreat near Washington has been the site of many talks about peace in the Middle East. It was the venue for the 1978 talks that secured peace between Egypt and Israel, and for negotiations between Israel and Palestine in 2000 which ultimately failed to produce a peace deal. This week, a meeting of representatives of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and US leaders aimed at shoring up relations between these allies seems to have ended positively.

According to White House officials, Gulf leaders were much warmer than expected about Barack Obama’s attempts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. Leaders of the GCC nations, in particular Iran’s arch-rival Saudi Arabia, have been concerned about aspects of the deal, which is aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme. They have expressed anxiety that the lifting of sanctions against Iran could lead to more funds being channelled into supporting Shia militias across the region. There is also an unspoken worry that a sanctions-free Iran could undermine the economy of the Sunni power Saudi Arabia by competing with it in terms of oil and other goods.

The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, said: “The president spoke about the agreement with Iran and I am here to say that the GCC welcomes this agreement and we hope at the same time that this will be a key factor for stability in the region.” These were remarkably favourable words for a Gulf leader speaking about Iran. Officials from the Saudi delegation were less enthusiastic. “We welcome any deal that stops Iran from having a nuclear capability and this is what we have always been assured by the US and by the other P5+1 countries [those negotiating with Iran on its nuclear programme] – that all pathways to a bomb will be closed to Iran,” said the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel Al-Jubeir, reserving final judgement.

This appeared to be a split in opinion, but the sentiment in both statements was reflective of increasing acceptance of the deal in the Gulf. Obama played down the idea of a rift amongst Gulf countries, pointing out that the final deal hadn’t been agreed yet – it is expected to be finalised in Switzerland next month – and so it was to be expected that some would reserve final judgement. Overall, this was an unexpectedly positive response from GCC leaders, given profound concern in the region about their long-time ally America seeking rapprochement with long-time rival Iran.

One reason the Gulf states might be feeling reassured was renewed US guarantees that defence of these countries was a “fundamental tenet of American policy” and an “iron-clad commitment”. This has been tacitly understood for decades, but in a period of ramped up tension in the region – with a Saudi-led campaign of airstrikes ongoing in Yemen – there have been concerns. Some Arab leaders had hoped that the Camp David summit would result in a formal defence agreement. This didn’t materialise, but the US did seek to calm concerns by ending the summit with a package of new measures aimed at bolstering the missile and maritime defence capabilities of GCC member states. This should go some way to calming anxiety in the region about Iran’s conventional forces (not just their nuclear capabilities). Obama explicitly said that the US would support the Gulf in tackling Iran’s “destabilising activities in the region”. Al-Jubeir was more effusive on this topic than on Iran, saying that the summit had brought US-Gulf ties to an “entirely different level over next decades.”

This is a time of rapid change in the Middle East that has thrown up multiple areas of tension between GCC states and their old allies in the US. As well as the question of Iran and Yemen, there is the conflict in Syria, where some Gulf leaders would like to see America playing a greater role, and the stalled peace process in Israel-Palestine. Obama held steady on his refusal to embroil US troops further in Syria. The presence of these concerns on the agenda are a reminder of just how complicated US relations with the Middle East continue to be, six years after Obama called for a new beginning.

These talks were clearly aimed more at comforting officials than challenging them. Human rights advocates berated the US for failing to raise concerns about abuses in these countries, many of which are highly repressive. But this failure to raise rights issues should hardly be surprising given past example. Overall, this was a summit aimed at shoring up relations, and it appears that goal has been achieved, for now. Whether the relationships continue to show signs of strain as tumultuous circumstances in the Middle East continue and the Iran deal approaches finalisation remains to be seen.

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