“We’ve had out ups and downs over the years,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan.
Forty years ago, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries responded to the U.S.’s involvement in the Yom Kippur War with an oil embargo that left wide-reaching economic effects.
More recently, the two countries suffered fallout when scrutiny first mounted about Saudi involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and in the years since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.
Speculation about Saudi Arabia’s support for al Qaeda terrorists has risen again in recent days, circling around legislation that would allow victims of the terror attacks to sue the kingdom and 28 secret pages from a 2002 congressional investigation.
The Obama administration is opposed to the legislation, and has aligned itself with Riyadh on the issue.
But on many other issues, Obama has turned away from the Saudis and the more friendly diplomacy of past U.S. administrations.
In an interview with the Atlantic published last month, Obama referred to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries as “free riders” unwilling to secure chaotic zones like Libya, angering many in the kingdom.
No single act was more significant than the signing of the Iran deal, which lifted international sanctions in exchange for limits on Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.
At its heart, the stress comes down to two different interpretations of which presents the greater threat: Iran or extremist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia has made clear that its priority is on countering Iran, leaving the U.S. out to dry in some of the terrorist fights.
Saudi Arabia sees the Iran nuclear deal as something that will only embolden Tehran and, perhaps more importantly, interpreted its signing as proof that Washington was looking beyond Riyadh to position itself in the Middle East.
