There's more evidence that the American deep state is reconsidering its long relationship with the (out)house of Saud, this time from the CATO institute, an American policy think tank. And in what is becoming a somewhat familiar pattern, it isn't being reported in the American media, but by Russia's Sputnik, in this article shared by Mr. V.T.:
If Sputnik's reporting of the study is indeed accurate, then there may be a lot lurking in between the lines here, so it is important to look at what the lines are, for such policy studies within the American deep state "think tank apparatus" usually precede major policy changes by only a few years, and in this case, I suspect that this policy change is percolating quietly in the background of the USA's current election theater:
From the geostrategic tack, Bandow recalled that Washington has used Riyadh in recent years "as an integral component of a containment system against Iran. Of course, much of the 'Tehran problem' was made in America: overthrowing Iranian democracy and empowering the Shah, a corrupt, repressive modernizer, led to his ouster and the creation of an Islamist state. Washington's subsequent support for Iraq's Saddam Hussein in his aggressive war against Iran only intensified the Islamist regime's antagonism."
"Fears multiplied as Tehran confronted its Sunni neighbors along with Israel and continued the Shah's nuclear program. Overwrought nightmares of Islamic revolution throughout the region encouraged America’s fulsome embrace of the KSA and allied regimes, such as Bahrain, where a Shia majority is held captive by a Sunni monarch backed by the Saudi military."
Held captive by such strategic considerations, "in Riyadh, Secretary Kerry [thus] declared America's undiminished support for the world's leading feudal kleptocracy."...The reality, Bandow argues, is that the real threats to the monarchy, domestic in nature and "beyond Washington's reach," include "the kingdom's general repression and particular mistreatment of its Shia minority." This was demonstrated, the analyst recalls, by "the recent execution of cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who urged nonviolent opposition to the monarchy."As for the government in Tehran, whatever hesitation Washington might have about the Islamic Republic, "in contrast to the KSA, there are (carefully circumscribed but real nonetheless) elections, political debate, religious diversity, generational resistance and liberal sentiments." In fact, the analyst shrewdly suggests, "shifting the US relationship with Iran could dramatically improve the region's dynamic."
In other words, Iran looks like a positive bastion of modernity and tolerance, compared to the galloping and somersaulting barbarism and cruelty of the Saudi regime and its tyranny. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it is not sponsoring a variety of Wahabbist "fronts" in the guise of "Islamic charities" and caliphates.
To put it country simple, Mr. Bandow is suggesting that the source of Middle East instability is the riotously insane (what fundamentalist regimes aren't riotously insane?) regime in Riyadh, and that in the long term, America's best interests lie in assuming a much more realistic - and therefore, "distant" - posture with respect to the Saudis, and a much more open posture with respect to Iran, which, as he points out, has been the victim of American meddling repeatedly, and all to the detriment of America.
If this reading of recent op-ed pieces appearing in the American specialized media on policy formation is true, then one may expect the signs of this to grow in the coming year, and to increase to the point of becoming a debate or discussion topic during the election theater. The tone of this response to the question and discussion of American Middle East policy, both by candidates and the media, will say a great deal of whether this reading is in fact the case, and whether or not the desert kingdom is indeed "on the menu."
See you on the flip side...