For a balance of power in the region

Saudi King Salman’s visit to Washington last week came at a critical time.

Observers in the Middle East suspect that President Obama is walking away from the Middle East and turning his back on America’s traditional allies.

Obama’s continuous flirtation with the Iranian leaders, at a time Iran is destabilising the region, is a source of concern and a statement on Obama’s judgement.

Therefore, the king’s visit was meant to send a clear message that Saudi Arabia will not cave in to Iran’s bullying and negative tactics.

Experts in the Middle East are confused. On the one hand, Obama says that Iran has been playing a negative role in Syria and the wider Middle East, and on the other, he is doing nothing to stop that.

His inaction vis-à-vis Iran has fuelled suspicion that although he is aware of Iran’s intention, he is opting for cooperation with Iran at the expense of his allies.

His fixation with Daesh and his inaction vis-à-vis Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria is inexplicable, to say the least.

At the meeting on Friday, Obama said: “We share a concern about Yemen and the need to restore a functioning government that is inclusive there.”

Obama’s remark is encouraging for the Saudis, who are looking for assurances that the US will not disengage from the region.

Just four months ago, King Salman declined Obama’s invitation to meet at Camp David. But given the recent developments in the region, it seems that he is willing to sidestep differences over Iran’s nuclear deal.

That said, the Saudis strongly believe that lifting sanction will provide Iran with a financial windfall that can easily be used to further ramp up its negative activities in the region.

Saudis are not alone in expressing concern about Obama’s intentions. Many other Arabs are looking for assurances that the nuclear deal will not trigger a sea change in the American foreign policy towards Iran at a time the latter is a key source of regional instability.

This meeting between the Saudi king and Obama was different from previous meetings. Unlike in the past, when the Saudis waited for the Americans to interfere on their behalf, this time Riyadh is adopting a regional policy that is much less dependent on Washington.

The Saudi-led Arab coalition battling Houthis in Yemen is proof of the new Saudi approach to regional issues.

The major policy difference between Riyadh and Washington is on Syria.

While the American concern about Daesh is legitimate, people in this part of the world cannot understand the American policy in Syria.

In fact, Assad would have been ousted long time ago were it not for the American policy of “protecting” him.

It is not enough to keep saying that Assad should leave; Washington has yet to put its money where its mouth is.

It is not that the Arabs support Daesh, but it is hard to understand why the Americans still do not want to see that Assad’s stay in power and his unprecedented crimes caused the emergence of Daesh and of continuous waves of refugees.

The Saudis have made it perfectly clear that there will be no place for Assad in any political transition in Syria.

By maintaining this position, the Saudis are holding the high moral ground. In the end, Assad has caused the death of more than a quarter of a million Syrians, not to mention the wounded and the refugees.

This may explain America’s failure in training Syrians to fight Daesh. For Syrians, Assad should be removed first.

Amid the regional turmoil, the decline of Egypt’s role, Russia’s opportunism and Iran’s bullying policies, it seems that Saudi Arabia is the only hope to restore some regional balance of power.

I suspect that Obama’s shortsighted approach will only impede that and perhaps the region has to wait for the end of his term in office.

[email protected]