SEVEN years ago this month America’s president, Barack Obama, still a little wet behind the ears, bent over to shake hands with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Or did he bow? Mr Obama’s people quickly denied any act of obeisance, but Republican critics pounced. One conservative newspaper called it a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”.
How quaint that all now seems. America’s once-close relationship with Saudi Arabia, dating to the end of the second world war, is now deeply strained, thanks in large part to Mr Obama, who once dubbed the kingdom a “so-called ally” and more recently referred to it as a “free rider”. The Saudis have responded in kind. When the president arrived in Riyadh on April 20th for an almost insultingly brief visit he was greeted by the local governor, not by King Salman himself, which some saw as a snub. Other Gulf leaders arriving for the regional summit got a monarchical welcome, as, recently, did the leaders of Egypt and Turkey.
In truth, the relationship between the two countries—one a vibrant, liberal democracy, the other a closed-off, puritanical autocracy—has always been awkward. Even in friendlier times, American officials complained about the shameful state of human rights in the kingdom, where women are restricted, critics are lashed and beheadings are common.
There were more questions after 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 turned out to be Saudis. Those questions still linger: a bill now under debate in Congress would allow victims of the attacks to sue the Saudi government and claim damages if it were found by the American courts to be complicit. And many in America are demanding to see the contents of a secret 28-page section of the official report into the 9/11 attacks, withheld on grounds of national security. They suspect the Saudis may be implicated by them. Mr Obama has suggested he might make them public soon.
The alliance endured because America prioritised its other interests—in oil, counter-terrorism and stability in the region. It didn’t hurt that American arms manufacturers spread their profits from sales to the kingdom around congressional districts. The weapons still flow—America looks set to improve the region’s ballistic missile defence system—but an abundance of shale gas at home has given Mr Obama a lot more freedom to reconsider the relationship. Long sceptical of America’s deep involvement in the region, he has taken a different tack than his predecessors.
Look no further than Mr Obama’s outreach to Shia Iran and last year’s nuclear deal, under which Iran would restrict its nuclear programme for at least a decade (what happens thereafter is still of concern), in return for ending many Western economic sanctions on the Islamic republic.
The Sunni Saudis fear it will allow Iran to stoke (more) regional instability. But the president has all but told the Saudis to grow up. “The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians—which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen—requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighbourhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” said Mr Obama in a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic.
Not long after approving the deal with Iran, Mr Obama tried to reassure the Saudis and America’s other allies in the Gulf by holding a summit at Camp David, the presidential retreat. King Salman did not show up. The deal was merely the latest instance in which Mr Obama disappointed the Saudis. The president had alarmed them in Egypt, when he did not support the tottering regime of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, and infuriated them in Syria, when he did not follow through on his threat to bomb Bashar al-Assad over his use of chemical weapons in 2013. Some in the kingdom now have grave doubts about America’s commitment to defend it.
Mr Obama’s visit this week was meant to continue the work of reassurance. According to his top Middle East adviser, Rob Malley, talks with all six leaders of the Gulf Co-operation Council on April 21st were intended to focus on shoring up their security and on how to deal with regional conflicts. It may not have gone smoothly. “What is true between the United States and the GCC, as is true with all of our allies and friends, is that any point of time there are going to be differences,” Mr Obama said after the meeting, before he flew off to London to involve himself in Britain’s EU referendum.
Reports suggest that in Mr Obama’s private bilateral meeting with King Salman a day earlier, he reiterated his views that the Gulf states needed to change tack, engage with Iran and take more responsibility for their own defence. The king’s reaction, with regard to Iran, has been described as “highly sceptical”. In a statement released after the meeting, the two leaders were said to have “exchanged views”—diplomatic speak for they didn’t agree on much.
The Gulf countries, and Saudi Arabia in particular, appear eager to see the back of Mr Obama, who has under a year left in office. But they may not like who comes next. Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, has threatened to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they do not step up their effort against Islamic State. Ted Cruz, another Republican contender, vows to apply “real scrutiny and real pressure” to the relationship.
The kingdom is presumably therefore rooting for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. It has prudently given millions of dollars to her family’s foundation. But Mrs Clinton, of course, was America’s secretary of state as relations soured, and has besides supported the Iran deal. That said, she does supposedly favour a more robust policy towards Syria. The Gulf monarchies are probably hoping for a fresh start with someone other than Mr Obama, but they could be disappointed. Mrs Clinton, after all, says she supports Congress’s 9/11 bill.