In the aftermath of
this attack, it was reasonable to assume that the Saudis were expecting the U.S. to show that they are serious in their promise of defending Saudi Arabia from Iran. (It should be obvious for anyone who even cursorily followed the Yemen War, that the Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry is not meant to be used by the incredibly young, able and dynamic army of Saudi Arabia, but as an investment guarantee for actual military defense by U.S. in case of any serious threats; and to be fair in the Yemen War U.S. helped Saudis quite a bit). But U.S. completely abandoned Saudis to their own devices after the Iranian attack (which incidentally came after Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran started, showing how it will be Saudis who will bear the brunt of U.S. antagonism against Iran). This must have been a huge shock to the Saudi leadership and an affirmation of the continuation of the Asian Pivot strategy of Obama era during Trump administration, signalling the aforementioned strategy's institutional and non-partisan roots, leaving Saudis vulnerable in the Gulf region after being abandoned by the Americans.
Saudi response to this was quite puzzling to me until a couple of weeks ago when new evidence illuminating the facts popped up. The response that I didn't understand included the rapprochement with Russia and China and snubbing U.S. demands on oil production (
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/us/politics/us-saudi-oil-deal.html) and trying to hurt Democrats in the midterms (
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/did-saudi-arabia-just-hand-the-midterms-to-the-gop.html). I said this response was puzzling to me because it seemed rash on one hand, and on the other hand irreconcilable with Saudi goals in Iran's containment as it seemed China and Russia wouldn't really be able to guarantee Saudi security against Iran. It seemed to me the only concessions Saudis could get from Iran by playing Russia and China would be empty promises as it would be hard to imagine Russia and China defending Saudis against attacks by Iranian proxies. This is the reason the Iran-Saudi deal supervised by the Chinese seemed like a farce to me. The Saudi-Iranian division goes much deeper than to be reconciled by some potential promises on paper and the Chinese don't have the kind of control and extent of relations with Iran that is presumed in IR received wisdom.
But now I understand why Saudis did all this and what the reasons behind the empty Chinese deal and the daring oil production decisions were, esp. at a time U.S. needed low energy prices the most (to make Russian sanctions more effective). The reason was this: Saudis were signalling to U.S. that "we don't trust you to defend us, so you might lose us if you don't give guarantees to protect us. Look! we're getting closer to Russia and China and even got a deal with Iran." This carrot and stick game then became much more explicit with leaks about a Saudi security pact recommendation to U.S., promising recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for security guarantees for Saudi Arabia by the U.S. (the proverbial carrot in this case being the continuation of Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry worth billions of dollars that are not seriously meant to be used by an almost non-existent Saudi army, and probably the tacit agreement that they will keep selling their oil to Russia and China in dollars)
And now we get this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...125ca4-37a2-11ee-ac4e-e707870e43db_story.html
This has very little to do with Iran's confiscation of tankers and such (as always if something is emphatically repeated by a government, it's probably a superficial excuse). Confiscation of tankers by Iran has been going on and off for a decade now. Sometimes U.S. forces are replenished or increased in the region in response. But never, even in the case of Iranian attacks against U.S. Navy ships and such (
https://www.businessinsider.nl/phot...-navy-vessels-2020-4?international=true&r=US; https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...troy-iranian-boats-harassing-us-ships-200385; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/19/us-demands-iran-free-seized-ship-vows-to-protect-gulf), has U.S. deployed this many personnel and fighters in the region. This is unprecedented when the situation with Iran doesn't warrant it at all comparing it with the historical parallels. So this tanker narrative must be the tip of the iceberg; and it is. The real reason behind this massive deployment of troops is U.S. intention to show the Saudis that U.S. is indeed serious this time about their words (words which they always use; the last link in the batch of three in the last sentence shows how U.S. threatened Iran about the tankers in 2019 when the tensions were much higher than they are now, but there were no new troop deployments and the more serious case was the Abqaiq–Khurais attack which U.S. did nothing about).
But the main point is that if the plan in Washington is to sign the proposed Saudi deal to guarantee their security, there would be no reason to prove their seriousness and create this escalation. So in my opinion this signals that U.S. wants to soften the Saudis up, trying to convince them that there's no need for a deal because U.S. is serious about protecting Saudi Arabia without a deal also. I don't think Saudis will fall for that. But I also don't think U.S., esp. a democratic administration, can afford to make such a deal with the Saudis in the current climate of public opinion about the Saudis in U.S. They probably don't want the deal regardless of that due to their Asian pivot as well. So the song and dance will continue. Maybe the gods smile on us and U.S. rejects the deal and Saudis try to find new protectors. One can only hope.
