Presidential doctrines in Saudi Arabia

(1)

1

Presidential doctrines in Saudi Arabia

A study addressing how Trump´s America First and ´deal -making´ doctrine

holds, and Obama´s American exceptionalism, human rights, and

multilateralism doctrine has held in the wasp nest of Saudi Arabia. What do

American arms deals with Saudi Arabia reveal?

Master Thesis: Crisis and Security Management Author: Paul Koot

Student number: 1422316

Under supervision of: Dr. S.D. Willmetts Second reader: Dr. V.F. Newby

Word count: 21.081 Date: August 4th 2019

(2)

2

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction & research question

In today´s media the foreign policies of President Donald John Trump are being portrayed as radical breaks with the traditions of American foreign policy. They are also regarded as wildly divergent from the policies of his predecessor, President Barack Obama. Trump has questioned the function and credibility of NATO, dodged neighbors Canada or Mexico in favor of Saudi Arabia for his first foreign visit as serving President, let the Prime Minister of America´s closest ally, the United Kingdom, wait for a phone call after receiving calls from others following his election, started a trade war with China by raising import tariffs, is said to have a strong mistrust of his own intelligence agencies, and made his campaign slogan “America first”.1 This slogan signals a return to a more isolationist foreign policy doctrine after more than 75 years of US “Wilsonian” liberal internationalism supported by successive Presidential administrations since America´s entry in the Second World War.2 Besides, Trump acts and governs like a businessman. During his campaign, he presented himself as uniquely qualified to solve America´s problems because of his professed business acumen. (Kar, 2017) In other words, America should be led by a proper dealmaker like Trump himself: ´American foreign policy has to be put in the hands of the dealmaker.´ (Trump, 2000)

On the other hand there was President Barack Hussein Obama, who served as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. Obama is assessed as a totally different President compared to Trump; Obama spoke about big ideas, dreams, universal rights, America´s exceptional role in the world, and the United States as an exceptional country.3 Unlike Trump, Obama stressed America´s importance for the world, instead of only America´s importance for itself: ´What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world`.4 Obama´s aligns himself with the idea of American exceptionalism which comprises America’s special role in the world, in which he claimed he believed in with every fiber of his being.5_{In his early 100 days as President, Obama was asked the following:} could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly

1_{Barnes, J. & H. Cooper (2019), ´Trump discussed pulling the US from NATO, aides say amid new concerns over} Russia´, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html ; Hubbard, B & I. Fisher in New York Times (2017), ´Trump´s Saudi Arabia trip figures into plan for a Palestinian deal´,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/middleeast/trump-trip-saudi-arabia-palestinians.html ; Scarry, E. (2016), ´Press fumes as Trump breaks tradition´, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-fumes-as-trump-breaks-tradition ;Donnan, S. (2019), ´Evidence grows that Trump´s trade wars are hitting US economy´,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/evidence-grows-that-trump-s-trade-wars-are-hitting-u-s-economy ; Leonnig, C, S. Harris & G. Jaffe (2018), ´Breaking with tradition Trump skips presidents written intelligence report for oral briefings´, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/breaking-with-tradition- trump-skips-presidents-written-intelligence-report-for-oral-briefings/2018/02/09/b7ba569e-0c52-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?utm_term=.729a706bcc4d ; Cohen (2019) ; Kupchan (2019)

2

Perry Anderson (2013); Steven Feldstein (2018); Hal Brands (2017) 3_{Obama, B. (2013), ´Inaugural address by President Barack Obama´,}

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama

4_{Obama, B. (2009), ´President Barack Obama´s inaugural address´,}

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/01/21/president-barack-obamas-inaugural-address

5

Obama, B. (2014), ´Remarks by the President at the United States military academy commencement ceremony´, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/remarks-president-united-states-military-academy-commencement-ceremony

(4)

4 different philosophy? Obama answered: ´I believe in American exceptionalism´.6 And Obama continued with the notion that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity.7 A definition of American exceptionalism as given by Madsen (1998) helps to explain what Obama meant: American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is unique among, if not superior to, other nation-states. It is the fundamental agent that has underwritten arguments concerning America´s destiny´. Whether this definition is fully adopted by Obama is debatable, and will be researched in this thesis.

This thesis aims to explore how the Presidential doctrines, of America first on Trump’s side and American exceptionalism on Obama’s side, hold in the field of foreign policy to one of America’s closest Middle Eastern allies; Saudi Arabia. It is not self-evident that Presidential doctrines hold in the wasp nest of the Middle East because of its complex local, regional, and global structures and alliances, sectarian conflicts, warzones, difficult history, refugees, oil wealth, etc. (Luiten & de Graaf, 2016) Various administrations have had difficulties in dealing with the Middle East. Supporting a country or group means that new enemies arise elsewhere. Over the past decades, the Middle East has been the theatre of wars and conflicts in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, and Syria, while even more countries and militants were involved in the fighting itself. The Middle East is a fertile breeding ground for terrorism and is still dealing with the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Therefore it is an interesting test case to review both Trump´s and Obama´s global and Middle Eastern doctrine and see how these doctrines play out in Saudi Arabia, a longtime American ally, which has had a hand in many of the events listed above. But why, besides being a longtime American ally, conduct research on their foreign policy doctrines in Saudi Arabia? The United States and Saudi Arabia share a complex history which goes back to the discovery of oil on the Arabian Peninsula. At the end of the Second World War America ensured itself of the Saudi oil reserves for its economy and not less important, its war machine.8 A simple explanation of the relationship is as follows; oil flowed from Saudi Arabia to the United States, and dollars moved the opposite direction. The relationship developed in the direction of more than this trade, and soon American arms were shipped to the Saudi Arabian regime. The authoritarian Saudi Arabian regime needed a lot of arms, since it had a lot of enemies such as other Arab states and perhaps most important; domestic opposition. (Lacey, 2009) America ensured the protection and survival of the Saudi regime by offering security in trade for cheap oil. This came to display in the Gulf War in which America stationed a half million troops in the desert country to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussain´s Iraq, which had just invaded Kuwait. (Bronson, 2006) The relationship also suffered from serious strains such as the oil embargo in the 1970s, 9/11 which was largely carried out by Saudi citizens, Saudi support for Salafists and their actions throughout the globe, and most recently the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Virginia resident, Washington Post journalist, critic of the Saudi regime, and Saudi citizen in October 2018.9

6

Edwards, J.A. (2012), ´An exceptional debate: The championing of and challenge to American exceptionalism´.

Rhetoric & Public Affairs 15(2), 351-367. Michigan State University Press

7

Obama, B. (2009), ´The President´s news conference in Strasbourg´, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/286249

8

Kennedy, L. (2018), ´How FDR charmed a Saudi king and won U.S access to oil´,

https://www.history.com/news/fdr-saudi-arabia-king-oil

9

Cooper (2011), Lacey (2009), BBC (2018), ´Jamal Khashoggi: all you need to know about Saudi journalist´s death´, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399

(5)

5 Throughout history, American foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia concerned five domains: oil, security, arms trade, combatting terrorism, and Iran. Trump and Obama both dealt and deal with foreign policy in these domains. Their foreign policies regarding oil, combatting terrorism, Iran and security are very important, but not subject to research in this thesis. This thesis will zoom in on their respective policies regarding arms trade with Saudi Arabia. Arms trade has turned out to be one of the most important domains in US – Saudi relations and will prove to be a challenge for Presidential doctrines and practices. It was Henry Kissinger who proposed large amounts of arms sales towards Saudi Arabia in the 1970s. These large arms sales continue up until today. In 2018, Saudi Arabia was the largest arms importer in the world, buying 68% of its arms from the United States.10 In this same year, Saudi Arabia accounted for 22% of America´s arms exports, making it the top purchaser of American arms.

As stated earlier; the aim of this research is to find out whether Trump´s and Obama´s policy doctrines hold in Saudi Arabia. Obama, who called the Saudis ´our so called allies´ at the time he was a Senator, seemed to despise the Saudis way before his Presidency.11 During his Presidency he made more significant remarks which were not particularly appreciated by the Saudi allies, more on this later. Meanwhile he sold record amounts of arms to the Saudi regime which has used it to fight a bloody war in Yemen.12 Trump on the other hand made his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia, praising their efforts in combatting extremist ideology, terrorism, and the isolation of Iran.13 Trump also announced a 110 billion USD arms deal with the Saudis during his visit, praising their decisions to buy American equipment which seems totally in line with his portrayal as businessman and dealmaker. His friendly policy towards Saudi Arabia has been opposed since the killing of Jamal Khashoggi by various members of Congress, even from his own party, therefore tightening his ability to conduct his preferred arms deals.14 In the light of the arms deals, the different Presidential doctrines and habits, and the sometimes uneasy and strained American partnership with Saudi Arabia, it is relevant to address the following research question:

What do Obama´s and Trump´s arms deals with Saudi Arabia tell us about their foreign policy doctrines?

1.2 Relevance

Why is it relevant to conduct this research on American foreign policy in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is a regional power in the Middle East being of major importance to America and the world. It is the only country which has proven that it can upscale its oil production in a blink to singlehandedly

10

SIPRI (2019), ´Trends in international arms transfers, 2018´, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/fs_1903_at_2018.pdf

11_{Goldberg, J. (2016), ´The Obama Doctrine´,}

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/#5

12

Hartung, W.: Center for International Policy (2018), ´U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen´, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/3ba8a1_5e9019d625e84087af647e6cb91ea3e2.pdf

13

Trump, D. (2017), ´President Trump´s speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit´,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trumps-speech-arab-islamic-american-summit/

14

Shear, D. & C. Edmondson (2019), ´Trump vetoes bipartisan resolutions blocking arms sales to Gulf nations´,

(6)

6 influence oil prices and supply.15 It hosts the two holy cities in Islam, borders the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, is one of the world´s major oil suppliers, and is America´s strongest and most important Arab ally. For the Saudis, America is of great importance; its army relies on American equipment and training.16

But why would it be a challenge for American Presidents to keep up with their doctrines in Saudi Arabia? As stated earlier, it has a rather uneasy partnership with the United States. On the one hand it buys huge amounts of American products; on the other hand it has a troublesome reputation in the field of human rights. On the one hand it teams up with America to drive terrorism out, on the other hand 15 of its citizens were conductors of the 9/11 attacks. Individual liberty and democracy are some of America’s founding values, while in Saudi Arabia an authoritarian regime has dictated people’s lives for decades: there is simply no freedom or democracy. (Lacey, 2009) The contrast between the countries is enormous. The major differences between the two countries make it a serious test case for Presidential doctrines. For Obama, it was trying to find a balance between his spearheads of human rights and democracy, and the geopolitical and economic benefits of the relationship. Ostensibly, for Trump it is trying to balance between domestic opposition to the relationship, as I will illustrate below, and the desire to broker (trade) deals in favor of American jobs. After the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, leading politicians from Trump´s own party called for sanctions and a change of the relationship: ‘This guy has got to go. Saudi Arabia if you´re listening. There´s a lot of good people you can choose, but MBS (Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia´s Crown Prince and in fact leader of the country) has tainted your country’ and ‘the US should sanction the hell out of Saudi Arabia’ describing him as ‘toxic’ and ‘wrecking ball’.17 This June, Trump faced more opposition in the field of arms trade when the Senate rejected multibillion dollar arms deals to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other countries. Trump had already announced that he would veto the Senate´s rejection in order to proceed with the arms deals.18 The domestic opposition from Congress illustrates that it will not be easy for Trump to hold on to his doctrine of deal making and America first in the case of Saudi Arabia.

1.3 Planning

This thesis will continue with a chapter on methodology and operationalization. This chapter contains information and explanation about the way the research question will be answered, how data is selected, why certain data is chosen, and why certain data is left aside. The third chapter consists of

15

Blas, J. (2018), ´How much can Saudi Arabia really pump? We´re about to find out´,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-28/saudi-arabia-faces-the-ultimate-oil-test-producing-at-the-limit

16

Hartung, W: Center for International Policy (2018), ´U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen´, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/3ba8a1_5e9019d625e84087af647e6cb91ea3e2.pdf ; Hartung, William: Center for International Policy (2017), ´Donald Trump´s dangerous love affair with Saudi Arabia & its impacts on Mideast security´,

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/488e54_026000bf38d14186acd4579005e183bc.pdf ; SIPRI (2018), ´Saudi Arabia, armaments and conflicts in the Middle East´,

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2018/saudi-arabia-armaments-and-conflict-middle-east

17_{Politico (2018), ´Graham says the U.S. should ´sanction the hell out of Saudi Arabia´´,}

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/16/graham-sanction-saudi-arabia-905641

18

Zengerle, P. (2019), ´Senate rejects Saudi arms sales in rebuke to Trump´,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arms/senate-rejects-saudi-arms-sales-in-rebuke-to-trump-idUSKCN1TL1VN

(7)

7 multiple parts. In the first part, the doctrine of Obama will be discussed and defined. It starts with Obama’s foreign policy doctrine in general and will be followed by his doctrine in the Middle East. The second part of this chapter contains information and an analysis regarding the foreign policy doctrine of Trump, both in general as his policy in the Middle East. The fourth chapter is the most analytical chapter which contains an analysis of Trump´s and Obama´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia. Issues to be discussed are consistencies and inconsistencies with their global and Middle Eastern doctrine. The same will be discussed for Obama, how did his doctrine play out in Saudi Arabia if we take arms trade into account? Was he consistent in his approach? The fifth chapter contains the conclusion and discussion. This thesis is rounded off with a bibliography.

(8)

8

2. Methodology & Operationalization

2.1 Introduction

To be able to answer the question as stated in the introduction, a couple of parts of the research question need to be addressed separately. In this chapter, the road to the answer of the research question will be explained.

The research question contains several separate parts which require research. The first things to be examined are the respective Presidential doctrines of Obama and Trump. For both Presidents, their general (or global) foreign policy doctrines will be formulated. As stated in the introduction, Obama´s doctrine concerned American responsibility and leadership, American exceptionalism, and multilateralism. Trump´s doctrine seems to go another way: America first and deal making. As this research wishes to explore how Obama´s and Trump´s doctrines hold in the Middle East, and more specifically Saudi Arabia, the next part of the funnel means to explore what Obama´s and Trump´s priorities were in the Middle East. Through this way we can reveal a rough Middle Eastern doctrine of both Presidents, in which we can identify their main goals and priorities. These priorities will be important, especially in the Middle East. Up until today, many countries and (rebel) groups in the Middle East are living in a tense environment. Wars are ongoing in Syria & Yemen, Iraq is rebuilding its government, and tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are rising. This means that setting a priority not only influences the country on which policy is made, but also influences America´s relation with another country or group. If America conducts policy in favor of Iran, Saudi Arabia would consider this as treason since Iran is their most feared enemy. The other way around, Saudi Arabia would praise American policy which tightens Iran´s position, which is in their benefit. After having identified the priorities of Trump and Obama in the Middle East the last part comes into play. The third matter to be researched is the arms trade between America and Saudi Arabia. As explained in the introduction, this forms an important branch of the American – Saudi relationship and is the main subject of concern for Presidential doctrines in this thesis.

2.2 Data

To start the section on data, it is important to know on what elements information is needed. A couple of separate elements need to be researched throughout this thesis: Obama´s global doctrine, Obama´s Middle Eastern doctrine, Obama´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia, Trump´s global doctrine, Trump´s Middle Eastern doctrine, and Trump´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia.

Obama´s global doctrine is split into two different parts; American exceptionalism and multilateralism. A red line in these two parts is Obama´s aim for a better world with prosperity, a strong human rights position, strong democracies, and freedom for those oppressed. Obama´s position on American exceptionalism will be determined with the help of two main items. The first being Obama´s references to American exceptionalism or its content in public speeches. These public speeches will be retrieved from databases from the White House, and the American Presidency Project of the University of California. These databases contain all of Obama´s remarks, addresses, speeches, and statements. This data will be interpreted and used to find patterns in his ideas on how the world should look in his eyes. The same data will be used to examine how Obama wished to achieve these matters; unilateral or multilateral. In this thesis, it will become clear that Obama wished to act multilateral if the situation allowed it, in matters where the national security of America was at stake, burdens for unilateral action were considerably lower. The second main source

(9)

9 for Obama´s global doctrine is to be found in articles from various scholars. First I have used scholars and authors from different schools of thought on the concept of American exceptionalism. Koh (2003), Bachevich (2009), Hodgson (2009), Edwards (2012), Madsen (1998), Gilmore (2016), and Stephanson (1995) have spoken about the concept of American exceptionalism and its underlying principles as Manifest Destiny. These insights have been used to further construct Obama´s form of American exceptionalism and have helped to construct clear examples. Especially Gilmore (2016) and scholars mentioned in the next paragraph have mentioned Obama´s desire for multilateral action, which will also be visible in his statements, remarks, and acts.

Obama´s Middle Eastern doctrine shows similarities but also clear differences with his global doctrine. The data from which this is found consists of Obama´s speeches, remarks, and statements, as well as ideas from scholars as Rhode (2012), Samore (2015), Stern (2015), Lynch (2015), Grevi (2016), and Gause (2016). They have identified priorities, ideas, and methods of Obama´s foreign policy practices in the Middle East. Besides, they have also given critique on Obama´s way of dealing in the Middle East, for example not intervening in Syria, and his drone campaign throughout the Middle East; arguing that Obama´s Middle Eastern doctrine showed clear inconsistencies with his domestic or global ideals.

Third aspect of Obama´s side of this research is his arms trade with Saudi Arabia. Several scholars have written about his arms sales, though Obama never elaborated on it himself in public speeches. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and The Center for International Policy (CIP, especially William Hartung, 2017, 2018, 2019) have written extensive reports on global arms trade in general, but also on especially America (the world´s largest exporter) and Saudi Arabia (the world´s largest importer). Plenty of information is available, consisting of numbers and figures, as well as pretty detailed information on when, what, and how arms were used or sold. These two organizations are the main two sources in the fields of arms trade used for this thesis. This data has been used to identify a clear overview of what Obama´s and Trump´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia has looked like up until today.

As for Trump, it is easiest to start with the arms trade. Basically, data used for Trump´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia is similar as Obama´s. Except for the fact that Trump has been using the element of arms trade and its importance to his foreign policy many times in speeches and statements. It was therefore easier to reveal Trump´s intentions of his arms trade policy. The SIPRI and CIP reports were very valuable given Trump´s habit of exaggerating his trade achievements, including in the fields of arms.

Trump´s global doctrine is a little harder to define compared to Obama´s doctrine given Trump´s character of changing things at the last moment and the fact that he is still in office today. However, some things clearly stand out in the existing literature; Trump prefers a tough style in addressing matters he wants to change, and wishes to achieve his foreign policy goals by making deals in favor of the American economy. Two of Trump´s own books (The America we deserve, 2000 & Time to get tough: Make America great again!, 2011) proved useful to identify some of his ideas, and especially how these ideas should be achieved: by a dealmaker. Several scholars have shined their light on Trump´s foreign policy and his doctrine. The big majority identifies Trump´s deal making and benefits for the American economy at all costs as his main ideas. Scholars include Popescu (2018), Addicott (2018), Ahmadian (2018), Anton (2019), Brands (2017), Cohen (2019), Feldstein (2018), and Mead

(10)

10 (2017). Interesting and useful are also Trump´s speeches and statements which have been retrieved from the White House database and the American Presidency Project. The combined information of Trump´s priorities, his own words, and ideas from several scholars have led to a doctrine comprising a President with a big desire for deal making and the American economy in terms of jobs.

Trump´s Middle Eastern doctrine has far from crystalized yet. At the moment of writing, it is still unclear what Trump´s aim in the Persian Gulf, for example, entails. It is a pure pressure campaign or are there other ideas? As it is not the main subject of research, and requires a prediction, it has not been elaborated too much on. Fact is that Trump is not a fan of Iran, and that he wishes to isolate them, but is he willing to risk a war? Or does he want a new deal? There are ideas, but that requires a thesis in itself. The scholars named in the previous paragraph have also elaborated on Trump´s Middle Eastern doctrine, since much of his foreign policy issues in his first years as President have been focused on the Middle East. Additionally, Trump´s sometimes surprising speeches, presentations, and statements gave useful insight in how Trump wishes to deal with and in the Middle East.

2.3 Method

This thesis might be a little different than other theses. This thesis´ method cannot simply be defined as a single research method where a theory is tested or a comparative case study is carried out. This thesis can best be described as a combination of an illustrative case study and a historical research. In this thesis, it will be illustrated that it may be very difficult to hold on to a Presidential doctrine in a wasp nest like Saudi Arabia. In this illustrative case study, the element of arms trade will be used to identify problems for Presidential doctrines, though being very different doctrines. Additionally, it will be illustrated that Obama’s policy in the Middle East is not as he sketched it for the public. By using the information about the arms trade, and the information of where and how it is used, gives insight in the inconsistencies in Obama´s global doctrine versus his Middle Eastern doctrine. This thesis will guide the reader through what Obama´s arms trade with Saudi Arabia meant for his doctrine. This thesis will also illustrate that Trump’s doctrine of deal making and America first is put fully into play in Saudi Arabia. This thesis will illustrate that Trump prefers arms trade and deals above domestic opposition or stopping a deteriorating humanitarian situation in e.g. Yemen. This thesis illustrates that despite having very different doctrines, different ideals, and different interpretations on how the world should be governed, it could be very difficult to be consistent in these doctrines in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

The second method, historical analysis, will be used to interpret the facts which will be presented in the next chapters. The facts in this thesis concerns mostly numbers on arms sales and quotes from Presidents. A historical analysis consists of the following parts: a claim as introduced in the introduction, evidence, interpretation/analysis, and a conclusion. As the research question is stated in the introduction, ostensibly American arms trade with Saudi Arabia is the undoing of a Presidential doctrine. In this thesis it is claimed that arms trade with Saudi Arabia is the partially undoing of Obama´s global doctrine. In the next chapters, numbers, quotes, and actions of both Presidents will be presented to support the claim that Presidential doctrines are difficult to hold on to in a wasp nest like Saudi Arabia. The reader will be guided through the presidential doctrines, and what they mean for their foreign policy in the Middle East. At the end, a conclusion will be drawn, which showcases

(11)

11 how nice words and strong statements can simply be neglected if a decision on arms trade has to be made.

All the data used in this thesis is written in the English or Dutch language. In this thesis the American approach to Saudi Arabia is analyzed and not vice versa, it is therefore not necessary to use Arab (though published in English) sources. It is kept in mind that some authors have significant problems with or opinions on the various Presidents; this will be explained accordingly to acknowledge their biased ideas.

This thesis has a lot of intersections with foreign policy and their implications, a foreign policy analysis could have been used since this thesis also concerns the actions of actors (Obama and Trump). However, this thesis constructs an argument, which is not mainly about the outcome, process, effect, or cause of a foreign policy decision. It is the aim to reveal that certain policy decisions are not in line with a given doctrine, because of the context where the foreign policy is carried out or the tensions between different priorities. Though the process and effects of foreign policy decisions are important in this thesis, they are not the main subject of analysis; they are treated as given events. Therefore, a combination of an illustrative case study and a historical analysis is more appropriate in this thesis.

2.4 Reliability & validity

This thesis solely consists of open source data and information. All information used can be verified and found in the bibliography. The external validity of this thesis should be sought in the discussion. It is very well possible that similar outcomes or the undoing of a doctrine are present in other countries in the world. It is likely, that this might happen in countries in which America, like in Saudi Arabia, has conflicting interests (e.g. geopolitics vs human rights). This thesis gives the reader an illustration of how Trump prioritizes his foreign policy in the case of Saudi Arabia, but also globally. As the new Presidential campaigns are starting again, it gives the electorate and the world an idea of how Trump might continue his foreign policy to Saudi Arabia in the years ahead.

The sources used in this research add to a sufficient level of internal validity. The Presidential doctrines are mainly derived from scholars, quotes, statements, and actions. Their quotes in speeches and statements reveal what their doctrine entails. For example, if Obama was quoted on saying: I want to achieve matters through international cooperation and multilateral action, and he repeats this over time, it is likely that his doctrine is concentrated around establishing coalitions and interaction with multilateral institutions. Additionally, patterns in actions and the explanation of these actions of both Presidents reveal their reasoning and can therefore be used to formulate their doctrine. For example, if Obama made five military interventions in cooperation with other countries (fact checking), and refused to intervene militarily when America stood alone, this adds to his doctrine of establishing coalitions and operating through multilateral institutions. Measuring what arms trade means for a Presidential doctrine is a little harder. One could argue that priority setting prevailed in Obama´s case, therefore a conclusion that Obama´s arms trade was in line with his Middle Eastern priorities could be valid. However, in this thesis it is argued that Obama has set aside his third priority in the Middle East (democracy and human rights) as well as his most important international spearhead which also included human rights. This way, it is measured that decisions on arms trade with Saudi Arabia, including his support for the war in Yemen, is the undoing of part of his

(12)

12 Middle Eastern doctrine, but most important the undoing of his global campaign to promote human rights.

The correct measurements of both President´s arms sales to Saudi Arabia are tricky to measure, and therefore require a very brief explanation. An arms sale can consist of multiple elements. A simplistic explanation: it can be the producing country that offers certain equipment and argues why the buyer should buy, these are called proposals. Or the buyer requests proposals for certain types of equipment on which the producing country makes an offer. What the buyer eventually buys are called the sales, the actual delivery of sales can be spread out over periods sometimes as long as a decade. This difference between actual sales and proposals seems too simple to explain, but in the chapters to come I will show how especially Trump is conducting a trick with these words to create more positive numbers that support his policy and priorities. The data used in this thesis, e.g. the reports from the CIP, have taken this into account. It is thoroughly explained which numbers account for actual sales, and which numbers account for proposals or vague initiatives. Still it is important to note this phenomenon while Trump has used this to exaggerate his amounts of arms sales. Perhaps even more worrying, several news sources and scholars have simply quoted Trump on these numbers. Not addressing this issue, could cause consequences for the numbers linked to arms sales and therefore Trump´s success claims.

(13)

13

3. The Obama and Trump doctrines

3.1 Introduction

This chapter is all about the foreign policies of Trump and Obama. How do they present themselves, what topics are emphasized, what drives their foreign policy, and can we define their doctrines? Doctrines have stuck to American Presidents for a long time. Ever since the time of President Monroe; simplified, the Monroe doctrine meant that the Americas must be decolonized from European states and should become sovereign nations. After the Second World War President Truman´s doctrine prevailed: containment of the Soviet Union and support free people of the world. Each President had his own doctrine from Kennedy and Carter to Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Another example; the George W. Bush doctrine is known for the words ´either with us or against us´ and ´the axis of evil´, leading to a doctrine which roughly comprised the promotion of democracy around the world, by American armed force if necessary. (Brands, 2006) Doctrines and Presidents are inseparable, each President has its own, the one more distinctive than the other; it is the approach Presidents use and strive for in foreign relations.

The aim of this chapter is to establish Obama´s and Trump´s doctrine. A funnel will be applied: a wide start with their global doctrines, this will be followed by a zoom on their doctrines in the Middle East. 3.2.1 Obama´s doctrine in the world

Obama served as President of the United States on two terms; starting his first term in 2009, ending his second term in 2017. The context in which Obama inherited the Oval Office turned out to be important for his doctrine. At the start of his Presidency, the world was suffering from the unfolding financial crisis, and America was involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars came at enormous costs of American lives (Iraq war 4484) and resources (Iraq war estimates 700 billion USD up until 2012).19 Obama’s aim was to right size American military and diplomatic presence across the planet. At the United Nations he mentioned the following: ´Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges´.20 This marks his approach in the years to come. Adding to this statement, he called for multilateral action, instead of past unilateral American action with disregard for the interests of others. Obama´s aim of taking responsibility together with other countries turned out to be one of the key elements in his foreign policy doctrine. A second pillar of Obama´s doctrine is the concept of American exceptionalism: ´I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being´.21 This roughly means that America is unique (or superior) and supposed to lead the world to peace and prosperity. The concept of American exceptionalism is subject to debate and interpretation which will be discussed in the next paragraphs. Obama’s doctrine was also a doctrine of America stepping back, compared to the years before. American presence throughout the world was overstretched and had to be reshaped. Obama made sure he distinguished between vital interests, such as prevention of terrorist attacks on American soil and nuclear proliferation, and others, not direct security threats to the United States. (Grevi, 2016)

19

Rhode, D. (2012), ´The Obama doctrine´, Foreign Policy 192.

20_{Obama, B. (2009), ´Remarks of President Barack Obama: ´Responsibility for our common future´´,}

https://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/pdf/US_en.pdf

21

(14)

14 3.2.2 Obama & American exceptionalism

According to Madsen (1998) American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is unique among, if not superior to, other nation states. It is the fundamental agent that has underwritten arguments concerning America´s destiny. In other words: the notion that America has a distinct and special destiny different than that of other nations. Madsen (1998) adds that it is the single most powerful force in forming the American identity.

Several scholars like Koh (2003) and Edwards (2012) argue that the term ´American exceptionalism´ was first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831. Historically is has been referred to as the perception that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions. It forms a part of the school of thought which surrounds ‘manifest destiny’ which was a general idea (not a prescription) that the United States´ mission was ´to overspread the continent allotted by Providence (God´s divine) for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions´. (Stephanson, 1995) This expansion took place across North America in the name of liberty. Manifest destiny concerned three aspects. 1. The special position and virtues of American institutions and people. 2. The aim to reshape the West to American ideas and standards. 3. The irresistible aim to achieve this mission.22 American exceptionalism mostly concerns the first aspect; the uniqueness of American people and its democratic institutions. Strong advocates of hard and political American exceptionalism like prominent Republican Newt Gingrich have added the second and third aspect to their interpretation of American exceptionalism. (Gingrich, 2011) This is however far away from Obama´s interpretation of American exceptionalism, because of Obama´s focus on global approaches instead of American unilateral approaches and interventions what opponents like Gingrich advocated for. This example of Gingrich is solely intended to illustrate the different interpretations of American exceptionalism: a question as; ‘do you believe in American exceptionalism?´, cannot be answered with a simple yes or no but needs clarification on what is meant.

Obama believed in a form of American exceptionalism as stated earlier, however, in this chapter it will be explained that he did not believe in the historical explanation which claimed qualitative uniqueness or superiority. Obama said, in the early days of his Presidency, that he believed in American exceptionalism, but expected a Brit and a Greek also to say that they believe in British and Greek exceptionalism. (Edwards, 2012) Obama continued with the notion that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity, and that the world in many cases should be led by America.23 Gilmore, Sheets & Rowling (2016) found out that Obama was an outstanding user of the concept of American exceptionalism; Obama outnumbered any previous American President in the frequency of addressing American exceptionalist elements in speeches as well as the percentage of speeches in which he used the concept. The question arises: what exactly is Obama´s form of American exceptionalism?

22

For further reading on manifest destiny: Anders Stephanson (1995), Thomas Hietala (2003)

23_{Obama, B. (2009), ´The President´s news conference in Strasbourg´,}_{Online by Gerhard Peters and John T.}

Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/286249 ; Obama, B. (2014), ´Remarks by the President at the United States military academy commencement ceremony´,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/remarks-president-united-states-military-academy-commencement-ceremony

(15)

15 Obama´s form of American exceptionalism is perhaps best summarized by Robert Kagan who explained the following: ´Obama placed himself in a great tradition of American presidents who have understood America´s special role in the world. He thoroughly rejected the so-called realist approach, extolled American exceptionalism, spoke of universal values and insisted that American power should be used, when appropriate, on behalf of those values´.24 Kagan sums up the most important elements: rejecting pure realism, universal values, and American power on behalf of these values. Koh (2003) argued that these universal values are peace, liberty, human rights, democracy, and international rule of law. All values, Obama adheres, especially in the Middle East, but more on the Middle East later. In his inaugural address in 2009, Obama referred to American exceptionalism almost similar as defined by Koh (2003) and mentioned by Kagan: ´but what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through actions´. He additionally mentioned the universal values in his address as essential for the world, and that America should take action to enforce them if necessary.25

There is also critique on the approach of American exceptionalism Obama seemed to have adopted. Bear in mind, the following reading is not written as a critique on Obama or his execution of American exceptionalism, but a critique on the interpretation similar to the way Obama carried American exceptionalism forward. Hodgson (2009) argued that America´s politics is not exceptional: it uses military force to achieve its foreign policy goals instead of using soft power, making it no better than any other state using military force in pursuit for its goals. Hodgson further highlighted America´s double standards; he sees America as exceptional in many negative aspects such as capital punishment, a high murder rate, problems with healthcare, and the increasing influence of money in politics. To a certain extent, Obama adhered to Hodgson´s critique on American exceptionalism: he addressed many flaws in American society including the (in)accessibility of healthcare and made attempts to close Guantanamo Bay where detainees are held without the protection of American law. Koh (2003) also criticized American exceptionalism, though also highlighted its positive implications. He argued that America is still an exceptional nation when it comes to certain imminent threats, which are first neglected by other nations, such as the situations in Kosovo and the Nuremberg Trials. He argues that the United States is often the only country willing to offer significant amounts of resources and make large sacrifices, to build, sustain, and drive an international system committed to human rights, democracy, and international law. Obama conducted operations similar to the explanation of Koh (2003), the world saw American intervention when ISIS had driven thousands of Yezidis up the Sinjar Mountains; the American military provided food, water, and medial air droppings and eventually created a corridor through which the Yezidis could escape. Obama stated: ´America must always lead on the world stage. If we don´t, no one else will´.26 Bacevich (2009) additionally argued that America should opt for a revision of its foreign policy: achievements in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, by far, do not outweigh the harm it has done domestically, let alone in Afghanistan and Iraq itself. He argued (on which Obama agrees: ´every nation must know: America will live its values, and lead by example´) that America should accept that

24

Halper, D. (2011), ´Robert Kagan: Obama delivered ´a Kennedy-esque speech´´,

https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-halper/robert-kagan-obama-delivered-a-kennedy-esque-speech

25_{Obama, B. (2009), ´President Barack Obama´s inaugural address´,}

26

(16)

16 there are limits to its power and limits in tutoring other countries, especially in the Muslim world, therefore it should not exempt itself from the rules it sets to others.27

Another big critique on American exceptionalism is that it sometimes entails a notion of exemption and double standards. (Koh, 2003) Double standards is often reviewed as the most dangerous and destructive form of American exceptionalism. It entails the idea that the United States itself proposes that a different rule should apply to America than to the rest of the world. Koh (2003) signaled examples as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the International Criminal Court of Justice. For example, America has long denied implementing or ratifying rules from the International Court of Justice regarding the death penalty. Additionally, it held detainees in Guantanamo Bay without taking the Geneva Conventions into account. One of the problems Koh identified is that by using double standards America was matching itself with horrid countries as Iran, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia – which also executed juvenile criminals against international protests and arrests. The execution of juveniles was eventually forbidden in 2005, being the 7th to last country in the world to do this. On these specific countries, Iran is being seriously criticized by America on various judicial elements, while Saudi Arabia received less criticism for committing similar crimes against its civilians. So what is the exceptional standard?

Obama was clearly aware of this situation signaled by Koh (2003) and Bacevich (2009). As stated earlier, he wished to lead by example: ´You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security.´28

American exceptionalism also serves a domestic cause: it binds American people around a single common identity. (Gilmore, 2014) Presidents have used the ideas retrieved from American exceptionalism in times of crises. Scholarship shows that many Americans believe that the United States should lead the world; it is therefore very common for Presidents to refer to American exceptionalism. They highlight that they are citizens of a special/superior/blessed nation. This can roughly be done in three ways. (Gilmore, Sheets, & Rowling, 2016) First: American Presidents refer to America as a unique or singular country in world affairs. An example from Obama: ´it is America the world looks to for help. So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation´.29 Second: American Presidents might refer to America in a way by stating that it is superior to all others: ´The greatest country on earth´. Third: American Presidents do not stop at America being better or different from all other nations, but continue with the idea that America is chosen by God, whom expects it to play this special role in global affairs.

27_{Obama, B. (2009), ´Remarks of President Barack Obama: ´Responsibility for our common future´´,}

https://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/pdf/US_en.pdf

28

29

(17)

17 Gilmore et al. (2016) found evidence that there is a relation between crises and Presidential rhetoric about American exceptionalism. They refer to the notion of American exceptionalism and point to the three crises (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Financial Crisis) Obama was facing at the start of his presidency. This helps to explain Obama´s frequent use of American exceptionalism, but does not reveal how Obama used the concept.

An important theme in Obama’s presidency was human rights and humanitarian aid. In nearly all his speeches, he announced that America would stand up for human rights and democracy. Like in the case of Ebola in West-Africa, a typical form of American leadership and Obama´s care for humanitarian issues; a humanitarian disaster was unfolding and America stepped in: ´Today, the United States is doing even more. But this is a global threat, and it demands a truly global response´.30 Obama continued that it was again American leadership which was taking care of humanitarian issues in the world. The probably strongest call Obama made in the field of human rights was made in 2011, at the time of the crisis in Libya: ´The United States strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in any country.´31 The statement above implies that there is no negotiation possible in the fields of human rights in Obama´s presidency, as soon as they are violated it seems plausible that America will act. These types of statements by Obama make him sound like a guardian of human rights. Later on in this thesis, it will become clear that statements like these cannot simply be preserved in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Obama referred to America as an exceptional country many times. His form of American exceptionalism means American leadership in times of crises and setback in the world. Obama´s doctrine is not one of a stick approach to the rest of the world. American exceptionalism according to Obama is American leadership and (military) intervention on behalf of human rights, because these are not negotiable.

3.2.3 Obama & multilateralism

Obama´s speech to the UN in September 2009 revealed important parts of his preferred multilateral approach to the world. Later on in his presidency he repeated multiple elements he announced in this first speech. According to Obama, all countries together had to deal with challenges: ´Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges´.32 Obama wished to build coalitions, as he did in many cases. In this same speech Obama remembered the foundations of the United Nations: ´This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together´. Obama continued that he believed that if nations work together they can achieve the maximum: peace and prosperity. This approach by Obama sounded through his whole presidency. However, he also clearly stated multiple times that if a threat occurs to America, he and America would act unilaterally. It could be one of the most important and clear statements by Obama regarding multilaterism, and a clear example of his doctrine:

30

Obama, B. (2014), ´Remarks by the President on the Ebola outbreak´,

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/16/remarks-president-ebola-outbreak

31

Obama, B. (2011), ´Remarks by the President on Libya´, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/23/remarks-president-libya

32

Obama, B. (2009), ´Remarks of President Barack Obama: ´Responsibility for our common future´´,

(18)

18 ´The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger. In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life. On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.´33

The piece above is valuable: America under the Obama administration will only act unilateral if its own security is at stake. In all other cases, there should be serious considerations before taking military action. Additionally, global issues not being a direct threat to the United States should be dealt with in cooperation of partners and allies, in other words: building a coalition, because coalitions and carrying capacity is the key to successful intervention.

There is plenty of critique on Obama´s doctrine and his way of acting; scholars such as Rhode (2012) and Stern (2015) have claimed that Obama´s doctrine was not about multilateralism referring to his drone- strike campaign in the Middle East. The drone campaign / targeted killing program was indeed carried out unilaterally by America. Up to 2015, the Obama administration authorized at least 450 covert drone strikes, whilst the Bush administration only carried out 44. (Stern, 2015) Rhode (2012) is right by saying: ´ the administration’s excessive use of drone attacks undercuts one of its most laudable policies: a promising new post-9/11 approach to the use of lethal American force, one of multilateralism, transparency, and narrow focus.´, however, it is not as simple as that. Yes, it is indeed a unilateral campaign with a debatable moral standard; drone strikes cause collateral damage, and there are strong moral objections against the use of drones. Additionally, the secrecy of the campaign is not in line with Obama´s plea for transparent democracy. But were there any other options? As stated in the quote above, Obama claimed that America would act unilaterally if its security was at stake. In the United States, there was still a strong belief that terrorism should not be accepted. A massive ground war could be an expensive and bloody alternative on which the American population would not have given its approval. The Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan formed a threat to American interests in countries as Pakistan and potentially domestic with terror acts. Therefore, there was a threat to America´s national security, and despite the moral objections to targeted killing, this was the way to go. There were initially two options: fight the Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, or leave them being. Because of the threat to national security, the first option was chosen. The second choice to be made concerned the method: targeted killing,

33

(19)

19 covert operations, and ground war. The second and third are way more expensive and especially risky for American lives. As the technology and information position of the CIA was advancing, the use of drones was cost effective and carried a low risk profile. (Stern, 2015) And especially these arguments drew Obama over the line, as will be explained later; Obama´s aim was to reduce the American military and diplomatic footprint in the Middle East. Carrying out drone strikes allowed a serious drawback of American presence, whilst still being capable of carrying out counter terrorism operations effectively. (Lynch, 2015) (Gause, 2016)

So, the use of drone strikes was unilateral, but is explained. What coalitions did Obama create in foreign relations? Obama started speaking about multilateral cooperation from the start of his presidency. First of all, Obama offered a helping hand: ´to the Muslim world (…) a new way forward, based on mutual interests, and mutual respect´ and ´to those who cling on to power to corruption and deceit if they are willing to unclench their fists´.34 Basically saying, he was willing to cooperate with any nation willing to cooperate, therefore not excluding any countries. He preferred to do this through multilateral institutions as the United Nations. Most multilateral diplomatic/military operations under the Obama administration were carried out in the Middle East. Perhaps Obama’s largest project was the establishment of JCPOA, a large multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, on which I will elaborate in the next subchapter. A second big multilateral operation was the operation in Libya, in which America demanded and received extensive support from the EU, NATO, and Gulf countries. Another big multilateral success came after the Russian invasion of the Crimea. Obama, in cooperation with the EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, and a few other countries imposed sanctions on the Russian economy and individuals. It brought the Russian economy into decline, but also caused oil and gas prices to increase therefore also backfiring at America, at least the damage was not solely taken by America but also by its partners.35 Obama´s vision was also focused on strengthening multilateral institutions which he saw as very valuable for the globalization of world affairs. He mentioned multilateral institutions as the UN, World Bank, and IMF as crucial to developing poorer countries, which he saw as beneficial to America. Poor countries jumping on the train of globalization opened up opportunities for American business, peace, and democracy.36

3.2.4 Obama´s doctrine in the Middle East

As written in the paragraphs above, Obama´s general doctrine was based on American leadership (exceptionalism), multilateral approaches, bolstering democracies, and universal rights. Because of the overextension of American diplomatic personnel and military and Obama´s belief that the future for America´s interests would shift to Asia and the Pacific, Obama reduced America´s footprint in the wasp nest of the Middle East. (Lynch, 2015) However, he of course still had foreign policy goals in the Middle East. Lynch (2015) and Gause (2016) argued that Obama had very clear priorities in the Middle East. The first was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. His second objective was to diminish terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and later ISIS. (Stern, 2015) Third, Obama strived for humanitarian values/rights, freedom, and democracies in the Middle East. Basically as he

34

Obama, B. (2009), ´President Barack Obama´s inaugural address´,

35

Haddad, B. & A. Polyakova (2018), ´Don´t rehabilitate Obama on Russia´, Brookings Institute,

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/03/05/dont-rehabilitate-obama-on-russia/

36

Obama, B. (2016), ´Farewell address to the United States armed forces´,

(20)

20 did anywhere in the world: ´America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism -- it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.´37

Obama partly succeeded in his first priority: Trump has pulled the United States out of the JCPOA, a multilateral deal with Iran, so the deal did not hold.38 But what did Obama achieve? Obama first created a coalition which imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy; he did this (without going into technical details) because Iran was enriching uranium to a certain extent at which nuclear weapons are becoming within reach. Since Iran is ultimately an enemy of America (and Israel & Saudi Arabia) Iran was not supposed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The sanctions imposed by Obama, and supported by the EU, and countries as Japan and Canada proved effective: ´But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully.´39 Obama succeeded; it was under American leadership that a multilateral deal was brokered with Iran. The JCPOA was signed by the most important economic and political powerblocks in the world: The United States, EU, United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia, and Iran. Because of the American leadership, strong coalition, and peaceful method, the JCPOA can be considered as one of the best examples of the Obama doctrine. The JCPOA consisted of a deal which made sure that Iran mitigated and froze its nuclear program, while the other countries involved in the deal would relieve some of the economic sanctions which had held Iran in its grip for years. (Samore, et al., 2015)

Obama´s second objective in the Middle East was to diminish and defeat terrorist groups. Obama´s strategy was different than Bush´s strategy; Bush went in with massive ground forces, resulting in high numbers of casualties on both sides and enormous costs. As explained earlier, Obama opted for a smaller American footprint and adopted a strategy of drone strikes and special operations. This strategy did not require large amounts of resources, and needed less explanation to the American people of why American boys and girls were sent abroad. Did he succeed in diminishing especially Al Qaeda and later ISIS? One could argue that he did succeed: America killed Osama bin Laden in a special operation, many other Al Qaeda operatives have been killed through drone strikes, and Obama established a coalition to fight ISIS. Obama’s initial strategy against terrorism had failed, one could argue. Bush opted for the War on Terror, whilst Obama launched the Countering Violent Extremism Program in which he wanted to discredit terror organizations, remove breeding ground for terrorism, and strengthen local governance. (Stern, 2015) Ostensibly, this takes a softer approach but the increasing amount of drone strikes and the rise of ISIS after the start of the program also reveal its partial failure. In fact, Obama´s program was not one of fewer strikes and less use of

37

38

Crisis Group (2017), ´Saving the Iran nuclear deal, despite Trump´s decertification´,

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/saving-iran-nuclear-deal-despite-trumps-decertification

39

(21)

21 American power. American power projection increased, as Obama was even supporting a questionable Saudi led war in Yemen in order to conduct strikes on extremist insurgents of AQAP (Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula).

The third goal Obama wanted to achieve in the Middle East had all to do with the values of American exceptionalism: spreading human rights, freedom and democracy.40 Gause (2016) argues that Obama was willing to do this, even at the costs of losing long term allies. This applied to many countries, including at least Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The Arab Spring started in Tunisia and spread across the Middle East at rapid pace. Syria was and is one of the hot spots of the Arab Spring. Obama wished for a democratic transition in Syria. A statement from Obama hinted at his coming policy: The United States condemns the Syrian government´s murder and mass arrests of its people. (...) We stand by the Syrian people who have shown their courage in demanding dignity and a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way.41 This statement strengthens his exceptionalist view on the Middle East: human rights, freedom, and democracy should be spread and people not adhering should go. Whether the United States would intervene or not was still questionable. That changed when Obama imposed a qualitative ultimatum on the Syrian regime in 2012. If the Syrian regime would use chemical weapons on its civilians it would cross Obama´s and therefore America´s red line; exceptional America would step in on behalf of human rights, freedom, and democracy. A year later, Obama´s red line was crossed, but he took no military action. The Syrian regime was backed by Russia in the Security Council and therefore no UN mandate would be given for intervention. Besides, the Parliament of the UK, the proposed ally for the strikes, refused to join another war in the Middle East. This meant that all ingredients for multilateral action, which Obama saw as the only option for intervention since its own national security was not at stake, lacked. Next, Obama did not want to drag the United States into another bloody and costly war with American boots on the ground. Obama reasoned that this war could not be won, and would only cause greater chaos in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia (and the world, including officials in Obama´s administration), meanwhile counted heavily on an American intervention. Joe Biden, Obama´s vice president, stated that: ´big nations don´t bluff´ speculating heavily on American intervention. Saudi Arabia´s ambassador to the US Adel al-Jubeir told his superiors that the president was finally ready to strike: ´he will definitely strike´. When Obama said he would not strike, al-Jubeir reported: ´Iran is the new great power of the Middle East, and the U.S. is the old´.42 This twist shows a dichotomy in Obama´s reasoning. First, it draws against his principle that America would stand up for human rights, democracy, and freedom anywhere in the world. Second it was a huge blow for America´s credit (and therefore its exceptional status) that a country as Syria crossed America´s red line without consequences. On the other side, it is completely rational and in line with Obama´s doctrine. First, America could not count on international or multilateral support from other countries or organizations such as the UN Security council. Second, Obama realized that regime change and democracy could not be achieved from the skies with rockets,

40_{Obama, Barack (2011), ´Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa´,}

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa

41_{Obama, B. (2011), ´}_{Fact Sheet: "A Moment of Opportunity" in the Middle East and North Africa´, Online by}

Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/321409

42

Goldberg, J. (2016), ´The Obama Doctrine´, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/#5

Presidential doctrines in Saudi Arabia