Add it all up….The Supreme Ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, stabbed our President in the back, and backs Putin in his latest round of TERRORIST ATTACKS against Ukraine. Salman condones a hostile nation taking land from other nations, and committing atrocities – in the name of religion and greed! Salman knew Ukraine was seeking to become a member of NATO when he met with Biden – and had secret talks with Putin, his ally. THEY agreed to put the squeeze on the U.S. and our NATO allies by decreasing oil production – as winter approaches. Salman does this to put the Republicans in power, because they BACK PUTIN, like they backed the Insurrectionist. Did Mohammed bin Salman ROOT for the Traitors? Was he on the phone with the Trump family?
Democratic senator threatens to freeze weapons sales to Saudi Arabia over support of Russia
Strong remarks by chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee indicate possible sea change in US policy
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
@skirchyMon 10 Oct 2022 20.15 EDT
The congressional backlash against Saudi Arabia escalated sharply on Monday as a powerful Democratic senator threatened to freeze weapons sales and security cooperation with the kingdom after its decision to support Russia over the interests of the US.
Washington’s anger with its Saudi allies has intensified since last week’s Opec+ decision to cut oil production by 2m barrels, which was seen as a slight to the Biden administration weeks ahead of critical midterm elections, and an important boost to Russia.
But the remarks by Senator Robert Menendez, who serves as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, indicated a serious possible sea change in US policy.
“I will not green-light any cooperation with Riyadh until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine. Enough is enough,” he said.
Another Democratic senator and a member of Congress – Richard Blumenthal and Ro Khanna – expressed similar sentiments in an opinion piece for Politico that also accused Saudi Arabia of undermining US efforts and helping to boost Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The Saudi decision was a pointed blow to the US, but the US also has a way to respond: it can promptly pause the massive transfer of American warfare technology into the eager hands of the Saudis,” they wrote.
“Simply put, America shouldn’t be providing such unlimited control of strategic defense systems to an apparent ally of our greatest enemy – nuclear bomb extortionist Vladimir Putin.”
While similar proposals have failed to pass in the past, Blumenthal and Khanna said “intense bipartisan blowback to Saudi’s collusion with Russia” meant that “this time is different”. Their piece followed Chris Murphy, another Democratic senator, last week calling for a “wholesale re-evaluation of the US alliance with Saudi Arabia” and Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democratic congressman, introducing legislation to withdraw US troops from the Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.
In his statement, Menendez suggested he would be willing to make exceptions and did not support an outright ban on all support, saying he would block all arms sales and security cooperation “beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend US personnel and interests”.
A spokesperson for the senator did not immediately respond to questions about the nature of those possible exceptions. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Menendez and others’ statements suggest that Democrats in Congress are poised to take a tougher stance against Saudi Arabia than the White House has publicly said it is willing to accept.
Joe Biden previously threatened to cut off all US support for Saudi offensive operations in Yemen, but a damning report released earlier this year by the government accountability office, which serves as a congressional watchdog, found that the Biden administration’s move to classify weapons as offensive or defensive was largely meaningless.
Since vowing to turn Prince Mohammed into a “pariah” because of his alleged role in approving the murder of US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Biden changed course this summer and met with the Saudi heir as part of a broader attempt to improve Saudi-US relations.
That outreach was broadly criticised as having failed last week after the OPEC+ decision.
William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, commended Menendez’s statement but said that to have “maximum impact”, the cut-off ought to cover “all weapons transfers, spare parts, and maintenance to the Saudi military”.
“In addition, a suspension should be tied not just to Saudi Arabia’s ties with Russia or stance on the Ukraine war, but also to pressing the Saudis to refrain from airstrikes on Yemen and to fully lift its blockade on that nation as a step towards good faith negotiations to end the conflict,” he said.
Khalid Aljabri, whose father, Saad, is an exiled senior Saudi intelligence official, said the “weaponization” of oil was likely to have a broader impact on the US relationship with Saudi, as ordinary Americans would probably begin feeling the ripple effects of Saudi’s decision at the gas pump.
Aljabri said it was not clear whether congressional anger seemed more potent than the Biden administration’s own stance because Democrats had more to lose ahead of November’s critical midterm elections, or whether the White House and Congress were playing a game of “good cop, bad cop” in attempts to influence the kingdom’s policies.
“Either way, they tried appeasement and fist bumps and it didn’t work. [Mohammed bin Salman] only understands the language of power. It is high time the Biden administration acts like the senior partner in this relationship,” he said.
Where will it all end? The conflict in Ukraine appears further than ever from resolution. Nuclear threats, mass graves, the sense that both sides are “all in”.
It’s our job at the Guardian to decipher a rapidly changing landscape, and report the facts in sober fashion, without getting carried away. Our correspondents are on the ground in Ukraine and Russia and throughout the globe delivering round-the-clock reporting and analysis during this fluid situation.
We know there is no substitute for being there – and we’ll stay on the ground, as we did during the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the first Russo-Ukrainian conflict in 2014. We have an illustrious, 200-year history of reporting throughout Europe in times of upheaval, peace and everything in between. We won’t let up now.
Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s fearless journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. We’d like to invite you to join more than 1.5 million supporters from 180 countries who now power us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.
Unlike many others, the Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or political influence. Reporting like this is vital to establish the facts: who is lying and who is telling the truth.
And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of the events shaping our world, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their ability to pay for it.
Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future