-1

US considers itself as pro-democracy, even intervene other countries internal affairs with excuse of democracy. On the other hand in middle east dictators are US allies.
Maybe one can consider Saudi Arabia's government as The worst dictatorship in the world. Even the name of country is in the name of monarch. The name in Arabic is Al-Mamlakah al-Arabiyah as-Sa'ūdiyah, which means the Arabic country related to al-Sa'ūd ( the name of father of monarch is Abdulaziz Al-Sa'ūd).

Questions:
1- What profits Accrued by US from this alliance?
2- How US politicians Justify this alliance to people of America and world (what excuse)?
3- Is there a study about statistic of how many people are satisfied with this alliance? what about special groups of people like students?

3
  • 1
    @user1 how is it different? Apr 25 '16 at 15:42
  • case1 considers Saudi Arabia's human right issue; my question is about democracy. case 2 is close but different: I zoom on Us not west. + my 2nd and 3rd questions are completely different.
    – user 1
    Apr 25 '16 at 16:54
  • 1
    It seems that the answers to the second potential duplicate would be the same kinds of answers that you'd get here to your first and second subquestions (it's not about profit but avoiding loss; see 1). Why do you think that limiting it to the US would produce a different answer? Your third question is more specific and might be answerable. However, if the answer is no, it might be hard to prove the absence.
    – Brythan
    Apr 25 '16 at 17:51
3
  • What profits Accrued by US from this alliance?

USA gets to prevent Saudi Arabia from becoming a part of, or a vassal state of, a powerful OPEC neighbour (Iraq or Iran), which, while less rich, can dominate KSA militarily.

That, in turn, keeps the oil price lower, by keeping an independent money-hungry Saudi dynasty with a control of a wide oil spigot, meaning Iran or Iraq cannot by themselves enact an effective oil supply squeeze

That's pretty much it. The actual, real, choice available to USA is not between a nice democracy controlling Arabian Peninsula vs the oppressive monarchy. It's between oppressive monarchy of House of Saud, and the oppressive regime of (Saddam Husein|Ayatollahs: pick one) controlling it. In the real, second choice, the house of Saud is a much better outcome to USA, geopolitically.

How US politicians Justify this alliance to people of America and world (what excuse)?

Largely, they don't. Most Americans are extremely unaware of either the nature of KSA internal politics; or US's exact relationship with the regime, even after 9/11. And those few who are aware either already oppose the relationship (and thus would not buy the justifications, anyway), or have realpolitik views as outlined in my answer to your first question and don't need justifications above that.

Additionally, for the last 28 years (Bush 1, Clinton x2, Bush II x2, Obama x2) USA had presidents who pursued foreign policy that was wholly independent of what the country's popular opinion wanted, in large part due to their views of the supremacy of executive power, no matter their actual policy positions.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .