US May Offer Middle East Countries Nuclear Commitment

Take us to Derpcon 1. In what may be one of the dumbest ideas expressed out loud in US foreign policy history, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Obama Administration officials are floating the idea of extending the US nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.  Such an agreement would obligate the US to take part in a nuclear conflict in the Middle East as well as make the US a legitimate target for nuclear weapons by future belligerents.

The nuclear commitment is being discussed as the US pledges more weapons and training to the Sunni Arab states some of which are using already obtained US weapons in Yemen against Shiite Houthis rebels. The US weapons sold to Saudi Arabia have been linked to a bombing campaign in Yemen that is killing numerous civilians.

The idea of extending the US nuclear umbrella comes amidst negotiations with Iran over ending the country's nuclear weapons program. Iran's adversaries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, are fretting over the negotiations and are unconvinced any deal would actually stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The Saudis reportedly even threatened to try and purchase a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

Obama administration officials are promising a major strengthening of U.S. defense commitments to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies, possibly including a nuclear commitment to their security, in an intensifying effort to win their support for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. 

Officials say they hope to reassure nervous gulf Arab states by providing more military aid and training to their defense forces, and by making more explicit commitments to help them repel external attacks. The administration is studying whether to make any nuclear assurances, though officials emphasize no decision has been made.

So much for Senator Corker's theory on President Obama trying to get the US out of the Middle East. Not only is Obama not taking his chips off the table he is putting the US all in if such assurances are made - if the US is on the hook for a nuclear war the impetus to meddle in Middle Eastern politics is that much stronger.

The upside of such an agreement would, in theory, be that the US would have a robust existential commitment to nuclear non-proliferation in the region. Of course that commitment would make it difficult to support the only power in the region currently with active nuclear weapons, Israel.

What is the US getting out of these increasingly costly relationships in the Middle East again?

Senator Corker Accuses Obama Of Trying To Get Out Of Middle East

As far as accusations go this is one of the ones an American politician wants to be on the receiving end of. Senator Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) has publicly accused President Barack Obama of trying to get America out of the Middle East.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Senator Corker said he believed President Obama's grand strategy was to get America out of the Middle East entirely. Corker speculated that this would be achieved by the US empowering Iran to provide a balance to Sunni power in the region while distancing itself from Israel which would allow the US to remove itself from the middle of the conflict and ultimately the region as a whole.

Sounds like a pretty good idea.

“It’s become very evident as to what the administration is doing relative to the Middle East,” Corker said. “The administration’s view is that in order to extract ourselves in the Middle East, we need to move away from our relationship from Israel and we need to more fully align ourselves with Iran, so we create this balance in the Middle East between Iran and its influence and the Arab Sunni influence in the region.” He added: “That seems to be our strategy. And that’s what’s creating all of this turmoil in the region.”

Unfortunately, as anyone who has watched a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting will easily deduce, Corker has no clue what he is talking about.

To credit President Obama with even having a grand strategy is foolish., let alone one so profound. From the divisive drone program in Yemen, to the Libyan nightmare, to arms dealing with the new Egyptian junta, to perpetual 180s on who the enemy in Syria really is, Obama has proven that there is no "plan" just a series of ad hoc PR campaigns - what one commentator called "rice pudding."

That being said, if Team Obama wants to adopt a grand strategy for the Middle East it would seem prudent to give the one Corker laid out serious consideration.