The US-Saudi Arms Deal

Today in the New York Times, there is a report about a proposed arms deal between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. The deal is expected to be worth about $20 billion.

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.

The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.

[...]

In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.

Looking at this deal from a purely strategical perspective, it's an idea that makes a lot of sense. A good analogy is made by Ed Lasky, at the American Thinker. He compares this move to Reagan upping the arms ante against the Soviet Union in the 80s. Like the Soviet economy, Iran's economy is shaky at best. Basically, this move would try to bankrupt the Iranians via military spending. Bankrupting the Iranian government would certainly be a good step in American defense against potential Iranian nuclear weapons.

Looking beyond the strategic perspective, the deal gets a little bit messier. Saudi Arabia is a nation that is a major fuel for the rise of Islamic extremism throughout the Middle East. It has invested much of its oil profits in exporting its hardline Wahhabist version of Islam to anywhere and everywhere. Therefore, putting conditions on his arms deal may not be a bad idea. The US government should push the Saudis to stop allowing the exportation of Wahhabism as a condition for agreement on the arms deal.

However, as the article states, adding conditions to the deal could cause problems also. If the Saudi's and other Gulf states do not get an arms deal for the Americans, I'm certain that the Russians and Chinese will be more than willing to accommodate them. Russia and China won't allow messy moral conditions to get in the way of a multibillion-dollar arms deal. So, this possible arms deal presents an interesting and problematic dilemma.

Do we allow the arms deal to go through without conditions, or do we push for conditions on the arms deal? If we push for conditions, the Saudis and Gulf states could be supplied with arms by nations not so friendly to the US. As much I would like to see strict conditions of the arms deal, other potential suppliers make such conditions difficult.

Update 8/08/07: Bryan at Hot Air has an analysis of this arms deal that has a position somewhat similar to mine.