°®Âþµº

The backlash against Trump's shocking apologetics for Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi has been powerful.

Most Americans, including a significant number of Republicans, do not support a foreign policy based solely on cynical self-interest. They also object when the president makes it clear that if the price is right, the United States will allow an ally to get away with murder.

Trump is not, of course, without his supporters. In a recent New York Times op-ed, Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute and Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies .

It's easy to assail their position. Trump's argument is that the world's sole superpower is somehow dependent on Saudi Arabia, that abandoning MbS would lead to a collapse of the world economy, and that strategic US objectives in the region would be hopelessly compromised.

Therefore, argue Trump and his supporters, it is naive to pursue a case against MbS and better to be satisfied with the charges being brought against lower level Saudi officials.

The argument, of course, doesn't pass even the most cursory examination.

What does "accountability" mean?

Many in Congress and the mainstream media are demanding "accountability" from Saudi Arabia. They reject "business as usual" and insist that there must be justice for Khashoggi. Very well, but what does that mean in practice?

One option is to cut off support for the ongoing Saudi onslaught in Yemen. But US support for that slaughter should never have started and should end immediately, regardless of Khashoggi. The United States has already sent the message that it would have continued to ignore Yemen if not for Khashoggi's murder. To break from Trump's policies, it is imperative to break from that message as well.

Although stopping the war in Yemen is an immediate imperative, if that's the only change in policy, there will be more Yemens

Although Trump has engaged in embarrassing rhetoric, on a policy level, all he's really done is double down on long-standing US policy. Every US administration since Harry Truman has based its Middle East strategy in large measure on ensuring the stability and security of the Saudi ruling family. Even during the tense Obama years, arms sales to Saudi Arabia went up to .

Trump's boast of a record arms deal with the Saudis is just smoke and mirrors. His claims about anywhere between $110 and $450 billion in sales and investment  as are his claims of "hundreds of thousands" of jobs coming from Saudi money. Whatever Trump's interest in covering for the Saudis may be, it is not American jobs and the US economy.

Trump's spectre of China or Russia stepping in to capture US business with Saudi Arabia is illusory as well. Neither if those countries has even a fraction of the capacity the United States has to manufacture weapons and, even if they could expand that capacity, virtually the entire Saudi arsenal is US-made or based on US designs.

According to a by William Hartung of the Center for International Policy, "The preponderance of US equipment used by Saudi forces also makes it difficult for another supplier like Russia or China to replace the United States as a major supplier to Riyadh.

It would take decades for the Kingdom to wean itself from dependence on US equipment, training and support, and new equipment might not be easily interoperable with US-supplied systems."

So, what does it mean to hold Saudi Arabia accountable?

Is the US willing to stop or suspend arms sales, as Germany and Denmark have over Khashoggi and as Norway, Switzerland, Finland, and Greece did over the bloodshed in Yemen? Neither the United States nor the Saudis' second biggest arms source, France, appear ready to do that.

There might be action to stop the war in Yemen, but there will be no fundamental change in arms supplies to Saudi Arabia. Although in the House in late October to end all arms sales and military support to Saudi Arabia, it is not going to pass, given the lack of enthusiasm for such a measure in the Senate, including among many Democrats.

Eliot Engel, who will chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee when the Democrats take control of the House next month, ,

"I think that we cannot have business as usual right now; we've got to take some time to show our annoyance, but I don't think you slam the door and you say 'never,' because in diplomacy, in foreign policy, there are always shifting alliances. And I think that Saudi Arabia is an important player in the region, and the United States needs to work with them."

The Trump administration clearly wants MbS to stay. Its various Middle East ambitions - for " greater cooperation with Israel despite the ongoing denial of Palestinian rights, and a new era of Saudi-led militarism in the region - depend on the crown prince.

Whatever Trump's interest in covering for the Saudis may be, it is not American jobs and the US economy

If a more progressive policy is to take hold, the mainstream discourse must be injected with more specific policy demands. Calls for accountability are not enough, for they would impose only a minimum penalty on the Saudis. Instead, the list of demands must begin, not end, with stopping the horrors in Yemen.

Framing the demands

US policy toward Saudi Arabia is at least as fundamental to regional US strategy, as US policy toward Israel, perhaps even more so. If support for the Saudis is anathema to US values - and it is - changing that policy is not as simple as standing on one issue. Although stopping the war in Yemen is an immediate imperative, if that's the only change in policy, there will be more Yemens.

This line of thinking provided the foundation for Barack Obama's strategic vision in the region. Obama hoped that his deal with Iran would allow a rational successor more leeway to reduce the US footprint in the region.

Without a nuclear umbrella, Iran might still be a regional power that could not be ignored, but it would never be an existential threat to the Saudis or to Israel.

An Iran that kept to its part of the nuclear deal would, it was hoped, develop a stronger interest in regional stability as its economy regained health, leading to a balance of power and comparative calm. Despite the often exaggerated or even false claims of the deal's detractors, there is no compelling evidence suggesting that this strategy wouldn't have worked over the long haul.

Of course, the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran would continue, and without a resolution of the Palestinian issue, Iran would remain the great bogeyman in Israel, and vice versa.

But the military tensions could lessen on both fronts if the United States did not persistently view Iran through a Saudi or Israeli lens. If the United States was, instead, encouraging diplomacy and compromise, searching for areas of mutual interest rather than mutual anger, a sort of cold détente is hardly out of the question.

Indeed, this was precisely what Saudi Arabia and the Netanyahu government feared about the Iran deal. Both the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and the structurally democratic Netanyahu government rely on the spectre of Iran to help maintain their domestic support. They did not like the idea that Obama was trying to change the regional game in a manner that could lead to real problems for them domestically.

The history of US foreign policy is one of cynical alliances

On the other hand, the United States cannot simply abandon the region, even those parts where it has played a destructive role. Trump's policy in Palestine demonstrates that a vacuum will only lead to even worse oppression of the powerless by the powerful, and Syria illustrates what happens when the United States backs off but other external powers do not.

A progressive US policy: Start with Saudi Arabia

The history of US foreign policy is one of cynical alliances. Important US allies include both relatively democratic states where human rights are respected and some of the world's most ruthless dictatorships. That has been a common theme in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The current moment allows for a new foreign policy standard that demands that American allegiance be based on respect for international law and human rights norms.

That standard should be used with a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, or a democracy like England. US interests would not, of course, be ignored. But a progressive foreign policy platform must also include the following agenda items:

• Respect for international law, including international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL).

• Accession to international treaties the United States has so far refrained from either signing on to or ratifying, beginning with the Rome Statute, which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC).

• An increase in the foreign aid budget. It is currently around one percent of the overall US budget, somewhere around $50 billion annually. Bringing it to two percent of the budget under a mandate that none of that increase goes to military and security support could significantly expand the positive impact of US aid.

• Establish an office under the joint auspices of the Departments of State and Defense which would constantly monitor all US military and security aid for compliance with the Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Leahy Law, and all other relevant US laws.

• Create a joint House and Senate working group to monitor relations with recipients of US support, whether military or civilian, to ensure compliance with international law and human rights norms.

• Reassert Congress as the sole US entity permitted to declare war and pass stricter limits on a president's ability to deploy US armed forces or support the war effort of an ally without congressional authorisation.

These steps can help limit US entanglements with authoritarian figures like MbS, Jair Bolsonaro, or Rodrigo Duterte. They also limit the damage when the US public elects their own authoritarian figure, like the current occupant of the White House.

These are lofty goals. Attaining them will take some time, especially given the dearth of trust and confidence in the United States that Donald Trump has magnified so intensely with his violation of the Iran deal and his general dishonesty and lack of commitment to long-standing allies.

But this is what it will take for the United States to engage in the world through diplomacy and partnership rather than the military and fiat.

The current moment allows for a new foreign policy standard that demands that American allegiance be based on respect for international law and human rights norms

In an October speech, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) described a progressive foreign policy :

"In order to effectively combat the forces of global oligarchy and authoritarianism, we need an international movement that mobilises behind a vision of shared prosperity, security and dignity for all people, and that addresses the massive global inequality that exists, not only in wealth but in political power.

Our job is to reach out to those in every corner of the world who shares these values, and who are fighting for a better world.

That's a huge task, but not an impossible one. In order to pursue it, the United States cannot afford to turn a blind eye to Saudi crimes, to ignore the denial for decades of the rights of Palestinians, or to continue to demonise Iran.

It's not enough to demand an end to the war in Yemen, although that's the starting point. Otherwise, there will just be more Yemens, more Gazas, and more Khashoggis while US politicians dance around reality.


Mitchell Plitnick is a political analyst and writer. He is the former vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and former director of the US Office of B'Tselem.

Follow him on Twitter: 

This article was republished with permission from .

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of °®Âþµº, its editorial board or staff.