Emma Ashford rejects the idea that Saudi Arabia is a “good ally” for the U.S.:

These tensions reflect a basic reality: Saudi Arabia may once have been a good ally, but today the relationship is toxic. Saudi actions are more often negative for U.S. policy objectives than positive. Rather than repairing the relationship, U.S. policymakers should reduce support for Saudi Arabia’s regional agenda.

In fact, even the use of the term “ally” to describe Saudi Arabia is inaccurate. Despite a long history of U.S. military support – including U.S. defense of the Kingdom during the first Gulf War – and cooperation on a variety of issues, there is no formal treaty alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

If we recognize that Saudi Arabia is a client rather than an ally, and if we can also acknowledge that it is a largely useless and reckless client, it becomes easier to understand that the U.S. doesn’t need to “reassure” the Saudis and indulge them in their worst instincts. The U.S. needs the Saudis much less than they need us, and that should be reflected in the relationship with Riyadh. The Saudi government is a dependent that causes the U.S. numerous headaches, destabilizes the surrounding region with their reckless actions, promotes dangerous fanaticism abroad, and contributes little or nothing to making the U.S. and our real allies more secure. The costs of the relationship are now much higher than any benefits it may produce, and the relationship should be downgraded accordingly. It should be possible for the U.S. and the Saudis to have a normal relationship without backing their policies to the hilt, arming them to the teeth, and helping them to whitewash their international crimes. The first step in having that normal relationship is to stop pretending that there is a vitally important “alliance” with the Saudis that needs to be maintained.