The reactions of the Democrats to OPEC’s decision to reduce production have been heated and unobjective. They and their media speak of Saudi Arabia as “stabbing them in the back” and its “betrayal.”
They have also said that “friends” do not do this to “their friends” and that Saudi Arabia stands behind Moscow, not Washington.
This is the case despite the fact that, according to the New York Times, Saudi Arabia clearly laid out its position, demonstrating that cutting production is not a “strike” against Biden because the drop of the price of a barrel of oil to below 80 dollars is worrying. It could then slip further and reach 70, perhaps 60, dollars, which would undermine Saudi interests.
The paper adds that, though there has been no official declaration to the effect, it understands that Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries will increase production in the fall.
And so, the Democrats’ heated reactions espouse naive rhetoric and speak of Saudi Arabia “the ally” and “partner.” An American researcher tells me: “I wish (Twitter) did not exist; maybe the acrimony would decrease, and we would not see crazy comments.”
However, we are not talking about ordinary tweeters, but tone-deaf Democrats. In fact, the terms some of them used are pathetic, especially since their president and the head of their party had promised to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah,” and they are now talking about “friendship” and “partnership.”
This tension means that the administration is confused and doesn’t know how to solve this problem of its own making. It follows the dictates of the maniacs in the liberal left, whether with a climate protection plan or the continued prevention of domestic production.
The real battle for the oil sector is inside the US, not with Saudi Arabia or OPEC.
Now, critics of Joe Biden are beginning to say that Saudi Arabia is not the story here and that it is Biden’s domestic oil policies that pushed American producers themselves to distrust his administration. Worse than that is another story, also from the New York Times, that shows just how shaky and uncredible Democrats are.
The newspaper was told by Democrat Representatives Sean Casten and Susan Wild, from Illinois and Pennsylvania respectively, about a Bill to end the deployment of US troop and missile defense systems in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The two representatives say, and here is the story, that the decision was modeled on a step taken by the Republicans in 2020, when they demanded that Saudi Arabia cut production when it was low oil prices that concerned the Americans!
That is, Washington was asking Riyadh to reduce production in 2020 as the latter had been fighting a bone-breaking battle with Moscow, and today Washington is asking Riyadh not to cut production in order to further narrow partisan interests, and the prepackaged accusation is that Saudi Arabia supports Russia.
The ridiculousness does not end there. Indeed, commenting on the Democrats’ Bill, the New York Times says that it is a “statement,” no more, no less, “since Congress is out of session until the election.” That it is, it is nothing more than noise intended to please the electorate.
The most honest response, in the midst of this tension, is what Biden recently said about the production cuts: “There is a problem.” This is true. The problem is in Washington and in particular with the Democrats, who believe that foreign policy is merely about inflammatory statements, while politics is the language of interest.
And so, Saudi Arabia is not supporting Russia. Rather, it is pursuing its interests, and this is fair. The story is simple, as Bill Clinton’s famous campaign slogan went: “It’s the economy… stupid.”
