Is this new news, or have I just never noticed it before?
The president absorbed withering criticism for visiting Saudi Arabia in July and giving a fist bump to its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman....While no specific announcements were made during his visit to Jeddah in July, American officials said at the time that they had an understanding with Saudi Arabia that it would increase oil production in the fall and thus lower gasoline prices heading into the crucial congressional elections.
The Saudi decision to do the opposite last week in defiance of American entreaties was a blow to Mr. Biden and opened him up to further criticism even from fellow Democrats who argued that Saudi Arabia should be punished. Three House Democrats announced legislation requiring the removal of American troops and defensive systems from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Retaliating against Saudi Arabia for taking Russia's side in the Ukraine war seems fine to me. Hell, retaliating against Saudi Arabia just for the lulz seems fine to me. Whatever you have in mind, count me in.
But retaliating against them because they declined to help Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections? I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time and I'm just naive about it, but it hardly seems like a legitimate use of foreign policy pressure. Anybody care to explain this?
Wait, what am I missing ? Where does it say in the paragraphs you quoted or the article you referenced that the retaliation was because of lack of help in the upcoming elections ? Of course it's obvious that the Saudis decreasing their oil output does not exactly help the Democrats this election cycle but the stated reason is quite clearly that Biden feels the Saudis reneged on what they supposedly said last summer. Works for me. We should have chilled our relationship with these feudal misogynist backwards looking thugs a long time ago.
I agree. It seems clear that cutting oil production now is against the interests of the United States of America, and of Americans of any party leaning. Is Kevin joking? Anyway, doesn't it seem like the Saudis, in choosing to do this now, are trying to boost the Republican Party in the upcoming elections? Do we as a country tolerate crap like that now?
Yes I think it's sloppy writing by the NYT. It would have been more accurate to write "officials said at the time that they had an understanding with Saudi Arabia that it would increase oil production in the fall. This of course would have lowered gasoline prices heading into the crucial congressional elections."
It would also have hurt the Russian economy, which would have been in American interests. It would be perverse to expect presidents to refrain from good foreign policy measures because they would also be domestically popular.
Yeah, I don't see any indications from anyone in Congress or the administration that they're retaliating over politics, and they don't give any source (anonymous or otherwise) as to who gave that interpretation. Sounds like it's NYT reading between the lines.
On the other hand, if Biden had an arrangement that he would do a friendly visit and in return they would increase oil production and they reneged on their part of it, it's understandable that the administration would be upset.
Oh, I see "thus lower gasoline prices heading into the crucial congressional elections" . But that's the inference of the writer not anything Biden or anyone else in the administration said.
How about punishing the saudi's for fucking our and the world's economy. The fact that improving the US economic situation is also a goal of democrats and something republicans oppose just tells you something about the values of dems vs the gop. Jeez, kevin. between this and your weird outrage about someone talking about white men, i've started to wonder about you and your underlying motivations/biases.
Take a deep breath, Kevin, and let's distinguish between what the reporter(s) is interpolating and what sources might have said. I would be all but certain that no "American official" affirmed that the tacit agreement was to lower oil prices for the specific purpose of affecting the election. That isn't something officials do, on or off the record. Isn't it more likely that the sentence tying lower gas prices to the election is the reporter's own juxtaposition?
Similarly with the next paragraph. That's clearly written in the omniscient reporter voice to characterize how the MBS decision has affected Biden politically. It's the repertorial assessment, and all it says is that other Ds are unhappy that the oil isn't flowing and some want Biden to drop the hammer on the Saudis.
The first quoted graf is a little sloppy but I think it'd be an enormous stretch to read it as saying there was any kind of stated deal or quid pro quo. Everybody knows the US wants lower oil prices, and it's also been a consistent official American position for decades. Everybody also knows that lower oil prices make American voters happier, and every administration has wanted lower oil prices. Nobody has to say it explicitly, it's so baked in.
And it's also the case, imho, that the Saudis did us a dirty, and that it could have a positive effect for the gop. In a similar way, Netanyahu was very openly cozying up to the gop and in-your-facing the Ds. Neither of these is diplomatically correct, and in both cases I think Ds have a right to be mad.
To think, though, that this would be the only reason Biden is pissed would be to misread the grafs in question, and to misread Biden, imo.
I'm confused about this whole brouhaha. When did the Ukraine invasion start? Was it AFTER Biden visited Saudi Arabia with the explicit purpose of getting the Saudis to commit to their oil production, to ease the world-wide pressure created by Russia's wanton aggression?
Why no, now that you mention it, that visit was just a few months ago. It was when Russia had abandoned their initial (unfeasible) strategy of a quick decisive victory, and switched to a long-term attrition strategy. A strategy that had as one of its key elements the squeezing of the West energy supplies to get us to weaken (or abandon) our support of Ukraine.
That Saudi commitment in July to ease our energy shortage was/is a key component of our strategy for keeping the Western "alliance" singing from the same songbook. So you don't have to look for a sinister reason for doing the right thing.
Republicans, Putin and the Saudis --filth of a feather.
Well said.
The irony. You do realize that if America was energy independent (like those stupid, evil Republicans wanted), Russia and the Saudis would have a lot less power globally and essentially no sway over the US.
Democrats fighting against energy independence is empowering the Saudis and Russians, but that's fine though, cuz ... Democrats?
Man, must take a lot of effort to keep this "logic" straight...
America is energy independent.
Don’t cloud the issue with facts. /s
Thought exercise. If America were energy independent, what difference would it make what the Saudi's do? Why are we dipping into oil reserves?
I'll wait...
Regardless of how much we produce, we pay oil companies the world price for oil. Same as everyone else. It's a global market
If we insisted on paying less, those companies would sell their oil somewhere else.
Consider the definition of "we" in this case. It does not include oil company owners.
As long as Americans pay "world price" for oil, anything tending to decrease world supply will have the effect of pushing up world, hence American, prices regardless of where the US gets its oil. It's really simple.
First of all, thanks for the responses. Makes sense. I get it.
I guess my point would be, are we or are we not sitting on giant oil supplies and making them difficult to access? Is that, or is it not, making oil more expensive?
It's like housing. I get that houses are really expensive to build, but much of that isn't costs associated with building the houses. If we decided we needed houses, we could reduce taxes on labor and supplies that go into building a house. We could lower permit prices. We could lessen environmental impact studies (please note, I like zoning, green space, and organized building - I'm not in favor of building whatever, wherever. Just making the point that it's REALLY expensive).
My argument would be that housing and energy are REALLY important. Limiting them has kingmade the companies that are better at playing "ball" and restricted the markets.
Finally, and this is a bit off topic, but why do so many liberals hate drilling in the US? I'd have to think that we are as environmentally friendly as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. (could definitely be wrong here). Wouldn't it be better for us and Canada to produce oil as cleanly as possible for the environment? It's not like not using American oil is making us not use oil at all.
Eh, whatever. It's gonna be what it's gonna be...
If oil firms want to drill more, they can drill more. Here in Colorado, one county (I think it was a county) in oil country took back a number of oil leases that had gone unused for several years. Remember, drilling/production is based on what makes them the most money, NOT what is best for consumers or the country. Same with pump prices.
Apropos of nothing, it's interesting how the Middle East is sliding into the Republican camp. First was Israel, with Netanyahu campaigning for that former guy; then after Jared's Big Peace Deal between the Israelis and a bunch of Arab countries that were never at war with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the biggie, is also falling into line with the Qpublicans.
Seems like an excellent time for the United States to start reducing aid and military support to those two right wing regimes. Particularly since their actions are increasingly abhorrent to US ethics and foreign policy.
Oh, and I agree. The "journalist" responsible for that report is putting the standard Qpublican slant on things and assuming stuff not in evidence. But that's Journo 101! The Right is right!
Ah. The so-called "liberal" New York Times. Should have known.
Saudi's stage an "October surprise" and Biden is at fault for being angry about it???
I read this more as a personal affront to Biden, based on a verbal pledge he received from The Murderer of Americans. It shouldn't have surprised anyone that The Murderer of Americans stabbed Biden in the back.
Naturally, Democrats have Biden's back and Biden, recognizing that he got stabbed in the back, responded with a tacit threat.
Nothing will come of it, for the same reason why Israel can continue to fail to work towards a 2-state solution and not lose funding (https://bityl.co/F0uV).
But you know, since Friday's peak, WTI has been declining. If the Feds make another hike, oil prices will probably keep dropping through next year.
And we all know what strengthens and insulates US foreign policy re oil: A 100% renewable energy economy.
The Murderer of Americans, or as I like to call him, Jared's Sugar Daddy.
All energy prices are high. Europe is going to be in for a cold winter because of lack of Russian gas so they will try to buy petroleum products instead and oil price would rise without production cuts. Cutting production isn't just hurting Democrats, it's hurting billions of people throughout the world. There is a political dimension, but there is plenty of reason to be mad at Saudis otherwise.
Getting oil production to the market during a Russian embargo and a war seems like a good thing to have tried regardless. Are we to understand that if there weren't an election coming up Biden wouldn't have cared about oil and gasoline prices? That doesn't seem likely. They thought they had a deal and the Saudis reneged. Screw them.
If the American voters want to put the republicans back in power, they don't need the excuse of gas prices. They were going to do it anyway. Bring it on.
Mr. Drum kind of makes this affair sound similar to Trump's Ukrainian quid pro quo... arms for dirt on hunter. Oops.
Biden's version? Arms for oil. The deal is off!
When the Russians declined to help the Democrats and instead helped the Republicans in/for 2016 were you similarly chill?
Not that it helps in the short term, of course, but the lesson, as it has been for decades, is to get off carrying so much dependence on oil. I don’t think it’s possible to spend enough money and sweat to develop alternative energy.
On a side note, didn’t the industry used to preach drill, baby, drill so we wouldn’t be at the mercy of the Saudis? Are they really not realize that when we produce all the oil need we still don’t control the price?
Are they really not realize that when we produce all the oil need we still don’t control the price?
There are market problems related to capital costs and the time horizon needed to make investments in domestic energy financially viable. I don't recall all the details, but apparently in previous oil price hike/slump cycles, losses were incurred (yeah, I know, it really makes one want to weep in sorrow when ExxonMobil makes 13.9 billion in profits instead of 18.7 billion).
In any event, there's been talk of using strategic petroleum reserve as an incentivization mechanism to ensure that domestic producers maintain sufficient capacity to increase oil production when there are shortages or OPEC cutbacks. Not sure of the progress on that. But from what I understand, the reserve is currently depleted, so Biden doesn't have much wriggle room at present.
"But from what I understand, the reserve is currently depleted"
This is yet one more Republican/right wing talking point, unless one considers being at about 70-75% of where it was when Biden took office the equivalent of "currently depleted".
Weak-sauce trolling, Kevin.
Or do you want US Americans to have to pay more because Dudebro bin Salman has his reasons?
All presidents want things to go well, internationally, in part because trouble abroad can hurt them politically. That's a desirable alignment of the national interest with a president's political interest.
But the decision of a foreign power to deliberately influence a US election (which is clearly what this production cut was about) should outrage all Americans, of any political stripe. And sure, that's a pipe dream when it comes to Republicans: the national interest for them is always subordinated to partisan concerns.
I hope Biden makes the Saudis pay dearly. But I doubt he has the means.
@Jasper
It looks like the price of crude has been dropping for awhile. Interest rates are up. Recession is looming. Honestly, it's probably not the worst time for them to scale back on production, politics aside. Maybe I'm missing something?
I expect the official line is that we want the Saudi's to provide more oil
(a) to help Europe and
(b) to limit the windfall to Russia.
There's probably enough truth (desire, and likely outcomes) in this claim that it's foolish to look for a party politics based interpretation, even if there is some of that in the back of the administration's mind.
The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is a simple one. Since 1945 the U.S guarantees the security of the country in return for cheap oil, not just for the U.S but for the entire West. Yes, the Saudis have economic interests but those interests would mean nothing without the U.S weapons that protect them. And since they've decided those interests are more important, the U.S. should cutoff such arm sales and basically say to the Saudis you're on your own, go buy old Soviet junk for surplus sales. And if (fingers crossed) the current demonstrations in Iran bring down the government, the Saudis and the other Gulf State would truly be fucked.