Attacks on Saudi Arabia aren't America's problem
By: Rachel Marsden
PARIS — America’s top source of imported oil (43 percent of it) is Canada. As 
fellow NATO members, an attack on Canada would be considered an attack on the 
United States, and a response could include the use of armed force. As with any 
declaration of war, this would require congressional approval, but the bottom 
line is that Canada is the very definition of a U.S. ally in diplomatic terms.
The same doesn’t hold true for America’s second-largest oil supplier, Saudi 
Arabia (9 percent). There is no agreement or framework for the U.S. to respond 
to an attack on Saudi soil, let alone any obligation to do so. The Saudis are 
commonly referred to as American allies, even though they really aren’t in any 
official sense. They do, however, purchase U.S. weapons and represent 
significant oil imports, so they are trading partners and commercial allies. 
That’s about as far as it goes.
So when a Saudi oil facility was attacked from the air over the weekend, 
knocking out roughly half of its oil production capacity, U.S. President Donald 
Trump’s knee-jerk response (on Twitter, of course) was troubling.
“Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked,” Trump tweeted. “There is reason to 
believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on 
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe 
was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”
First of all, why is there only “reason to believe” that U.S. officials know who 
the culprit is when the region in question is one of the most surveilled on the 
planet? We should know who did it, right down to the precise trajectory of the 
attack. Let’s see the evidence.
And why would America, with all its spy technology and resources, be “waiting to 
hear” from the Saudis about who they decide to blame? Saudi Arabia already tried 
to get the U.S. to do its dirty work in Syria by offering to pay the bill for 
U.S. troops to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Why should the Saudis be 
trusted not to drag American troops into another pointless foreign war that 
primarily benefits them?
Regardless of who’s responsible for the attack on the oil facilities, the Saudis 
shouldn’t be dictating how America should “proceed.” Saudi Arabia isn’t 
America’s problem.
For all the weapons that the U.S. has sold Saudi Arabia over the years, the 
Saudis should be capable of handling the situation alone. Their American-made 
Patriot missile systems should have been able to deflect an attack. Russian 
President Vladimir Putin even joked about it at a press conference with Iranian 
President Hassan Rouhani and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss 
the conflict in Syria.
“[The Saudis] need to make one clever decision as Iran did, buying our S-300, 
and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to buy the most advanced S-400 Triumph air 
defense systems from Russia,” Putin said. “These kinds of systems are capable of 
defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack.”
America has flooded Saudi Arabia with weapons and military assistance. Placing a 
missile system in the paws of a panda bear would have been more productive. The 
Saudis have been employing America’s finest weaponry to fight the pro-Iranian 
Houthis for control of neighboring Yemen and have been losing to guys in 
flip-flops. It’s so embarrassing that American defense manufacturers should sue 
the Saudis for defaming their products.
According to a leaked French military intelligence report, although U.S. drones 
provide the Royal Saudi Air Force with targeting support, the Saudis still 
aren’t very good at actually hitting the targets. No kidding — the war in Yemen 
has become renowned for its astronomical number of civilian casualties.
So the U.S.-backed Saudis are getting their behinds handed to them by 
Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, and Trump has repeatedly turned a blind eye to 
it, even vetoing a congressional ban on weapons sales for Saudi use in Yemen.
The Yemen war has been treated like an opportunity to make bank on the sale of 
weapons and military assistance to the Saudis without any cost to America’s 
bottom line. Now that the Houthis have claimed responsibility for this latest 
attack on Saudi soil, the cost is evident. The bill has finally come due for 
U.S. involvement, and global oil prices have spiked. The lesson in this fiasco 
is that war doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Newton’s Third Law applies to global 
conflict: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The best thing Trump can do is cut off all military assistance and arms sales to 
the Saudis and focus on what he can control to America’s benefit: total North 
American energy independence.
COPYRIGHT 2019 RACHEL MARSDEN