The recent decision taken by the OPEC+ cartel, with the full support of Saudi Arabia, to raise the price of oil has further exacerbated the growing rift between the Washington and Riyadh, and left many in the U.S.—especially those aligned with the Democratic party—furious. But, as Hussein Ibish explains, the reasons behind the kingdom’s decision have much to do with its economic agenda for the coming decades, and little to do with the priorities of its American critics:

The U.S. perception is that Saudi Arabia [has] sided with Moscow, given that high oil prices will strengthen the Russian economy against sanctions. The Saudis have also stumbled into U.S. domestic politics. Democrats in general have a negative view of Saudi Arabia, . . . partly rooted in the perception that the Saudis are aligned with Republicans, especially former President Donald Trump. They assume Riyadh is attempting to put its thumb on the scale to help Republicans in next month’s congressional elections and even set the stage for a Trump comeback.

The Saudis weren’t thinking about Ukraine—like many people in Asia and Africa, they don’t think in absolute terms of being pro- or anti-Russian—although that was certainly shortsighted. And it’s frankly narcissistic for Democrats to imagine that the Saudis are adjusting their national grand strategy around the upcoming midterm vote. Once the Trump administration declined to respond to the devastating Iranian drone and missile attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities in September 2019, any lingering sense that Republicans were the answer for Saudi concerns evaporated.

But the countries do still need each other. Only the U.S. can provide Saudi Arabia the security it requires. And the Saudis are the only plausible regional partner for the still-strategically crucial U.S. dominance in the waterways of the Persian Gulf, which constitutes one of Washington’s most potent forms of leverage over rivals like China.

After tempers cool, the U.S. needs to formulate a new security commitment to Gulf Arab states, including Saudi Arabia. This would effectively update the 1979 Carter doctrine—a pledge to rebuff any nation that attempts to dominate the Gulf by force—and respond to contemporary threats like the 2019 missile attacks. And that agreement, of course, would be contingent on the Gulf Arabs renewing their commitment to U.S. interests and Washington’s global as well as regional strategies.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.