Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The kingdom maintains an arsenal of tools to retaliate with, including curtailing official contacts, pulling billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, and persuading its close allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to scale back counterterrorism cooperation, investments and U.S. access to important regional air bases. "This should be clear to America and to the rest of the world: When one GCC state is targeted unfairly, the others stand around it," said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, an Emirati Gulf specialist and professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University. "All the states will stand by Saudi Arabia in every way possible," he said.
When Saudi Arabia wanted to pressure Qatar to limit its support for the Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, it spearheaded an unprecedented withdrawal of Gulf Arab ambassadors from Doha in 2014 and essentially isolated the tiny gas-rich nation within the GCC. When Sweden's Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom strongly criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record last year, the kingdom unleashed a fierce diplomatic salvo that jolted Stockholm's standing in the Arab world and threatened Swedish business interests in the Gulf. Sweden eventually backpedaled. On Wednesday, the Senate and House voted to override President Barack Obama's veto of the Sept. 11 legislation, with lawmakers saying their priority wasn't Saudi Arabia, but the 9/11 victims and their families.
Chas Freeman, former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and ambassador to Saudi Arabia during operation Desert Storm, said the Saudis could respond in ways that risk U.S. strategic interests, like permissive rules for overflight between Europe and Asia and the Qatari air base from which U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are directed and supported. "The souring of relations and curtailing of official contacts that this legislation would inevitably produce could also jeopardize Saudi cooperation against anti-American terrorism," he said.
Fahad Nazer, an analyst at intelligence consultancy JTG and a former political analyst at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, said he'd be surprised if Saudi Arabia cut back counterterrorism cooperation since it's been beneficial for both countries. Still, relations with Washington had already cooled well before the 9/11 bill sailed through both chambers of Congress. The Saudis perceived the Obama Administration's securing of a nuclear deal with Iran as a pivot toward its regional nemesis. There was also Obama's criticism of Gulf countries in an interview earlier this year, despite their support for the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
MORE
A new bill passed through the US Congress is creating a storm - with President Barack Obama and the CIA warning of its dire consequences. In passing the law that allows legal action against Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 attacks, Congress over-ruled a veto by Mr Obama for the first time in his presidency. So why is it so controversial, and what are its wider implications?
What is the bill?
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was brought by the families of 9/11 victims, to allow them to sue any member of the Saudi government suspected of playing a role in the attacks. In practice, the bill permits civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism.
The ruins of one the Twin Towers smouldering on September 11, 2001
Why would the families want to sue?
Fifteen of the 19 terrorist who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudi nationals, and it has long been rumoured that senior Saudi officials were in some way linked to the attack. Official inquiries since 2001 have found there is no evidence of either the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funding al-Qaeda. However, a previously classified document earlier this year revealed "while in the United States, some of the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government". While the document did not provide any direct evidence of top-level Saudi involvement, it did raise new questions.
What is a veto?
A veto is one of the most significant tools an American president has at his disposal, and has been used more than 2,500 times in America's history to prevent the passage of legislation. According to the US' House of Representatives, even the threat of a veto can bring about changes. Congress can overrule a veto however - but only if it has the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate. This has only happened on 110 occasions since 1792. Despite this, it is unusual for a president in recent years to get through two terms without congress overruling a veto. George W Bush had four overturned, while Bill Clinton had two during his tenure. The last presidency to go unchallenged was that of Lyndon B Johnson.
Why didn't Obama want the bill?
The Senate voted to override Obama's veto regarding U.S. citizens suing Saudi Arabia for damages resulting from the 9-11 attack. You almost gotta laugh that the only rat left on the ship is good old Harry Reid, senate minority leader. The House is expected to vote the same way.
Part of the fear President Barack Obama had about Congress' new law to allow families of terror victims to sue foreign governments is now becoming a reality in Saudi Arabia. Just one day after both houses of Congress voted to override Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) -- pushing it into law -- the United States' longtime Persian Gulf ally began bristling. Also Thursday, some lawmakers who voted for the override slowly began realizing that the controversial bill might bring some unintended consequences -- reluctantly giving the president free license to say, "I told you so."
Various news reports Thursday said the new law's got some in Riyadh rethinking the country's relationship and support for the U.S. government -- an uneasy but strong alliance that's been the root of all kinds of tension for Saudi Arabia over the last few decades. "JASTA is a wake up call for the Saudis, that it is time to revisit the concept of the alliance with the United States," Saudi political sociologist and writer Khalid al-Dakhil said in a report by The New York Times. Some reports Thursday said Riyadh might also cut off some of its airspace it allowed the Pentagon to use for military operations, as well as threatening to disrupt billions of dollars it contributes to the American economy.
Obama rejected the bill out of concern that it could make things dicey for U.S.-Saudi relations, hamper cooperation, complicate foreign policy matters and weaken national security. "The JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am returning it without my approval," the president wrote in his veto message. "JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners. "By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues ... at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions."
Many in the Saudi government reacted to Congress' override Wednesday with anger and disappointment -- some of whom feel betrayed after decades of the Persian Gulf nation standing by the United States on a great number of issues, some of which have seriously weakened Riyadh's own security in a region where most governments oppose Washington's policies. Though JASTA doesn't specifically target Saudi Arabia, it's most immediate impact favors relatives of 9/11 victims who desire to take civil action against the Saudis over purported ties to some of the 9/11 plotters. "Because the bill has been tied so strongly to 9/11 and Saudi Arabia, it helps feed this perception that Saudi Arabia is somehow responsible for Islamic terrorism," Saudi businessman Faisal bin Farhan told the Times. "And that to me is more worrying than any direct effect of the law itself."
MORE
Stephanie DeSimone filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. Her husband, Navy Cdr. Patrick Dunn, was killed when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. DeSimone, then known as Stephanie Dunn, was two months pregnant with the couple's first child. DeSimone's lawsuit, which was first reported by Bloomberg, alleges that the Saudi government provided material support to Al Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden. She is seeking unspecified damages for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who commandeered passenger flights to use in the attack were Saudi. On Wednesday, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly overrode President Obama's veto of the bill, which allows families sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurred inside U.S. borders.
President George W. Bush hugs Stephanie Dunn DeSimone, widow of Lt. Col. Patrick Dunn, during the Pentagon Memorial dedication ceremony on Sept. 11, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
The following day, Republican leaders acknowledged the law may have been flawed, with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., saying "there may be some work to be done" to make sure it doesn't lead to U.S. service members overseas being sued. The White House had warned that it could have a chilling effect on Saudi Arabia's cooperation with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Senior national security officials also argued that it could trigger lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.
But top lawmakers said the White House didn't press those warnings until it was too late and the popular bill was already barreling its way through Congress. Other lawmakers acknowledged that they didn't pay much attention to the bill.
9/11 Widow Sues Saudi Arabia days after Congressional Override | Military.com
Jason Rezaian, who was working a the Tehran correspondent for the Washington Post when he was taken captive in 2014, filed the civil suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking an undisclosed sum from the Iranian government. Rezaian was born in Iran, but grew up in Marin County, Calif. He returned to Iran as a young adult, and lived there with his Iranian wife, working as a journalist. He holds both U.S. and Iranian citizenship. His wife, Yeganeh Salehi, also a journalist, was taken captive along with Rezaian in 2014, but was released on bail after 71 days. The lawsuit, which is allowed under a hostage provision in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, claims Tehran used Rezaian as leverage during the protracted negotiations between Iran and a U.S.-led coalition last year regarding Tehran's nuclear program.
Rezaian says in the lawsuit that he was psychologically tortured during his time in captivity and is suing for "severe personal injuries and other irreparable harm suffered as a result of Defendants' unlawful acts of terrorism, torture, hostage taking, and other torts." "For nearly eighteen months, Iran held and terrorized Jason for the purpose of gaining negotiating leverage and ultimately exchanging him with the United States for something of value to Iran," it adds. Rezaian was finally released the same day the nuclear deal, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for supervised restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program, was implemented.
The suit also claims that Iran had no legal authority to detain Rezaian since he was fully accredited and registered as a journalist with the Iranian government. "Plaintiffs' nightmare began on July 22, 2014, when armed agents of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forcefully entered the home of Jason and his wife, Yeganeh Salehi, and held them at gunpoint," it states. "Agents proceeded to ransack their apartment, take them hostage, and transport them in the dead of night to Evin Prison on the outskirts of Tehran -- a notorious facility where hostages and other political prisoners are kept in deplorable conditions, brutally interrogated, and subjected to physical distress, psychological abuse, and in the words of the U.S. Department of State, 'cruel and prolonged torture.'"
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act bars civil lawsuits against foreign nations, except in instances of hostage-taking, torture or terrorist acts by nations deemed state sponsors of terror by the U.S. State Department. The lawsuit says Iran fills all three requirements in this case. "For 544 days, Jason suffered such physical mistreatment and severe psychological abuse in Evin Prison that he will never be the same," the suit says. "He will require specialized medical and other treatment for the rest of his life." Neither Rezaian's wife nor The Washington Post are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Washington Post reporter sues Iran for 18 months of 'torture' during captivity
