Biden chooses ‘lesser of two evils’ in navigating tough foreign policy

President Biden has pledged to have a foreign policy that advances the interests of the middle class. An example of this commitment is the administration’s support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s brutal invasion — a reflection of long-held American values. While Russian President Vladimir Putin was underestimating Biden’s ability to pull NATO and other allies together against Russia, Biden was busy working to isolate him. Putin miscalculated the resolve of democratic nations, led by the U.S., to respond to his egregious actions.

In analyzing Americans’ attitudes toward U.S. Ukrainian policy, Brookings Institution scholars Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse found that “majorities of respondents approved of most aspects of policies related to the war in Ukraine. Majorities had favorable views of these policies, regardless of whether they were perceived to be initiated by the United States, in general, or ‘the Biden Administration,’ more specifically.”

Inflation is a domestic problem with global implications. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated the circumstances that are causing inflation. It is a major concern for the middle class. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo has said the administration is considering lifting tariffs on certain key products from China, which could help reduce inflation; economic analysis indicates there would be relief, albeit not profound, if some Chinese tariffs were lifted. Doing anything that even remotely looks like it benefits China is politically perilous, but the president may be willing to accept the consequences of controversy if it helps the middle class. It is worth noting that Secretary Raimondo also expressed strong support for legislation that would increase U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, which would negatively impact China. 

Perhaps the most controversial initiative the president is considering is his upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia. The U.S.-Saudi relationship has become increasingly complicated since the October 2018 murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in which high-ranking Saudi leaders were implicated. The war in Yemen, which has caused a humanitarian crisis, and the United States’s backing away from Saudi strategy and tactics in that war are another example of how the U.S. is at odds with some Saudi policies. 

Saudi Arabia never has been a nation with democratic leanings. It is, as its name implies, a kingdom. The government has a close working relationship with its conservative Islamic clergy, which helps drive Saudi policy. At the same time, the U.S. historically has had a productive working relationship with the Saudi royal family, because it has been mutually beneficial.

The production and price of oil is central to U.S.-Saudi relations. The spiraling cost of gasoline, a key indicator of U.S. inflation problems and exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, must be managed. U.S. domestic oil production will increase, but there needs to be an immediate increase in global production if the cost of gas is to be controlled. Saudi Arabia is key to this effort. 

Nonetheless, it is important to point out that U.S.-Saudi relations are not based solely on oil production. For example, Saudi allies are normalizing relations with Israel and it would be beneficial to Israel and U.S. interests if the Saudis would follow suit. In addition, Saudi Arabia is a necessary hedge against Iran’s efforts to play a more assertive regional role. Finally, there needs to be pushback against the growing Saudi-Russia relationship.

Biden knows that a trip to Saudi Arabia and a meeting with its de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), could send the wrong signal about the administration’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. Biden undoubtedly will raise human rights concerns in his discussion with MBS. An argument can be made that a direct conversation with the crown prince is more effective than a cold shoulder. After all, engagement was part of the U.S.-Soviet relationship during the Cold War. The U.S. had to deal with the Soviets on important issues such as arms control, despite the Soviets’ abysmal human rights record. There was a measure of success in pursuing a human rights agenda with Soviet leadership, such as facilitating the emigration of members of the Soviet Jewish community.

Biden has been committed to promoting democracy and human rights throughout his career; the recent Summit for Democracy is an example. Building and preserving democracy is not an easy process. It often involves making tough choices, striking a balance between interests vs. values.

Cutting tariffs to China and reaching out to the Saudis are not without risks. There is no guarantee that a meeting will result in increased Saudi oil production, or that cutting tariffs on certain Chinese products will make a lasting difference in reducing inflation. But the president has shown a willingness to make tough choices. This is the right path to follow to ensure his foreign policy is favorable to the middle class. 

William Danvers is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School and worked on national security issues for the Clinton and Obama administrations.