There has been anxiety, and divergent strategic and tactical issues between GCC states on the one hand and the Obama administration on the other. Given the eroding trust between the two sides, precipitated by the US rapprochement with the GCC’s nemesis — Iran — over Tehran’s nuclear programme, a resetting of relations between the two sides was in order.

Therefore, it is appropriate for President Barack Obama to have extended an unprecedented invitation to Gulf leaders to US-GCC summit, in Washington and Camp David, on May 13-14. As Obama said it was “to discuss ways to further strengthen our security cooperation”. There is an urgent need for the Obama administration during the upcoming summit to reassure its GCC allies, and regain their trust and confidence. The administration’s promises and rhetoric should match its actions.

It is evident — in Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, from the GCC’s perspective — that there is a lack of resolve, coherent strategy and success. Mismanaging those crises, by employing wrong approaches, intervening late or half-heartedly, is not helping. The Obama administration has not produced a successful formula to deal with those crises. The doctrines of ‘leading from behind’ and ‘strategic patience’ have proven hollow. Therefore, the Gulf states are not reassured, especially when they see that their nemesis Iran and its proxies are relieved and even emboldened.

The Saudi-led GCC bloc’s assertiveness in launching Operation Storm of Resolve, followed by Operation Restore Hope against Iran’s proxies — Al Houthis and Saleh loyalists in Yemen — is a game-changer, with ramifications. This eventually should make the GCC states more reliable allies and worthy of the strategic partnership with Washington.

Surprising everyone in the region

Rounding up those transformational changes, was the major shake-up in senior posts by King Salman Bin Abdul Aziz, who keeps surprising everybody in the region and beyond, including the so-called pundits and Saudi Arabia experts. King Salman shook up the royal succession line. Stratfor Intelligence think-tank summed it up when it said: “By prioritising the country’s third generation princes, Saudi King Salman is hoping to guide the House of Saud through its most critical period since being founded in the 1920s…”

These bold changes in the senior positions — of the Crown Prince and the deputy Crown Prince, a first in Saudi Arabia — were prompted, according to Stratfor, because, “The kingdom finds itself in the most challenging period of its entire history. The Arab world is increasingly chaotic; Saudi interests are diverging with its erstwhile patron’s... and Saudi Arabia’s nemesis, Iran, is on the rise…”

These bold moves took place in the midst of war against Iranian-backed Al Houthi rebels in Yemen. There is no doubt that these seismic changes are pushing the Gulf region and the Middle East into uncharted territory. As the Washington Post put it, “This could stir hope and fear of a new political order in the Middle East.”

This new political order is reeling from US indecisiveness and incoherent strategy. A case in point is the contradictory policy adopted by the US administration in Syria.

In Middle of March 2015, US Secretary of State John Kerry, raised many eye-brows and angry comments over his remarks, when he refrained from making the usual demand for Bashar Al Assad to leave office. Then, shockingly, in a change of policy, he stated, the “United States has to ‘negotiate in the end’ with Al Assad!

“What we’re pushing for is to get him to come and do that, and it may require that there be increased pressure on him of various kinds.” This clearly contradicts America’s long-stated strategy vis a vis the Al Assad regime.

Following anger voiced by US allies, Kerry reversed the US position again. In public remarks at the State Department last week with the president of the Syrian Opposition Coalition, Khaled Khoja, Kerry insisted that the Al Assad regime in Syria “is a regime that has lost all sense of any kind of responsibility to its own people, and that is why there must be a transition from the Al Assad regime... The other part of the problem is that as Al Assad is busy destroying the country in his own interests, he is enabling and attracting terrorists to the country who are having a further negative impact on the region. That’s why he [Al Assad] has lost all legitimacy with respect to his ability to be able to be a part of the long-term future of the country.”

Washington’s incoherent Middle East strategy has prompted five bipartisan former US officials to write a paper at the end of April, titled: ‘Key Element of A Strategy for the United States in the Middle East’. The authors include two former national security advisers, Samuel Berger and Stephen Hadley; former US ambassador to Iraq and Turkey James Jeffrey; former Obama administration official and longtime peace envoy Dennis Ross; and Washington Institute for Near East Policy executive director Robert Satloff. They provided a road map for the Obama administration for navigating the Middle East minefield: The authors warned: “The United States needs to take action to prevent the collapse of the state system in the Middle East and counter the rising influence of both Sunni and Shiite extremists... Given the vital role that partnership with Sunni Arab states and peoples must play in this effort, Iran cannot be a putative ally.”

But will Obama, obsessed with a final Iran nuclear deal and his own legacy, heed this advice?

GCC states feel that the US approach needs to be revamped; there is a collective feeling that there has been a downgrading of their value, and appreciation of the value of Iran. The GCC states need to be reassured there is no selling out, or ‘grand bargain’ over the final Iran nuclear deal.

Tehran should not be given concessions. It does not deserve to be anointed the ‘policeman of the Gulf’. The final nuclear deal should not come at the expense of the GCC, and should not give Iran the upper hand to undermine and bully the Gulf states, allowing it to further foment sectarianism and meddle in Arab and GCC affairs.

Concrete action speaks louder than words when it comes to resetting strategic relations between the two sides. There have been encouraging statements and deeds lately from the Obama administration, like challenging Iran and beefing up US naval presence to thwart Iran’s bullying in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden. This is a good sign of standing up to Iran. But this has to be part of a comprehensive strategy, not a short-lived tactic.

 Abdullah Al Shayji is A Professor of Political Science at Kuwait University. He was the former chairman of the Political Science Department, Kuwait University. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/@docshayji