1. In assessing the successes and failures of American policy toward the GCC since 2008, one must
concede there will always be a shift in policy and perceptions every time there is a transition in
leadership as there was in the United States when newly elected President Obama took office on January
20, 2009. This marked not only the beginning of new leadership for the country, but a true shift in the
approach to governance and foreign policy by the administration. Any conclusions or judgements
regarding political advances or declines within the GCC during this administration would be wholly
subjective, and largely predicated upon one’s own predispositions and bias, as well as one’s position
within the dynamic. To that end, this brief seeks to provide an objective foreign policy examination
focused on the GCC, from the administration’s own position, and the diplomatic position of Gulf
Cooperation Council.
When measuring the effectiveness of policy, is important to acknowledge the structural, cultural, and
religious differences between the governments. The United States was founded upon Christian beliefs,
is led by an elected President, and supported by an elected legislative congress as well as an appointed
judicial court. Not a true democracy, but a Representative Republic based on the principals of
democracy. The GCC is a regional intergovernmental political and economic union consisting of all
Arab states of the Persian Gulf, except for Iraq and consists of six predominantly Muslim, Arabian
monarchies; Three Constitutional Monarchies including The Kingdom of Bahrain, The State of Kuwait,
and The State of Qatar, two Absolute Monarchies consisting of The Sultanate of Oman, and the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and one Federal Monarchy, The United Arab Emirates, comprised of
seven states, each with their own Emir.
The current policy shift was evident from the moment President Obama took office, citing in his
Inaugural Address a sentiment to the Muslim world stating that the US is seeking "a new way forward,

2. based on mutual interest and mutual respect." This statement alone would seem to indicate that the
President believed that the previous administration’s policies were a failure and needed to be redirected.
During his first one hundred days in office, the President embarked on what many in the media dubbed
“The Apology Tour,” in a journey across Europe, blaming America for its arrogance and sins of the past,
an unprecedented open criticism about the nation, on foreign soil. Believing that lowering America
would give him a clean slate, offer himself credibility, he expected to ride the surge of national
popularity to a wave of international popularity. Contrary to the intent, rather than create a position of
strength, one could argue that this could have been interpreted as a sign of weakness by allies and
adversaries alike, and as such, embraced only by those who sought to gain from any vacuum of power
unintentionally acquiesced by the President. The absence of demonstrators lead the President to believe
these positions were popular, and within a democracy, popularity equates to strength and power.
However, monarchies often rule in absence of popularity because their rule is not jeopardized or
influenced by the disapproval or dismay of their citizenry, thus apologies appear to be a sign of
weakness. As such, the need for approval is insignificant and trivial.
Unfortunately, time has seen the erosion of the relationship between the United States and the GCC.
Many factors have contributed to this including the GCC’s perception that the administration is week,
disengaged, and somewhat dismissive of their views and concerns. From the beginning, it was
understood the President was addressing Islamic Republic of Iran when he stated in his Inaugural
Speech “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know
that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench
your fist." Iran is viewed as an enemy of the Gulf States and fear of Iranian hegemony in the region
became of great concern from the outset through the administration’s willingness to negotiate with them.
Tensions have been highlighted by Iran’s aspirations toward nuclear weapons, as well as their support

3. for the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad. Now that the President Obama championed the
Iran Nuclear Arms Deal, at the lamented disapproval and indignation of the GCC, the US commitment
to the Gulf is within question. The threat of DAESH seems to have served to unite Washington and
Tehran, furthering the GCC’s concerns regarding the possibility of future American-Iranian cooperation.
The President also seems to have a conflicting assessment of the Arab Spring, viewing it as somewhat of
a natural revolution towards democracy in the region, whereas those in the Gulf see it as an imminent
threat to their security and further evidence of Iran’s influence. The President was more than willing to
negotiate with the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohammad Morsi, whereas the GCC (less
Qatar) committed billions in aid to the military backed Egyptian Government upon Morsi’s ouster, a
contradiction of values and policy. President Obama's policy of "strategic patience" when confronting
the threat of DEASH, and the perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war has created a greater
rift with the Gulf allies. It is perceived now by many of the GCC elites that the US policies in the region
are contributing to instability rather than securing it. Prior to the 2015 GCC Camp David Summit, in an
interview with Thomas L. Friedman of NY Times, President Obama criticized the GCC Monarchies, by
stating; “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from
dissatisfaction inside their own countries,” alluding that their largest threat to security was internal, and
their rule has generated alienation of its citizens, resulting in extremism and terrorism.
In summary, the Obama Administration views their policy of "strategic patience" in preventing the US
from becoming embroiled in, or further igniting regional hostilities in Syria and confronting DAESH as
a success, and they believe they have created stability in the region by securing a nuclear deal with Iran.
But the GCC views these policies as a disengagement and lack of understanding about their culture and
their position with regards to regional security, a contradiction of their values, a dismissal of their
strategic views, a lack of respect, and a complete lack of commitment to the Gulf.