Snub or no snub?

AMERICA is all too aware that most of its Gulf allies are unhappy at the deal it is negotiating with Iran to curb its nuclear programme. Arabia's kings, emirs and sheikhs say that any agreement will only encourage the Shia power’s meddling in their Sunni-majority region; perpetuating wars and hastening the breakdown of crumbling states, and stirring up dissent in more stable ones. They also fear that once controls are relaxed in a decade’s time, as the deal provides, the entire region may be plunged into a nuclear arms race.

So most observers interpreted Saudi Arabia’s announcement on May 10th that King Salman bin Abdel Aziz will not attend a summit between America and the six members of the Gulf Co-operation Council on May 13th and 14th as a blatant snub to Barack Obama.

King Hamad bin Khalifa of Bahrain, a Saudi satellite, quickly followed King Salman’s withdrawal, while the ailing leaders of Oman and the United Arab Emirates were never expected to attend in the first place. All told, only two of the six heads of state will be attending: Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani of Qatar and Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah of Kuwait. This for a summit for which Mr Obama has set aside two days—one in Washington and the other at Camp David—to assuage the fears of Arab leaders.

Few people buy the official line that King Salman is staying in the capital to oversee a five-day humanitarian ceasefire in Yemen, where the kingdom is waging war against the Iranian-backed Houthis. The ceasefire is due to come into force on May 12th, though few believe it will either happen or last. Riyadh is awash with speculation, rumour and gossip as to why the monarch withdrew. Just days ago he met John Kerry, America's secretary of state, to discuss the agenda; the White House then announced he would dine with Mr Obama on the eve of the summit. Indicating that they did indeed sense a snub, some administration officials told reporters that no expression of regret had been received after the reversal.

The Saudi kingdom does have many gripes with America, from the deal with Iran to America’s failure to strike Syria’s Bashar Assad in 2013 after he crossed America's self-declared "red line" on the use of chemical weapons. In the past few weeks it has been further riled by America’s gentle admonishment, in private, of its war in Yemen, where aid agencies warn of a humanitarian catastrophe. The Americans, says one diplomat, have told the Saudis that this cannot be an “open-ended war”. The Saudis ask how else they are supposed to respond to advances by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in a chronically unstable country with which they have a long and hard-to-protect border.

But others suggest the refusal to attend is not intended as an insult to America. “It is not like Western leaders boycotting the Russian victory parade,” says one Riyadh-based commentator, referring to the celebrations in Moscow on May 10th to mark the end of the second world war. There is, he says, simply not enough to discuss to warrant the long trip for 79-year-old King Salman, whose is not in the best of health.

Indeed, although Mr Obama is likely to offer additional arms and security guarantees, he is unlikely to grant a mutual-defense treaty, as some GCC members would like, because that would require Senate approval. And he cannot meet all the Gulf requests for advanced weaponry, because congressional legislation requires that Israel must maintain a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbours.

Moreover, Mr Obama may find tougher negotiating partners in the other two members of Saudi Arabia's ruling triumvirate who will attend in King Salman's place: Muhammad bin Salman, the king's much-promoted son, who holds several posts including defence minister; and Muhammad bin Nayef, the crown prince and interior minister, who has a close relationship with the West. In truth, these two powers behind the Saudi throne are arguably better interlocutors than the king himself.