Saudi Arabia has suggested the U.S. asked it to wait a month before it cut oil production, defending a move the White House has heavily criticized as helping Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Such a delay in the OPEC+ supply reduction could have staved off price rises at American pumps until after the midterm elections, although the Saudi Foreign Affairs Ministry did not specifically mention the midterms in its lengthy and abrupt statement late Wednesday.
Rising fuel costs are a key driver of inflation, which hit 8.2% in September and shows no sign of slowing down to remain top of mind for many Americans as Democrats hope to hold on to their slim majority in Congress.
The White House pushed back against any suggestion that it made a politically motivated request; National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said in a statement early Friday that it was “categorically false to connect this to U.S. elections.”
“It’s always been about the impact on the global economy and impact on families at home and around the world, especially as Putin wages his war against Ukraine,” she added, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It’s the latest exchange to punctuate a delicate relationship between Washington and Riyadh. President Joe Biden initially called the kingdom a “pariah” before he travelled to the kingdom this summer to fist-bump Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a much-criticized overture to increase global oil production.
As the de facto head of OPEC+, Saudi Arabia rejected the appeal. The alliance instead announced this week that it would cut global supply by 2 million barrels, drawing heavy criticism from Biden and other Democrats, who saw it as siding with the Kremlin. As an oil-exporting giant, Russia an OPEC+ member, would benefit from rising prices.
Some Democrats suggested the U.S. re-evaluate its entire relationship with the kingdom, with Biden vowing “consequences” for a decision many viewed as a boon to Putin.
Saudi Arabia hit back Thursday, releasing a long, pointed statement in which it rejected suggestions the cut was “politically motivated,” saying the decision was reached by consensus and made to “protect the global economy from oil-market volatility.” It said “attempts to distort the facts” were “unfortunate.”
The kingdom had “clarified through its continuous consultation with the U.S. administration that all economic analyses indicate that postponing the OPEC+ decision for a month, according to what has been suggested, would have had negative economic consequences,” the statement added.
The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, first reported this week that the U.S. requested a delay.
A link was flatly rejected by the White House, which suggested some OPEC countries privately opposed the move. John Kirby, the National Security Council’s coordinator for strategic communications, said Saudi Arabia was trying to “spin and deflect” on the issue. “We presented Saudi Arabia with analysis to show that there was no market basis to cut production targets, and that they could easily wait for the next OPEC meeting to see how things developed,” he said in a statement. “Other OPEC nations communicated to us privately that they also disagreed with the Saudi decision, but felt coerced to support Saudi’s direction.”
Like many other Western governments, Washington has long sought to balance reliance on Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest oil producer, with holding it to account over human rights.
The crown prince’s supporters say he has modernized the kingdom, diversifying its reliance on exporting fossil fuels, allowing women to drive and opening up movie theatres for the first time in decades. But human rights groups say that, if anything, the country has entrenched its position as one of the world’s worst human rights abusers, a brutal theocracy that oppresses political dissent, women and the LGBTQ community.
The Saudis say the decision to cut oil supply was about stabilizing the global market, but the U.S. sees it as OPEC+’s effectively siding with Russia. As the Kremlin suffers heavy losses of troops and territory, it has been accused of using energy as a weapon against Europe — which has long relied on Moscow’s fossil fuels — and the wider world, which is dealing with inflation partly sparked by the war.