Much has been written and said in recent months about what some — myself included — have described as a “strain” in US-Saudi relations. Those who subscribe to this view have focused on what appears to be a philosophical difference between the administration of President Barack Obama and the Saudi leadership. While one of the pillars of the "Obama doctrine" appears to rest on the principle that the United States should avoid becoming militarily — or perhaps even politically — entangled in any Middle East conflict unless it poses a serious and imminent threat to its security, the Saudis appear to have adopted a very different if not completely opposite foreign policy posture.

What some have called the “Salman doctrine” appears predicated on the idea that the unprecedented tumult that has gripped the region requires Saudi Arabia to play a leadership role. It holds that the Saudis must fill the vacuum left by the United States by adopting an assertive foreign policy to bring a modicum of stability to the region, one that is not averse to the use of force when necessary. While political differences between the two governments should not be dismissed, bilateral relations between the two countries have not endured for over seven decades by happenstance. A plethora of mutual interests will ensure that Saudi Arabia and the United States will remain important allies for the foreseeable future. This is especially the case in the old “oil-for-security” equation, which had sustained the relationship for decades. It has been reformulated in light of the shale oil revolution in the United States that made it less dependent on oil imports and as the Saudi armed forces's military capabilities have improved significantly in recent years.

For starters, the two countries continue to support each other in the military campaigns that each of them is leading. Not only has Saudi Arabia been participating in the ongoing US-led airstrikes against the strongholds of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Syria, but it has done so in a very public fashion. Saudi Arabia’s public support for the campaign — one of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud’s own sons flew a mission in its early hours — added an crucial air of international legitimacy to the US effort. Although this contribution has decreased in recent months in part because of Saudi Arabia’s focus on its own campaign in Yemen, its participation in the US-led coalition has made it much more difficult for critics to portray it as a Western “crusade” against Muslims. Saudi Arabia’s participation bolstered the claim that the campaign was the international community’s response to IS’ onslaught against humanity. For its part, the United States is providing vital intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi-led campaign against the Iran-supported Houthi rebels and the allies of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. In addition to supporting the UN resolution that lent international support to the Saudi effort by holding the Houthis responsible for the instability and violence in the country, the United States has provided Saudi Arabia with advisers to provide assistance in minimizing collateral damage.

The two countries also cooperate very closely in the fields of intelligence gathering and counterterrorism. It is well documented that Saudi Interior Minister and Crown Prince Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef provided the United States with vital information that enabled US security officials to prevent a potentially devastating terrorist attack in 2010. The two countries have also worked in tandem since 2004 to curtail terrorism financing by designating entities and individuals as terrorism supporters.