The storm of criticism of Obama following his interview entitled “the Obama doctrine” in The Atlantic magazine has blown over. The interview included among many things criticism of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and his unhappiness about the dependency of the GCC countries on the US.

Obama next month will visit Riyadh to meet GCC leaders and this means we may blame each other but we are indispensable. Jeffery Goldberg the author of the article did not put ‘the Obama doctrine’ in brackets but the whole issue was about the ‘non-interference’ policy and the policy that solving problems with dialogue is much better than using force. If this is the core of the Obama doctrine then he is not unique in this but it is a policy sweeping Europe also. Obama’s successor is also expected to adopt the same policy.

However Obama has been extreme in his implementation of this policy especially in Syria where he refused to take action against the regime when it crossed the red line he had drawn and used chemical weapons in Ghouta in August 2014. Obama retreated at the time his allies were ready to intervene in Syria and end the conflict and his reluctance caused their anger.

It is important to deal with this policy as American and Western strategy in general as well as the ‘imperialism mood” have retreated following changes in voters’ moods and the rise of young leaders far from the generation of post-World War II. It is enough to compare Europe’s level of hesitation to intervene against ISIS which kept threatening them even before the Paris attacks and last week’s attacks in Brussels with President Regan’s intervention in Libya in 1986 when he accused the Libyan regime of killing two American soldiers in a night club in Western Berlin.

Change in policy is an indispensable matter which develops over time not only due to changes in politicians. But this policy change can be influenced by the ability to convince interact and take initiatives like the principle of Custodian of the Two Holly Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia based on “decisive initiative”. It is a principle which does not contradict Obama’s doctrine. Salman’s principle crystallised a year ago at the time when the first Saudi warplane attacked the bases of the Houthis and the ousted President Saleh to restore legitimacy in Yemen. The principle was described then as ‘independence of regional powers in their decision making’.

Strong regional powers like Saudi Arabia can lead and change at least their history. The US will respond and follow the strong regional leader as long as he is independent enjoys legitimacy and the support of his people and has determination to take decisive actions. The success of decisive storm in Yemen will make it a principle applicable to other places and this is what is happening in Syria since the Kingdom announced its readiness to intervene using ground forces.

Salman’s principle ends Obama’s claim that GCC countries are dependent on US because no one is waiting for the US to take action on behalf of them but they are leading and taking actions. What is needed from Obama’s country as super power is to remain an ally to protect them in the UN Security Council and provide them with necessary logistic and intelligence supports.

Saudi Arabia did not ask Obama to send ground troops to Syria but to take a strict stance against the Iranian interventions in the region and to help the GCC states to end the chaos and terrorism. There is another chance for Obama in the coming weeks to get rid of the stain of retreat and hesitation otherwise he will be described as a former passive president. The Syrian crisis is going through a very critical situation that is not different from the chemical attack on Ghouta two years ago. The Geneva talks were concluded a few days ago with an announcement by the UN Envoy De Mistura that the UN would begin to enforce a mechanism for transitional government. The move is still being rejected by the regime through ridiculous political manoeuvres in a bid to divert the move that required it to disband the regime and to establish a new system.

The regime will never agree to accept the move unless the US makes a direct intervention similar to what former US President Bill Clinton did on two occasions in the Balkans. The first time was in Bosnia when Serbs were bombarded until they surrendered and complied with the demands of the Dayton Accords Ohio in 1995. The second time hardliner Serbs were shelled in Kosovo war in 1999.

Saudi Arabia wants this type of real seriousness when dealing with the regime in Syria to make it accept the resolutions of the International Community. This will not be possible as long as Obama keep exercising the policy of “non-intervention”. Even the negotiations and peaceful solutions that are preferred by the US President need force to continue.

The principle of Salman provides an exit for Obama. Saudi Arabia does not want a “free ride” at the expense of US. Saudi Arabia took on its responsibilities in Yemen and Syria and it is ready to shoulder more accountability to support a peaceful political change in both countries. The US is required only to support its regional alliances and to take the initiative on the issues they have agree upon. The good thing is that Saudi Arabia supports neither dictators nor any sectarian system in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is not imposing even its own agenda on the people of both countries as Iran is doing with the blessings of Obama. Saudi Arabia just wants to enforce UN resolutions that were passed with majority votes during its sessions for their interests.