fter Saudi Arabia became the first country to reject a seat on the UN Security Council on Friday, speculation has been rife as to why.

Was it because of Israel and the Palestinian issue, or – more likely – because of frustration and anger directed at the US and other world powers over inaction in Syria and the recent rapprochement underway with Iran? And wouldn’t it serve Saudi interests to be on the council, influencing decisions, rather than on the sidelines? Perhaps the general dysfunction of the council, along with the blocking action by China and Russia preventing effective measures against Syria and Iran, have left the Saudis feeling they have nothing to gain from joining.

In the Saudi-backed daily Asharq Alawsat, Hussein Shobokshi wrote an article titled “Rejection is better than capitulation.”

It stated that “Saudi Arabia made the Syrian revolution one of the pillars of its foreign policy,” while Security Council members Russia and China “have both overtly supported [Syrian President] Bashar Assad’s regime, which continues its merciless killing of the Syrian people.”

Thus, accepting the position would have held Saudi Arabia back from pursuing its own agenda in Syria, by putting it at odds with the rest of the council.

Read this article in full at the Jerusalem Post.