"...We have no item for "bribery" in the foreign operations budget bill which is why we turn to the Saudis to do it on our behalf.."

In WPR/ here

"Whenever I ponder some of the challenges U.S. foreign policy faces today in Afghanistan, Somalia, or Yemen, I inevitably return to a passage in Bob Woodward's "Veil," describing how Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, after an attempt to assassinate him had failed, was persuaded to restrain his followers in Lebanon from launching attacks on U.S. interests:

The Saudis approached him and asked whether . . . he would act as their early-warning system for terrorist attacks on Saudi and American facilities. They would pay $2 million cash. Fadlallah accepted, but said he wanted the payment in food, medicine and education expenses for some of his people. This would enhance his status among his followers. The Saudis agreed. There were no more Fadlallah-sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans.

.... This is not only a possible strategy for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The principles can be applied to other foreign policy problems as well. We don't want Russia to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran? Moral pressure on Moscow is likely to fail, because it is a business decision. If another buyer came forward to buy out the contract, however, the Russians might very well play ball.

There's already precedent for this kind of approach. In the late 1990s, the United States did not want Cyprus to deploy a similar system on the island, because Turkey was concerned about the threat these missiles might pose to control of its airspace over southern Turkey. The contract ultimately went through, but the missiles were deployed elsewhere -- in Greece. Russia didn't lose any money on the deal, and the strategic goals of the United States were achieved. Along these lines, there have already been rumors that the Saudis are now considering tempting Moscow with a massive purchase of Russian weaponry as a way to compensate Russian businesses that would lose out should the Kremlin block the sale of sensitive military components to Iran.

The same logic holds if we want China and India....

We have no line item for "bribery" in the foreign operations budget bill (which is perhaps one reason we have traditionally turned to the Saudi monarchy to engage in such activities on our behalf)......

Certainly payments are not a long-term solution. Allies brought under your banner through bribery are less reliable than those who align with you out of sincere belief and commitment. But such payments are a necessary tool of statecraft -- especially in getting solutions in the short term. They represent a first step, usually to get a pause in fighting -- after which they need to be followed up with effective policy. The epitaph of the Sunni awakening in Iraq may end up being "What was achieved with the dinar was lost by the politicians," as the temporary calm it produced did not lead to major political breakthroughs.

Vladimir Putin once famously stated that he was not going to treat foreign policy as a bargaining session in the bazaar. But in reality, that's often how coalitions are forged and compromises reached. It's time to think about foreign affairs as a marketplace again, not all of the time, but at least when nothing else will work. That means being prepared to spend what currency is needed to make the sale. And sometimes nothing works as well as cold, hard cash.