The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill passed by the US Congress earlier this week, has put further strain on US-Saudi relations. Relations between the two countries, derided at times as a marriage of convenience, are possibly going through their toughest test yet.

The Saudi foreign ministry quickly condemning the bill calling it a matter of “great concern”. Saudi officials, in the most forceful of diplomatic speech possible, went on to warn of the “dire strategic implications” for the United States.

The bill, which was introduced six years ago, would have been seen as another blow to the delicate relations between Washington and Riyadh. The kingdom will be forgiven for thinking it has become a political football in Capitol Hill. Earlier this month a bill to block arms sales to the Kingdom, which is experiencing unprecedented military and economic challenges, was blocked by the US Senate.

The repeated chiding of the Saudis by the US Congress would have been acutely felt in Riyadh, especially since the US pushed through a nuclear deal with Iran despite their opposition. Relations between the two countries have since been on a downhill spiral. The deal, which came into effect in 2015 lifted most of the sanctions against Iran and has greatly enhanced Tehran’s power in the region. For the Gulf monarchies, Iran’s expansionism has been a major point of irritation and they claim that the lifting of sanctions has empowered the mullahs in Tehran to further destabilise the region through their interventions in Syria.

Supporters of the bill have dangerously underestimated its implications, choosing to put populism ahead of national interests, say its opponents. President Obama, whose veto was overruled for the first time in his eight years as president, said that it sets a “dangerous precedent”. Obama, who also opposed the bill to block arms sales, said that the JASTA bill was an example of making decisions with eyes on the next election and not with the intention to do the right thing.

The ramifications of the bill, however, are less about Saudi-US relations and more about the kind of precedent it sets within the international system; JASTA has many far-reaching and unintended consequences.

For its part, Saudi Arabia may take reactionary steps to protect its near $1 trillion by pulling its investment out of the country. Will any country invest their enormous wealth in a foreign country if it didn’t have the confidence that their investment will be protected? Prior to the bill being passed, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir told American lawmakers that the kingdom would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they are in danger of being frozen by American courts.

There are far greater implications than the manner of the Saudi response to the bill. Obama himself was keen to point out that his refusal to support the bill had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se but to avoid a scenario “in which we’re [US] suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we’re doing all around the world, and suddenly finding ourselves subject to the private lawsuits in courts where we don’t even know exactly whether they’re on the up and up, in some cases.”

The fact that this could potentially be counterproductive for America is a concern amongst heads of senior US agencies. Shortly before the Senate vote, CIA Director John Brennan said: “The principle of sovereign immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity.”

“If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation’s officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States – and few institutions would be at greater risk than CIA.”

The fear that the US has more to lose and less to gain from this bill is genuine. No country is in greater need of sovereign immunity than the US, which has military bases all across the globe and carries out more operations abroad than anyone else. “It is easy to imagine the United States being sued abroad as a result of the military and other foreign aid it gives to many nations,” argue Professors Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith.

In their article for the New York Times they state: “If the United States reduces the immunity it accords to other nations, it exposes itself to an equivalent reduction in its own immunity abroad.” They also point to the fact that a great deal of US foreign operations can be traceable to American financial and material support for states and groups that are carrying out acts of terror such as the aid to Israel that is said to result in displacements or killings in the West Bank and Gaza, or to United States-backing rebels who are accused of attacking civilians in Syria. In both cases the US might face lawsuits abroad for aiding and abetting terrorism.

Many would welcome such a prospect; new legal channels to prosecute state terrorism may not be such a bad thing, but it has the potential to severely undermine international norms.

The likelihood that the JASTA bill will gravely endanger American interest may in the end limit its scope. US lawmakers have already expressed doubts about the legislation they forced on President Barack Obama, saying the new law allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could be narrowed to ease concerns.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.