On the one hand, I wonder how Americans will stomach an influx of foreign citizens finding the United States at fault for blowing up a hospital or a wedding party and demanding compensation.
On the other, I'm very much for disincentivizing the United States from committing acts fairly described as terrorism.
On the third hand, I think these systems of disincentives are best manifested as some form of policy, not lawsuit.
On the one hand, Americans aren't going to hear about it. Did you know that Iran is suing the US for two billion dollars already?
On the other, this is mostly Congress' way of signaling to the Saudis that they're sick of their bullshit. Saudi Arabia is weak, they're apportioning off Aramco, and the writing is on the wall. I don't remember where I read it but something like $18 per bbl of Saudi crude goes directly to supporting their welfare state - you know, the one they try to relieve pressure on by exporting young adventurers to places with Jihad. In the past two weeks we've bounced from $47 to $44... take $18 out of that and the profit fluctuation on Saudi oil is about 15%. In the past two weeks.
On the third hand, I think that policy tends to follow the path of least resistance, be that legislation, de facto practices or parallel process. What's important is that Al Capone went to jail, not that he went to jail for tax evasion.
Know why Obama vetoed it? 'cuz he's the one guy that doesn't have to worry about re-election and this way he has no "legacy" problems. If he was running for a third term they'd hang him by that veto.