Follow us on social

google cta
President_trump_meets_with_israeli_prime_minister_benjamin_netanyahu_49452465091-scaled

How Trump’s arms deals risk more conflict in the Gulf

Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s denials, sale of the F-35 to the UAE appears to have been at least tangentially part of the recent Israel-UAE deal on normalizing relations.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The announcement last week of an agreement to take steps toward normal relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates seemed like a foreign policy coup for two leaders — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — who desperately needed one. But since then, more details have emerged about the agreement, and the long-term implications, and perhaps even viability, of the deal are looking dimmer for the besieged leaders.

On Monday, a report emerged that Netanyahu had agreed to an American sale of F-35 fighter jets and other highly advanced weapons to the UAE as part of the agreement. Despite the prime minister’s vehement denials, the reporter who broke the story — Yedioth Ahronoth’s Nahum Barnea, one of the most respected journalists in Israel — stood by his reporting.

Although all parties claim the sale of the weapons is not a condition of the UAE-Israel agreement, subsequent statements support Barnea’s scoop. For example, the New York Times reported that American officials “do not dispute that the new momentum on the arms sale — after years of stalled requests by the Emirates to buy the fighter jet — is linked to the broader diplomatic initiative.”

Emirati Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash told the Atlantic Council on Thursday that while the sale was not a condition of the agreement, the deal should make it easier for the UAE to purchase advanced weaponry because “the whole idea of a state of belligerency or war with Israel will no longer exist."

Thus, both the Emiratis and Americans saw the arms sale as a motive for the agreement, even if it was not a specific condition. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Netanyahu thought the same, but the fact that the UAE has been actively pursuing the F-35 for years is common knowledge. Netanyahu is aware of every piece of hardware Arab states buy from the United States, and the effect the agreement would have for the Emiratis’ case for being allowed to purchase these weapons is far too obvious for his denial to be taken seriously.

Israel’s veto power

In theory, the U.S. doesn’t need Israel’s agreement to sell fighter jets to the UAE. But in practice, U.S. law and U.S. politics give Israel a de facto veto over such sales. This is due to the legal requirement that the United States maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” often referred to as QME.

The QME was defined, in the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, as “the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damage and casualties.” The same act requires the president to judge arms sales to other countries in the region, whether friend or foe to Israel, against maintaining Israel’s QME. All of this was reinforced by legislation passed in 2012 and 2014.

While maintaining the QME is enshrined in law, where the line is drawn remains a subjective matter. The point at which Israel has the edge that the law promises is a judgment call. So, if the Israeli government is comfortable with a sale to an Arab country, there would probably not be a challenge in Congress to that sale based on maintaining the QME. On the other hand, if there is Israeli concern, the chances of Congress approving such a sale are exceedingly slim, even if those weapons were being sold to Egypt, Jordan, or, soon, the UAE, the countries which have full diplomatic relations and are at peace with Israel.

It’s no secret that the president, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has been leading discussions with the Arab Gulf States including the UAE, very much want to increase arms sales to that troubled region. Congress has reasons beyond Israeli objections to be concerned about that, as they showed when they tried to stop a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in May of 2019, forcing Pompeo to invoke a rarely used and controversial clause in the law to circumvent congressional approval and push the sale through — and leading to a presidential veto to prevent Congress from restricting the arms sales. Trump is now working to reduce or even eliminate Congress’s role in overseeing arms sales.

The F-35, and armed fighter drones that would be part of the same sale, are quite different matters as far as Israel is concerned. These are state of the art weapons. Israel got the F-35 in 2017, and it is expected to be used for decades to come. Thus, as Israel sees it, for the purpose of countering Iran, the fighter jet helps a bit, but the risk should UAE leadership shift its positions or suffer a radical change is much greater.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told the Jerusalem Post that “[a]ny sale of weapons by the United States to UAE or any other regional player will continue to be governed by our obligation to maintain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge — that’s the law. This deal creates a host of new opportunities for Israel and America — including in the realm of security — and I believe that many great things will come from it.”

Friedman did not confirm or deny the report of the F-35 sale but said, “Ultimately, under the right circumstances, both the U.S. and Israel would benefit greatly from having a strong ally situated across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran.”

The Mideast after the Israel-UAE deal

If Israel does drop its objections and Congress permits the sale of such advanced weaponry to the UAE, it stands to reason that sales to Saudi Arabia would not be far behind. The F-35 and Predator drones would be major military upgrades, and we are already seeing increasingly aggressive policies from Saudi Arabia and the UAE not only with Iran in the Gulf, but in Yemen and Libya, among other potential hotspots.

The potential for conflict in the Gulf will rise dramatically if such an arms upgrade is coupled with a second Trump term. Iran would certainly feel a great deal of urgency to find ways to upgrade its own capabilities.

But there are good reasons to hope that the sales might not materialize. Joe Biden’s opposition to further arming Saudi Arabia is a good indication that, if he wins, he will kill the sale of the F-35 and Predators. Netanyahu conducted these talks in secret, without the participation or even knowledge of his ostensible partners, Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, angering both men. And they are not the only ones in Israel who are concerned over such momentous arrangements having been made in secret. The political pressure on Netanyahu might well be enough to ensure that Congress does not approve this plan.

Still, the danger of escalation remains significant until the possibility of introducing such advanced weapons to the Gulf states is eliminated. There couldn’t be a better example of the grave danger posed by a U.S. president who sees himself as nothing more than a shady arms dealer.


President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence participate in an expanded bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands
Top image credit: US House Speaker Mike Johnson arrives for press briefing at Columbia University in New York on April 24, 2024. (Shutterstock/lev radin)

Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands

Washington Politics

This week efforts under the War Powers Act to check President Trump’s unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Iran failed on a mostly party line split in both the House and the Senate. The result isn’t all that surprising. The naivety, however, on the role of Congress in matters of war is staggering. Congress is in desperate need of a civics refresher.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), in response to reporter questions on the application of the War Powers Act’s provisions to the president’s actions in Iran, said, “I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities. … As you know, there’s a lot of controversy around, questions around the War Powers Act, but I think the president is acting in the best interests of the nation.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.