Follow us on social

google cta
Will Jake Sullivan bring tough love, or more of the same to MBS meeting?

Will Jake Sullivan bring tough love, or more of the same to MBS meeting?

Biden's top advisor should use the 3rd anniversary of Khashoggi's murder to say the US is shutting off the spigot.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is in the Arabian Peninsula for meetings with Saudi and Emirati officials. Sullivan’s meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman occurred just days before the three year anniversary of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, on MBS’s orders.

Sullivan is expected to focus on the deteriorating situation in Yemen, as he is joined by U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking, as well as by the National Security Council’s Middle East and North Africa Coordinator Brett McGurk.

The urgency of the conversation on Yemen may have been heightened by Friday’s successful passage of Rep. Ro Khanna’s Yemen amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act. Khanna’s amendment would end all U.S. support for Saudi military actions against the Houthis, including maintenance support and spare parts for the Saudi Air Force, three quarters of whose planes are U.S.-made. Although Khanna’s amendment may not survive final conference, its success on the floor of the House signals Congressional frustration with ongoing U.S. complicity in the Saudi war on Yemen.

This is likely to be the message Sullivan brings to his Saudi counterparts, something along the lines of, “Look, pressure from Congress is increasing, we will not be able to hold them off forever, you have to find a way to get out of Yemen.”

Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is likely to respond that given recent Houthi advances, it is even more imperative that the U.S. maintain its support to the Saudis, in order to prevent the Houthis from potentially gaining more ground. The Saudis are likely to rely on the bogeyman of Iranian support for the Houthis, an issue that the Biden administration would have been able to discount if they had acted more quickly to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal before the June elections brought a hardliner government to Tehran.

What Sullivan should say to Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudis is that Biden is serious about the statement he made during his first foreign policy speech, that the U.S. would end all support for offensive Saudi military operations, including relevant arms sales. If actually implemented, Biden’s statement would fulfill the terms of Khanna’s amendment, by ending U.S. involvement in any Saudi military actions in Yemen, because these are offensive operations, by definition. Sullivan should also make clear that if the Saudis wish to maintain a working relationship with the United States, they need to allow fuel to enter Hodeidah port and to stop delaying the entry of other basic necessities. The Saudis must also allow Sanaa International Airport to reopen. 

Sullivan should also make clear that if the Saudis ended their military campaign against Yemen, the United States would be willing to help them secure their southern border. However, if the Saudis insist on maintaining their bombardment and blockade of Yemen, the U.S. should end the sale of all arms and military equipment to the Saudis.

Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely. Although Sullivan may be able to use the passage of the Khanna amendment to try to scare the Saudis, they are likely well aware of the fact that in addition to Khanna’s amendment, the House also passed an amendment sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Gregory Meeks which would permit U.S. support for Saudi Arabian air strikes in Yemen to continue so long as such strikes are not classified as “offensive.” Senator Reed has also placed language with similar loopholes in the Senate version of the NDAA that will soon receive a floor vote. This language reflects the position of the Biden Administration that it would end support for “offensive” Saudi operations, which it apparently elides by not classifying Saudi air strikes as offensive military actions. Sullivan had previously signed on to a letter, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders and sent in October 2019, that urged Congressional leadership to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi war on Yemen. Other current members of the Biden administration, including Wendy Sherman and Samantha Power, also signed the letter, (alongside Quincy Institute President Andrew Bacevich). Unfortunately Sullivan and other senior administration officials now appear to be less concerned about Yemen’s plight.


White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Ellen Wallop/Asia Society/Creative Commons) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (US State Department/ Ron Przysucha)|White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (Ellen Wallop/Asia Society/Creative Commons) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (US State Department/ Ron Przysucha)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

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.