Follow us on social

Build back better or more of the same? New arms deal to Saudi announced

Build back better or more of the same? New arms deal to Saudi announced

While denying it, the White House continues to put its thumb on the scale for the Kingdom, with no end to Yemen war in sight.

Analysis | Middle East

In the first major foreign policy speech of his presidency, President Biden pledged to end “all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales,” and committed to “stepping up our diplomacy to end the war.” 

Now, the administration has sent Congress a legally mandated notification of the first proposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia since President Biden took office: 280 air-to-air missiles and 596 missile rail launchers valued at as much as $650 million. 

U.S. security assistance to repeat human rights violators like Saudi Arabia has driven internal repression, state fragility, and strategic instability. Consequently, arms sales to the Gulf have drawn increasing bipartisan pushback. The United States has nonetheless continued to pursue the proposed weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, suggesting Biden’s limited security objectives vis-a-vis Iran hinder U.S. action to resolve the crisis in Yemen. The proposed sale, then, likely stems from the Biden administration’s concern about Iranian drone technology and efforts to reassure Saudi Arabia of continued commitment to the U.S.-Saudi relationship ahead of nuclear talks with Iran. 

The Biden administration should instead condition any future sales on Saudi concessions in the Yemen peace process and implementation of human rights law in terms of sale.

The administration’s initial promise to end support for offensive operations in Yemen encouraged human rights organizations. However, President Biden has since faced criticism from advocacy groups for blurring the lines between offensive and defensive support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, including after the administration’s decision to extend $500 million in maintenance contracts for Saudi military helicopters in September 2021. The House version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which is currently stalled in the Senate, even includes a progressive-backed measure prohibiting maintenance support that enables coalition strikes against the Houthis.

In an announcement about Thursday’s notification, the State Department pointed to the “increase in cross-border attacks against Saudi Arabia in the last year” and the use of air-to-air missiles in intercepting those attacks. A State Department spokesperson likewise emphasized Saudi self-defense, calling the proposed sale “fully consistent with the administration’s pledge to lead with diplomacy to end the conflict in Yemen while ensuring Saudi Arabia has means to defend itself from Iranian-backed Houthi air attacks.” Saudi authorities have blamed Houthi drones for attacks on Saudi airports and oil facilities.

Left unsaid, however, was growing U.S. concern around not only Houthi drone use, but also the drone capabilities of Iran and its other partners. Throughout the region, drones have proliferated and are increasingly used by non-state actors, an arms race many analysts argue the United States triggered with its unrestrained embrace of drone technology. Drone crashes and shootdowns have increased between Hezbollah and Israel. Similarly, in using small drones to harass Saudi Arabia, Iran has broadened its asymmetrical tactics. In October 2021, the United States announced sanctions on entities and individuals that supported Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ drone program, reportedly in response to Iranian drones targeting U.S. forces in Iraq.

If the sale itself speaks to the Biden administration’s continued preoccupation with Iran, the announcement’s timing speaks to the administration’s continued prioritization of Gulf monarchies. Like the Obama administration, Biden’s State Department has often provided updates on nuclear negotiations with Iran in tandem with arms sales to Gulf partners like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. These arms sales, like tactical training and other forms of security cooperation, are intended to bolster U.S. alliances in the Gulf and mark Biden’s continued commitment to a two-pronged Iran policy that distinguishes between nuclear and conventional defense goals. 

The arms sale notification also comes as Congress is preoccupied with passing the Biden administration’s domestic agenda. Congress only has 30 days to pass a joint resolution prohibiting the sale and rally a supermajority to overcome a presumptive veto. With less than a month of legislative work remaining before the end of the year and a docket including the reconciliation bill, Build Back Better Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress is unlikely to muster the votes necessary to block the sale. Although legislators have introduced two bills that would facilitate congressional oversight in such situations, current law hampers the checks and balances that can safeguard human rights in arms transfers.

With the latest arms sale likely to proceed, it seems that re-affirming U.S. support for the Arab Gulf monarchies against Iran will outweigh the lofty human rights goals of Biden’s first speech. The notification of the latest arms sale to Saudi Arabia follows reports that the Saudi government is seeking U.S. assistance in defending against Houthi attacks as the United States pressures Saudi Arabia to end the blockade of Yemeni ports. As famine looms and the battle for the city of Marib intensifies, the blockade has deepened the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Houthi negotiators demand the Saudi-led coalition lift the blockade as a condition to a ceasefire, and congressional Democrats have called for the blockade’s end on humanitarian grounds.

In moving forward with the sale without any meaningful change in Saudi behavior, the Biden administration signals unconditional support for the Saudi-led coalition’s actions, entrenching existing tensions in the Gulf — and America’s role in it — and increasing the risk of arms races and inadvertent escalation.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their employers.


Armed with AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles or AMRAAM Slammers, a US Air Force (USAF) F-16C Fighting Falcon fighter sits on the ramp during an on-going phase one exercise at Shaw Air Force Base (AFB), South Carolina (SC) (2004) (USAF/public domain)|Armament Technician Senior Airman Hector Huguet checks an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, on an F-16CJ Fighting Falcon before it takes off from Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, on Dec. 28, 1998, for a mission supporting Operation Northern Watch. Northern Watch is the coalition enforcement of the no-fly-zone over Northern Iraq. Huguet is attached to the 23rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force. (Released)
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

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.