Follow us on social

google cta
Recent arms sales contradict Biden promise on Middle East pivot

Recent arms sales contradict Biden promise on Middle East pivot

While all eyes have been on Ukraine, the US approved massive foreign military deals to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Kuwait.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

In February, the State Department approved almost $26 billion in foreign military sales. While escalating conflict in Ukraine forced difficult decisions, including the $6 billion sale of tanks to Poland, the lion’s share of these sales have nothing to do with the current crisis.

The State Department has approved more foreign military sales this month than in any month since November 2020. More than $5 billion of February’s arms sales went to the Middle East, contradicting the administration’s stated intention to pivot away from the region.

Publicly, Biden maintains an image of diverting U.S. attention from the Middle East. Yet, these quiet arms sales suggest Biden’s Middle East policy is more of a continuation of the same. Before taking office, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that he “envisioned a Biden presidency would do ‘less not more’ in the region.” The interim national security guidelines released early in the Biden presidency laid out a similar vision, claiming that "we will not give our partners in the Middle East a blank check to pursue policies at odds with American interests." A close Biden adviser said early in his presidency that “If you are going to list the regions Biden sees as a priority, the Middle East is not in the top three…It’s Asia-Pacific, then Europe, and then the Western Hemisphere.”

This week’s arms sales, however, include the construction of a $1 billion defense headquarters for the Kuwait Ministry of Defense. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the proposed sale will support U.S. national security objectives by “helping to improve the infrastructure of a Major Non-NATO ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will oversee the creation of the project, which is estimated to take up to seven years. If the Middle East is truly not a top priority, the United States would not tie itself to a defense industrial complex project for the better part of a decade.

Troubling missile sales and maintenance support to Saudi Arabia also contradict the Biden administration's supposed human rights-based foreign policy and stated goal to pivot away from the Middle East. According to its 2020 World Report, Human Rights Watch documented at least 90 alleged unlawful Saudi-led airstrikes that deliberately killed civilians and targeted civilian objects, in flagrant violation of international law. One of Biden’s key foreign policy promises was to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, as he explained during the November 2019 presidential debate:

“And I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them, we were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are. [...] And I would also, as pointed out, I would end -- end subsidies that we have, end the sale of material to the Saudis where they're going in and murdering children, and they're murdering innocent people. And so they have to be held accountable.”

Yet here we are, a year later, with at least three approved major weapons sales to the Kingdom and no accountability for its role in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen. In September, the State Department approved continued maintenance support for the Saudi Royal Air Force, ensuring its fleets can continue unlawful airstrikes against civilians. Escalating U.S. involvement in the war, the State Department approved the sale of $650 million worth of air-to-air missiles in November. This sale appears to have emboldened Saudi Arabia to go on the offensive in Yemen, and brings the United States closer to the country Biden once decried as a pariah.

Despite congressional efforts to halt the sale of weapons to the Kingdom this fall, the State Department approved the sale of $24 million worth of Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals for Saudi Arabia on February 3. The press releases justify these sales on the grounds that they “will support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East.” This is the exact same language that was used to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the Trump-era, word-for- word. These terminals will enable the Saudis to continue their relentless blockade in Yemen, and many more hundred of thousands of Yemenis will suffer as a result. 

These arms sales don’t enhance our national security, but they do inflate the pockets of defense contractors. Lockheed Martin, for example, will rake in more than $4.2 billion for 12 F-16 C Block 70 aircraft, four F-16 D Block 70 aircraft, and related equipment in a sale to Jordan approved February 3. Last month, the State Department also approved a $2.2 billion sale to Egypt for twelve of Lockheed Martin’s military transport aircrafts, C-130J-30 Super Hercules Aircraft. In total, the Biden administration has approved almost $10 billion in foreign military sales that will put profits directly into the pockets of defense contractors and further entrench the United States in Middle East conflicts for years to come.

Defense industry CEOs both openly cast deteriorating global security as a boon for employees and investors during recent earnings calls. In January 2022, Raytheon’s CEO told investors that rising tensions are “opportunities for international sales,” including a drone attack in the UAE claimed by Yemen’s Houthi rebels last month. Those opportunities for international sales have come to fruition, and the administration’s decision to quietly approve these sales while all eyes are on Ukraine deeply contradicts their stated foreign policy. 

The massive influx of arms and approved seven-year commitments actively undermines claims of national security by diverting resources to further entrench our military involvement in the Middle East. The true winners will be the coffers of weapons suppliers and bad actors who continue to avoid accountability unless the Biden administration makes good on its promise to end these arms sales.


Kuwait army Col. Nawaf Jandoul Al-Dousari, left, North Military Medical Complex director, alongside Col. Courtney Finkbeiner, 386th EMDG commander during a tour of the clinic at Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, Oct. 16, 2019. The U.S. just signed a $1 Billion sale with Kuwait to help build them a new headquarters for the their ministry of defense, a likely seven-year project. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Daniel Martinez)|Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council Nations on the margins of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 76) in New York, New York, on September 23, 2021. Additional U.S. participants include: Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Yael Lempert, Counselor of the Department of State Derek Chollet, Director of Policy Planning Salman Ahmed, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Tom Sullivan, Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council Brett McGurk, Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley. GCC participants include Secretary-General Nayef Al-Hajraf, Bahrain's Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani, Kuwait's Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmed Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Sabah, Oman's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mohamed Al Hassan, Qatar's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, and United Arab Emirates' Minister of State Khalifa Almarar. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

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.