Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-06-03-at-12.14.47-pm

Biden plans visit to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand

MBS is playing hardball with the United States, and the White House is just letting him win. Why?

Analysis | Middle East

Last night, the New York Times broke the news that President Biden plans to travel this Summer to Saudi Arabia, effectively signaling the administration’s intent to end its paltry efforts to correct the Kingdom’s destabilizing behavior in return for limited promises on oil production. 

Traveling to Riyadh now, hat in hand, is akin to slapping a bargain bandaid on the gaping wound that the U.S.-Saudi relationship has become.

Clearly, America should be working to build a healthier relationship with Saudi Arabia, but that simply isn’t possible unless and until the United States confronts the deep dysfunction at the core of that relationship — a dysfunction defined by the blind eye the U.S. has turned to Saudi’s support for Jihadi terrorism, the spread of Wahhabism, and other reckless and inexcusable actions, like the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamaal Khashoggi.

Biden’s decision to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) without first having secured an end to this destabilizing behavior significantly weakens the United States’ hand.

Applauding MBS’ “courage” for supporting a ceasefire in a war the Saudi Crown Prince himself started — and to use that as a pretext for the presidential meeting — speaks to Biden’s desperation to lower gas prices, as well as to our need to end this dependency on Saudi Arabia.

Let’s also be clear about one thing: This is not the victory of realism over values. Such an assertion erroneously presumes that realpolitik necessitates Biden prostrating himself in front of MBS to push down oil prices. It does not. If oil prices are really the driving force behind this, then Biden should have just gone back into the Iran nuclear deal through an executive order, instead of — for all practical purposes — continuing Trump’s maximum pressure strategy.

The combination of Iranian oil coming back onto the market as well as the immediate influx of more than 50 million barrels of oil that Tehran has in storage but hasn’t been able to sell because of U.S. sanctions, would cause both a better short-term and long-term reduction of oil prices. All Biden needed to do is to go back to the deal his former boss Barack Obama already negotiated.

Instead, Biden has chosen to play a self-defeating game with Iran which in turn has made him desperate enough to cave into MBS. (This would also have put Europe in a much better position as it is desperately trying to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and oil).

Rather than rebuilding relations with Riyadh, Biden’s approach will likely exacerbate the long-standing problems in US-Saudi relations. It will increase our dependence on the  kingdom, which has long given its rulers carte blanche to act against American interests in the Middle East and beyond. 

MBS is playing hardball with the United States—and Biden just let him win.


President Joe Biden (Shutterstock/Trevor Bexon) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (US State Department)
Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.