Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2041380377-e1655288934143

Americans aren’t very happy about Biden’s Middle East visit: poll

No matter how the question was phrased, less than a quarter of Americans approve of the president's trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Middle East
google cta
google cta

President Joe Biden is set to make his first visit to the Middle East next week, with stops in Israel and Saudi Arabia. The trip was never going to be simple from a PR perspective. After all, Biden campaigned on making Saudi Arabia a “pariah,” and his stopover in Israel comes just after U.S. officials said Tel Aviv was “​​likely responsible” for the death of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

If a recent poll is to be believed, the trip risks becoming a public relations disaster. Biden’s official justification is that the trip is important for Israeli national security, and he is likely to highlight Saudi Arabia’s importance as an oil exporter if pushed on his much-softened stance toward the Gulf monarchy. As it turns out, neither of these framings is a winner for the president.

The University of Maryland survey broke a sample of 2208 Americans into three groups, each of which was presented with a different framing for the visit. A neutral phrasing showed ambivalence about the trip, with 24 percent approval and 25 percent disapproval. 

But when pollsters told the second group that Biden’s visit was about protecting Israeli national security — a historically airtight justification for U.S. policy in the region — disapproval actually went up, jumping from 25 to 31 percent, while approval stayed flat. And a lot of that movement came from Biden’s own party, highlighting Israel’s damaged image among Democrats.

A focus on Israeli security “doesn’t seem to help [Biden] sell his trip,” Shibley Telhami, who conducted the poll, wrote in the Washington Post. “In fact, it may be hurting him among his Democratic constituency.”

The third group got a harsher framing, emphasizing Biden’s “pariah” comments while also noting Riyadh’s importance to “the global energy market.” Unsurprisingly, this was the least popular justification for the trip, earning 33 percent disapproval and 23 percent approval.

Of course, the poll does present one silver lining for the Biden administration: A plurality of respondents from each group answered “I don’t know” or “I neither approve nor disapprove,” meaning that many Americans remain on the fence about the trip.

But ambivalence is a double-edged sword. Neither the second nor the third framing was as harsh as it could have been. No specific human rights concerns were mentioned, and pollsters left out any reference to Abu Akleh’s killing and the Saudi state-sanctioned murder of Jamal Khashoggi. 

With just a few days left before the trip, only time will tell if widespread disinterest will turn into ire.


President Joe Biden exits Air Force One. (Shutterstock/Chris Allan)
google cta
Middle East
South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)
Top photo credit: President Cyril Ramaphosa (Photo: GCIS/Flickr) and Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)

Africa

South Africa is struggling to unfurl its wings as a leading middle power and advance its relations with its fellow BRICS members while keeping out of the cross hairs of the U.S. president. This has been particularly hard considering that one member of the Global South grouping — Iran — is on Donald Trump’s current list of potential military targets.

South Africa joined BRICS in 2006. The organization is supposed to serve as an intergovernmental forum for member countries to connect on issues related to diplomacy, security, and economics. But the bloc has angered President Trump, who sees it as a threat to American leadership, particularly given China’s membership in the group.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamanei
Top image credit: Bella1105/shutterstock.com

Could Trump bomb Iran before settling on a rationale?

Middle East

Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted.

In the Vietnam War, the principal public rationale of saving South Vietnam from communism got replaced in the minds of the warmakers — especially after losing hope of winning the contest in Vietnam — by the belief that the United States had to keep fighting to preserve its credibility. In the Iraq War, when President George W. Bush’s prewar argument about weapons of mass destruction fell apart, he shifted to a rationale centered on bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

keep readingShow less
James Holtsnider
Top image credit: James Holtsnider, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New US ambassador's charm offensive is backfiring in Jordan

Middle East

Since arriving in Amman around three months ago to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, James Holtsnider quickly became one of the highest-profile envoys in the Hashemite Kingdom. In addition to presenting his credentials to King Abdullah II, Holtsnider has met with Jordanian soccer players, attended weddings, and joined tribal gatherings.

However, a January 14 request by a U.S. Embassy delegation for the ambassador to offer condolences at the family home of former Karak mayor Abdullah Al-Dmour showed that many Jordanians have little interest in participating in Holtsnider’s public relations initiative. Dmour’s relatives rejected the U.S. ambassador’s wish to visit. Dmour’s tribe issued a statement noting Holtsnider’s request “violates Jordanian tribal customs, which separates the sanctity of mourning from any political presence with public implications.”

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.