Follow us on social

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

Biden signals this may be more than a lovers’ spat with Saudi Arabia

The statement comes as leading lawmakers push for a fundamental change to Washington’s relationship to Riyadh.

Europe

President Joe Biden wants to work with Congress to “re-evaluate” the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia following OPEC’s recent decision to significantly cut oil production, according to a White House spokesperson.

“The president's been very clear that this is a relationship that we need to continue to re-evaluate, that we need to be willing to revisit,” White House spokesperson John Kirby told CNN. “He's willing to work with Congress to think through what that relationship ought to look like going forward.”

“I don't think this is anything that's going to have to wait or should wait, quite frankly, for much longer,” Kirby added.

The statement comes as Biden faces unprecedented pressure from lawmakers for a fundamental change to U.S.-Saudi ties. 

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that Washington should freeze “all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including any arms sales and security cooperation beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests.”

Three Democratic House members went further Friday when they introduced a bill that would mandate the removal of all American military assets from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

And on Sunday, Sen. Richard Blumental (D-Conn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced a bicameral proposal that would “immediately halt all U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia.” In an op-ed for Politico, Blumenthal and Khanna also said that their bill “is already garnering bipartisan support in both chambers.”

Notably, the blowback has centered around the idea that the OPEC+ decision will benefit Russia, a major oil exporter, in its war in Ukraine. Military partnerships could return if Riyadh “reconsiders its embrace of Putin,” as Blumenthal and Khanna wrote. This signals a lack of interest in using this new wave of pressure to push for an end to the brutal Saudi war in Yemen, which has animated many of the kingdom’s biggest U.S. critics in recent years.

Regardless, Biden’s response shows a marked shift in White House thinking on U.S.-Saudi ties just a few months after the president’s controversial visit to Riyadh, in which he and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman shared a now-infamous fist bump.


President Joe Biden (Shutterstock/Trevor Bexon) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (US State Department)
Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.