Follow us on social

google cta
mohammed bin salman

MBS may be more flexible on Israel relations than you think

It's possible he could back track on condition of Palestinian state for normalization

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s recent televised statement repudiating normalization with Israel in the absence of Palestinian statehood has generated a lot of interest. Perhaps it is, as some think, a cognition that Israel is beyond the pale even for the notorious MBS and that he has bowed to domestic and international pressure to distance himself from his talk about normalization.

And since few believe that Palestinian statehood is in the cards, the logical conclusion is that normalization isn’t either. Israel’s alleged aggression against Lebanon and Syria, two states at war with Israel since 1948, has been cited as an impediment to normalization.

There is an alternative take on MBS’s latest pirouette. It goes something like this:

Up until quite recently, MBS was eager to downplay the Palestinian dimension of normalization. While Secretary of State Antony Blinken was telling the Israelis that there had to be a “credible” pathway toward Palestinian independence, MBS wished to dispense with standard of credibility, and to propose to the Israeli and U.S. governments that the threshold for normalization be some sort of undefined process, regardless of its credibility.

Meanwhile, he spoke publicly and privately about his continued interest in normalization. So, the question is, which is the “real” MBS? The one who wanted to water down the precondition of a statehood negotiations, or the one who just made a speech on television insisting on independence before normalization?

This is an awkward question given his tendency to flip flop. On Iran, Yemen, Lebanon — whose prime minister MBS had kidnapped in 2017 — the Biden administration, allocation of resources to flagship projects, and other less dramatic issues, he has proven to be a mercurial decision maker. Where he winds up and the “stickiness” of his decisions is difficult to determine. It would not be at all surprising, therefore, if the condition of Palestinian independence as an a priori requirement for normalization was rolled back when the heat died down.


murathakanart / Shutterstock.com

google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon
REUTERS/Essam al-Sudani/File Photo

People walk near farmland by the Zubair oil field as gas flares rise in the distance, in Zubair Mishrif, Basra, Iraq, amid regional tensions following the recent disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, March 9, 2026.

Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon

QiOSK

The US-Israel-Iran war has led to extraordinary volatility in global energy markets this week, and there is little reason to think that it will abate any time soon.

Benchmark Brent crude, which traded below $60 per barrel early this year, jumped to $80 last Thursday. It then bounced to $120 in thin weekend markets and, as of this writing, has settled in around $92. In other words, the range of the recent oil price has been 50% of where it was a mere five days ago.

keep readingShow less
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Ilham Aliyev azerbaijan iran
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev visited Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, offered condolences over death of former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2017. (Office of the President of Azerbaijan/public domain)

Neocons wanted an Azeri uprising against Iran. They didn't get it.

Middle East

With Iran resisting the U.S./Israeli onslaught for the second week, what was supposed to be a quick transition to a pro-U.S. regime following the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fast turning into a quagmire. While the U.S. and Israel continue to sow mayhem on Tehran from the skies, the previously unthinkable option of sending ground troops to Iran is gaining ground.

First, an apparent plan was being hatched to employ Kurdish fighters to take on Tehran. Then, when drones, allegedly flying from Iran although Tehran denied it, struck the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan — hitting an airport terminal and a village school, and wounding four civilians — the stage appeared set for the opening of a northern front against Iran. Here was an alleged act of aggression from Iranian territory against Israel's closest partner in the South Caucasus. It offered the pretext to goad Azerbaijan into joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

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.