Follow us on social

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

MBS: No Saudi-Israel normalization until Palestinians get a state

The Kingdom's crown prince throws cold water on Biden’s ‘grand bargain,’ days after Oman does the same

Analysis | Middle East

In a televised speech today, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated that, "The [Saudi] kingdom will not stop its tireless work towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. We affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.”

With this statement, the Crown Prince appeared to dash the Biden’s administration’s lingering hopes of achieving a landmark normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would have also given Riyadh a U.S. defense agreement as well as a pledge to assist in the establishment of a civilian nuclear program.

Although the Biden administration had previously signaled that they might be willing to move forward with the U.S.-Saudi defense agreement even in the absence of normalization with Israel, MBS’ announcement appears to finally kill the possibility of the so-called “Grand Bargain” that Presidential advisors Brett McGurk, Jake Sullivan, and other senior Biden officials had hoped would offer a means of countering China, resolving the Gaza crisis, and topping Trump’s Abraham Accords all in one.

The timing of MBS’ speech comes almost exactly a year after the Crown Prince told Fox News that Saudi Arabia was getting “closer” to normalizing with Israel, while simultaneously “working towards improving life for the Palestinians.” In an interview with Al-Jazeera at the time, the journalist and commentator Rami Khouri, who is Jordanian-American and of Palestinian descent, noted that it was not clear what the Crown Prince meant by that, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state was not something the Saudis had talked about in detail.

MBS’ clear statement of Saudi support for the establishment of a Palestinian state demonstrates the impact of the events of the past year. Israel’s devastating campaign against Gaza – cutting off water and electricity, dropping an average of 42 bombs every day, and blocking adequate food, health supplies, and other basic necessities from entering the territory – have provoked worldwide condemnation, which is strongest in the Middle East.

The Saudi state had sought to downplay condemnations of Israel, something few other Arab governments have tried to do, which prompted questions about whether MBS was trying to maintain the possibility of normalizing relations.

As Kristian Ulrichsen, a scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and an expert on the Arabian Gulf countries explained in an email to RS, “There can be no bypassing the [Palestinian] issue as arguably happened with the signatories to the Abraham Accords in 2020. The shift in the parameters of normalization will be a challenge to the next administration if the new White House simply wishes to enlarge the Abraham Accords without addressing the core underlying issues.”

On Sunday, Haaretz reported that a senior Omani official had made clear that Oman would not normalize relations with Israel and demanded an end to its “barbaric” war.

The far right government of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly made clear over the past year that they would not make a single concession towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. In July, the Knesset voted overwhelmingly against Palestinian statehood, challenging a key and long-standing pillar of U.S. policy towards the conflict.

MBS’ statement comes in the context of several ongoing developments related to the conflict. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding Israel end its “unlawful” presence in the Palestinian territories within 12 months. The resolution also calls on UN member states to "take steps towards ceasing the importation of any products originating in the Israeli settlements, as well as the provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment to Israel ... where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

The occupied Palestinian territories, as defined by the UN, include the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, although some contest that Israel continues to occupy Gaza, despite its military presence there and overwhelming control over the territory and its inhabitants.

Today, Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he would be submitting a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to block the Biden administration’s proposed sale of $20 billion additional weapons to Israel. As Sanders made clear in his statement, the sale of the weapons would clearly violate U.S. law, including the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act.

Yesterday and today, thousands of communication devices, primarily pagers and walkie-talkies, exploded in Lebanon, killing 12, including children, and injuring thousands, in what many are calling an act of state-sponsored terrorism by Israel (Israel has not commented publicly on the attacks). Speculation is rife as to whether Israel detonated the explosives planted in thousands of devices as a means of crippling communication in Lebanon and especially between members of Hezbollah prior to launching a large-scale military attack on Lebanon, or if it hoped to provoke the militant group into retaliation.

Following previous acts of aggression by Israel against Iran and Lebanon, U.S. officials tried to prevent further escalation, including by mobilizing additional U.S. military personnel and materiel to the region. With the recent announcement by Saudi Arabia and the vote in the UN, the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s military aggression is increasingly isolating the United States.


President Joe Biden (Shutterstock/Trevor Bexon) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (US State Department)
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

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.