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
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.