Saudi minister of state for foreign affairs meets US delegation in Riyadh
RIYADH: Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir met a delegation from the US House of Representatives on Saturday at the ministry's headquarters in Riyadh, the Saudi Press Agency reported.
The delegation was headed by Michael Lawler, member of Congress and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
The two sides reviewed the long-standing relations between Saudi Arabia and the US, and also discussed key regional and international developments, as well as issues of mutual concern, the SPA added.
The meeting followed the visit of US President Donald Trump to the Kingdom earlier this month and reflects ongoing diplomatic engagement between the two nations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
26 minutes ago
- Arab News
Targeting Iran's supreme leader is madness
The idea resurfaced last week that Israel may try to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the US. President Donald Trump made it clear he opposed Israel's move and did not support it. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective: it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into the Second World War. But during the war, and on the recommendation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the allied victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The supreme leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq — a war we thought would end only with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with Iraq — except the supreme leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's supreme leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid Al-Adha in 2006 — though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader — came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year — but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits — to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the US, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace. • Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed
Arab News
26 minutes ago
- Arab News
Deconstructing the language of war in Gaza
In the dense urban landscapes of Gaza, where homes, schools, hospitals and humanitarian offices blend into the same war-ravaged blocks, a chilling narrative has taken root: the justification of civilian deaths through the term 'human shields.' It is a phrase that, with calculated frequency, surfaces in military briefings and international news coverage — offered up as explanation, defense or even absolution for airstrikes that leave families buried beneath the rubble. But what does it mean to accuse an entire population of serving as human shields, and who benefits from this framing? This terminology has become a central rhetorical device in the ongoing war in Gaza. Israel, backed by several Western allies, repeatedly claims that Hamas embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, using hospitals, schools and densely populated areas as cover. These claims are used to justify strikes that result in high civilian casualties and the destruction of critical infrastructure, including the deaths of aid workers and UN personnel. Yet, to critically assess this narrative, we must examine not only its implications but its very foundations. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilians as human shields. It also mandates that all warring parties distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians. But the invocation of 'human shields' creates a dangerous legal gray zone — one that permits the reclassification of civilian-heavy areas as legitimate military targets, even in the absence of transparent evidence. In effect, the accusation of 'human shields' becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth Hani Hazaimeh This ambiguity is often exploited. When a missile strikes a refugee camp, or when a humanitarian convoy is targeted, the fallback explanation is often a vague claim of militant presence in the vicinity. Rarely are these claims independently verified and often they are retroactively provided. In effect, the accusation becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth. This language erodes accountability. It transforms war crimes into tactical necessity and leaves civilians in Gaza with no safe haven — not even within the walls of a UN school or beneath the tents of an aid organization. Labeling civilians as human shields does more than justify their deaths — it dehumanizes them. It subtly shifts blame from the aggressor to the victim, implying that civilian suffering is not only inevitable but strategic. This framing creates a moral detachment, desensitizing the world to scenes of bloodied children and shattered homes. It also reinforces a false dichotomy: that the people of Gaza are either combatants or collaborators, shields or threats. This dichotomy ignores the basic truth that the majority of Gaza's population are children, mothers, elders and aid workers — people who have nowhere to flee and nothing to shield but their families. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers. The UN Relief and Works Agency, Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian organizations have seen their staff killed while delivering food, administering medical care or sheltering refugees. These are not military operations. They are lifelines. Yet when these convoys or compounds are hit, the same justification often resurfaces: alleged militant proximity. This deflects outrage and inhibits meaningful investigations. More importantly, it contributes to the breakdown of humanitarian corridors and the paralysis of relief operations — leaving an already besieged population even more vulnerable. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers Hani Hazaimeh Words matter. They shape public opinion, influence international policy and determine whether tragedies are investigated or ignored. The language used to describe the war in Gaza must reflect the reality on the ground — not political agendas or military talking points. The international media must rigorously interrogate claims of human shields being used and resist the urge to parrot official narratives without evidence. Human rights organizations must push for independent investigations into all strikes that result in civilian deaths, particularly those targeting or affecting aid agencies. Governments and international bodies must hold all parties accountable to the standards of international law — not selectively or symbolically, but consistently and transparently. And most of all, we must remember that beneath the euphemisms and geopolitical calculus are real people — families that grieve, children who fear and communities that endure trauma that no terminology can justify. The people of Gaza are not shields. They are human beings. And their suffering should not be rationalized — it should be stopped. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
Arab News
26 minutes ago
- Arab News
Turkiye on high alert due to Israel-Iran strikes
Turkiye is walking a tightrope as the Iran-Israel war intensifies. Given its long border with Iran and its complicated — often tense — relations with Israel, while being one of the few regional actors maintaining backchannels with Israel, Iran and the US, Ankara's position is particularly significant. Soon after Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Ankara swiftly responded: the Foreign Ministry issued a condemnation of Israel and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also made a statement. Turkiye's current approach is shaped by a combination of security concerns, its position within the Western alliance and its relations with both Iran and Israel. Turkiye, Iran and Israel are the three non-Arab middle powers in the Middle East whose relationships have always influenced the regional balance of power. Within this context, Turkiye would normally welcome the weakening of Iranian influence in the region. However, the unprecedented escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran, and the broader consequences of this war, are of far greater concern to Ankara than a diminished Iran. To be clear, although the Turkish ruling elite and the public are not pleased with Tehran's domestic and regional policies, they would not favor regime change in Iran — especially if it were to come at the hands of Israel or the US. The memory of what happened in Iraq and elsewhere remains fresh in the minds of the Turkish people. Relations between Turkiye and Iran have historically been far from harmonious and, in recent years, tensions have increased due to sharp divergences on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and even the South Caucasus. However, Ankara has managed to compartmentalize its relationship with Iran, adopting a pragmatic and less confrontational approach. Even while navigating its complex relationship with Israel, this approach has helped Turkiye avoid direct confrontation. The unprecedented escalation of tensions is of far greater concern to Ankara than a diminished Iran Dr. Sinem Cengiz For Ankara, current Israeli policies pose greater risks than Iran's, particularly as Tehran has already lost significant influence in Syria following the fall of the Assad regime. While Israel takes a confrontational stance toward Iran, Turkiye prefers cautious engagement. While Turkiye seeks stability in Syria after decades of turmoil, Israel — through its airstrikes and ground incursions — appears to favor a weakened Syria. And while Turkiye advocates for Palestinian statehood and an end to the war in Gaza, Israel opposes both. Amid such a contentious climate between Turkiye and Israel, in an increasingly disorderly region, the US factor becomes highly significant. As a NATO member and part of the Western security architecture, Turkiye maintains strategic ties with Washington, while Israel remains a key American ally. Ankara is keen to avoid tensions with the US administration at this stage — a stance reflected in recent statements from Turkish officials. With the NATO Summit taking place in the Netherlands in the next few days, Erdogan is seeking a meeting with US President Donald Trump and Ankara is working to avoid any deterioration in Turkiye-US relations ahead of the event. However, continued Israeli aggression may cause new fractures in Turkiye's relations with NATO and Western countries. Still, the evolving security dynamics are seriously squeezing Turkiye's room for maneuver. Sharing a long border with Iran makes it particularly vulnerable to the fallout from this conflict. Turkiye is not only geographically close, but it is also central to this conflict in terms of energy, security and diplomacy. Therefore, the Israel-Iran war raises serious military and strategic responsibilities for Turkiye. Defense Minister Yasar Guler stated on Wednesday that Turkiye had increased security measures along its border with Iran. Although no official figures have been released, reports suggest there has been a growing flow of people traveling from Iran into Turkiye. Erdogan announced that Turkiye would soon deploy new air defense systems and increase its stock of medium- and long-range missiles to a deterrent level following Israel's attacks on Iran. He said: 'We have made, and are making, preparations for every possible negative development and scenario.' Among the risks Turkiye faces are not only regional instability and growing security threats, but also rising energy prices, the risk of sabotage targeting natural gas pipeline infrastructure, and increasing vulnerabilities along foreign trade routes. Continued Israeli aggression may cause new fractures in Turkiye's relations with NATO and Western countries Dr. Sinem Cengiz Within the domestic sphere, opposition parties also appear to be aligned with Turkiye's position. Main opposition party leader Ozgur Ozel said he will attend the Solidarity with Palestine Rally organized in Istanbul on Sunday to condemn Israel, expressing that he expects 'the strongest reaction' from the government. At this critical juncture, Turkiye's only viable option is to push for regional diplomacy. Erdogan has declared that Turkiye is ready to mediate an end to the Iran-Israel conflict. However, due to its geographic proximity and the complexity of its relations with Israel, Turkiye's traditional mediation policy may not be as easily applied here as it was in the Russia-Ukraine war. The absence of ambassador-level relations with Israel makes communication more difficult and hampers Turkiye's potential mediation role. In this case, Turkiye may try to leverage its relationships with countries that have better ties with Israel — such as Azerbaijan and the UAE — to pressure the Israeli government to bring an end to this seemingly endless war. Geography cannot be changed and Turkiye has historically paid a high price for being neighbors with unstable states. While things have slowly started to improve in Iraq and Syria after decades of instability, it is now Iran posing a challenge for Turkiye at its doorstep, but it is Israel in the broader region. An Israel-Iran war is a multidimensional test for Turkiye — one that demands the careful reevaluation of every pillar of policy: energy security, border control, diplomacy and regional strategy. • Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye's relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz
