What Trump's second coming signifies for Saudi-US relations
https://arab.news/5kddk
As President Donald Trump prepares to return to Saudi Arabia for what is expected to be the first international stop in this new chapter of his political life, the significance of the visit cannot be overstated — nor could its timing be more crucial.
The world today is in flux. The global order is being tested by war, economic uncertainty, rising extremism, and shifting alliances. In the midst of this complexity, Trump's 'second coming' to the Kingdom sends a loud and clear message: The US recognizes that the challenges of today cannot be tackled without working closely with reliable allies. And when it comes to stability, mediation, and real influence, no one is better positioned than Riyadh.
Whether it is Ukraine and Russia — where Saudi Arabia enjoys strong, trust-based relations with both sides — or the escalating crisis in Sudan, the Kingdom has stepped up time and again. Riyadh has taken on the tough assignments others shy away from. When many assumed that a phone call and a press release would suffice to de-escalate the India-Pakistan standoff, Saudi Arabia quietly dispatched one of its most seasoned diplomats, Adel Al-Jubeir, to mediate face-to-face. These are not acts of vanity but strategic contributions to global peace, and, frankly, they serve American interests, too.
Putting America first does not mean ignoring opportunities abroad; it means seizing them.
Faisal J. Abbas | Editor-in-Chief
A more stable Middle East is not just good for Saudi Arabia; it is good for the world, reducing migration pressures, helping to stabilize energy markets, and curbing the spread of extremist ideologies. It is this exact logic that fuels Saudi Arabia's longstanding advocacy for a two-state solution in Palestine.
Riyadh has always maintained that correcting the historic injustice faced by Palestinians is not only morally imperative, but also the most secure path to lasting peace — for Israelis, Arabs, and the wider region. The longer the occupation persists, the more fertile the ground becomes for extremism. Without justice, there can be no peace, and without peace, there can be no prosperity.
Of course, some critics — mostly the usual suspects in the Western commentariat — will dismiss this visit with a tired, reductionist take: 'Trump is just going where the money is.' That line of thinking is not only outdated, it is insulting — both to the Kingdom, which is in the midst of a profound transformation under Vision 2030, and to a US administration that has chosen, unapologetically, to put American interests first.
But putting America first does not mean ignoring opportunities abroad; it means seizing them. Trump understands, perhaps better than any of his predecessors, that if American companies do not engage with fast-growing markets like Saudi Arabia, others will. We have seen this play out before: in 5G technology, infrastructure, and defense contracts. Strategic gaps left by the US were quickly filled by competitors.
The business delegation accompanying Trump will witness a new Saudi Arabia, one that is younger, more open, more dynamic.
Faisal J. Abbas | Editor-in-Chief
And make no mistake, there will be billions of dollars of deals signed during this visit — but not because Saudi Arabia has spare change to throw around. These agreements are being forged because a country the size of Western Europe, with one of the top 20 economies in the world, is diversifying, modernizing, and building for the future. From artificial intelligence to renewable energy to nuclear cooperation, we need credible partners — and American firms are among the best.
Let us also not forget that the door swings both ways. The business delegation accompanying Trump will witness a new Saudi Arabia, one that is younger, more open, more dynamic, and bursting with investment opportunities across every sector. From tourism and tech to sports and sustainability, those who missed out last time won't want to miss out again — and Trump won't want them to, either.
So, let us welcome President Trump, his team, and the business community he brings with him. Let us talk, sign, build, and grow — together. And, yes, let us make Saudi-US relations great again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
22 minutes ago
- Arab News
Democrats are at odds over the Israel-Iran war as Trump considers intervening
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats are now finding themselves at odds over US policy toward Iran as progressives demand unified opposition to President Donald Trump's consideration of a strike against Tehran's nuclear program while party leaders tread more cautiously. US leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime US foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatens to destroy Israel. But Trump's public flirtation with joining Israel's offensive against Iran may become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it is sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. While progressives have staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential actions, the party leadership is playing the safer ground of demanding a role for Congress before Trump could use force against Iran. Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations are staying silent, so far, on the Israel-Iran war. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats use Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party' and has introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, that calls on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of US armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the 'manosphere.' 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Very fine words. Trump should remember them today. Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders has reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that US military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but he is so far holding off this time. Some believe the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance as Trump weighs whether to launch a military offensive that is seemingly counter to the anti-interventionism he promised during his 2024 campaign. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. Bridging the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of US support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, was also cautious in responding to the Israeli action and said 'the US must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' 'It really seems like the Trump and Iran war track is kind of going along like a Formula 1 racetrack, and then the Democrats are in some sort of tricycle or something trying to keep up,' said Ryan Costello, a policy director for the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, which advocates for diplomatic engagement between US and Iran. Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, on X. 'The single reason Iran was so close to obtaining a nuclear weapon is that Trump destroyed the diplomatic agreement that put major, verifiable constraints on their nuclear program.' The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the US was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the US was in conflict. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian American from Arizona, said Iranians are unwitting victims in the conflict because there aren't shelters or infrastructure to protect civilians from targeted missiles as there are in Israel. 'The Iranian people are not the regime, and they should not be punished for its actions,' Ansari posted on X, while criticizing Trump for fomenting fear among the Iranian population. 'The Iranian people deserve freedom from the barbaric regime, and Israelis deserve security.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Explore World News Today
The US ambassador to Israel said on Saturday the United States has begun 'assisted departure flights' from Israel, the first time such flights have been…
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
What is Netanyahu's endgame?
A direct, large-scale military confrontation between Iran and Israel was always perceived as too dangerous because it risked consequences too devastating for either side to seriously contemplate, let alone initiate. That was until Israeli authorities decided last week to strike first in what is their biggest military gamble since the nation's founding fathers made the decision to declare independence. An overnight Israeli operation, daring and successful beyond imagination, turned a decades-long war of words into an actual war between the two major military powers in the Middle East. And they have already demonstrated their ability, and desire, to inflict great damage on one another in what might become an open-ended war of attrition. Unless common sense prevails among both leaderships, which appears a far-fetched hope, or, more likely, concerted international pressure can succeed in halting this deadly confrontation immediately, it might well spiral out of control. To state the very obvious, no one outside Iran, and few inside the country, wants to see it armed with nuclear weapons, which would inevitably lead to a nuclear arms race. As a matter of fact, a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East must be a long-term objective. But Israel's decision to embark on a military operation of this scale, and the timing of it, raises questions and concerns about its true objectives. It is no secret that for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the self-proclaimed 'Mr. Security,' there have for a long time been two main overarching objectives, to the point of obsession: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. He views them both as existential threats to the Jewish state and, equally, as his own ticket to political relevance and endurance. There has been much discussion about, and will eventually be a formal investigation into, the ways in which Netanyahu's destructive policies designed to prevent the possibility of a two-state solution to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians contributed to the events of Oct. 7, 2023, the most devastating Israeli security failure ever which led to the ongoing war in Gaza. For him to now embark on what might prove to be the most consequential war in his country's history, people need to be convinced beyond any shred of doubt that the decision was not tainted by any ulterior motive. Alas, the Israeli prime minister's behavior throughout his political career, and most definitely during his present term in office, has failed to instill the necessary confidence that this is the case. Moreover, entering into a conflict that by some estimates could result in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties requires a united country. His government has not only divided the nation more than ever before, it has made unwarranted and acerbic criticisms of the very people now charged with carrying out the strikes against Iran, simply because they peacefully opposed the government's attacks on the country's democratic foundations, or called for an end to the war in Gaza and to bringing the hostages home. In such a high-stakes confrontation with an enemy in possession of potentially devastating capabilities, there is a need for trust in the leadership directing it, but this is hardly the case here. Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government. This is not that surprising, considering his legal woes, his desperation to remain in power, and his record of trying to deflect attention from his own domestic and foreign failures by pursuing a more aggressive stance, verbal or otherwise, on unresolved conflicts with Israel's neighbors. Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government. Yossi Mekelberg There is a lingering concern that his decision to turn up the heat on Iran had as much to do with the ongoing crisis within his own coalition government, and the fact that he is in the early stages of the prosecution's cross-examination in his corruption trial, as it had to do with the security threat emanating from Tehran. In the event of a prolonged war with Iran, it is almost impossible to envisage that any member of the coalition would resign, and Netanyahu would have the perfect excuse to delay for weeks, if not months, his appearance in court. He has claimed that the attacks on Iranian targets were justified based on new information, which he was not prepared to share, about the imminent successful conclusion of a secret Iranian program to finally obtain nuclear weapons. He stated that Tehran already had the capacity to build a number of bombs, a claim refuted by several American intelligence reports that concluded Iran is still a few years away from developing such weapons. It is more likely that Israeli authorities feared the US might reach what they consider to be an unsatisfactory nuclear deal with Iran. It is also the case that Israeli decision-makers identified an opportune moment to strike, given that Iran's 'axis of resistance' has been substantially weakened, and the Trump administration, while it did not give a green light for Israel to proceed with a military operation, neither did it order them to hit the brakes. In fact Washington is still sending mixed signals about whether it is more interested in an immediate ceasefire, or would be happy to see Iranian negotiators return to the bargaining table with their country badly wounded and humiliated — a strategy that might backfire. Israel, despite its impressive military performance until now, does not on its own have the capability to completely degrade Iran's nuclear project, and it is too early to assess the extent of the damage inflicted so far. Netanyahu gambled the US would be sucked into the conflict, either to finish the job, should the first stages of the war succeed in creating a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity to put to bed the Iranian nuclear program once and for all or, if things went seriously wrong, that Washington would come to Israel's rescue. Increasingly, it seems as though Trump is inclined to order his military to finish the job; he has stated his desire to see a 'real end' to the conflict and demanded 'total surrender' from Iran, rather than a ceasefire. Top Israeli officials, chief among them Netanyahu, have not hidden their yearning for a humiliating defeat of Iran on the battlefield that could lead to regime change. However, there is no evidence to suggest the regime in Tehran would not be able to weather such a storm, or that there are opposition forces ready and able to mount an effective challenge. If anything, Iranian citizens who see their country under attack are more likely to rally round the flag. To the regime, meanwhile, the conflict provides a further excuse to take even harsher action against any signs of domestic discontent. Moreover, regime change commonly suggests a desire among the external forces that attempt to initiate it to install an administration more favorable to them — yet past experiences do not provide much reassurance that this is what would happen; quite the reverse, in fact. Netanyahu has taken the gamble of his life and in doing so he is also gambling with Israel's long-term security, and possibly that of the wider region as well. No one will benefit from a prolonged war that could entangle other regional powers. Diplomacy must step in quickly and play a central role in resolving the conflict or this will be a long and bloody summer.
