Mohammed bin Salman’s Visit and the Conflicting Strategic Bets
As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrives in Washington today, U.S. President Donald Trump is framing the visit within Washington’s broader push to persuade Saudi Arabia to engage in direct normalization with Israel and join the Abraham Accords.
Trump has already laid out what he describes as a “grand bargain,” emphasizing the potential approval of advanced F-35 fighter jet sales to Saudi Arabia—an offer long opposed by Tel Aviv, given Israel’s concerns over preserving its legally enshrined qualitative military edge. The U.S. draft resolution submitted to the UN Security Council ties this prospective deal to a political horizon for negotiations, centered on the concept of Palestinian “statehood,” linked to a process beginning with reforms within the Palestinian Authority and renewed Israeli–Palestinian dialogue.
American officials argue that referencing statehood meets Saudi Arabia’s conditions for normalization. Yet Dr. Manal Radwan, Advisor to the Saudi Foreign Minister, reiterated at the recent Manama Dialogue that normalization is contingent on establishing a Palestinian state—not merely mentioning one. The distinction remains critical: the Israeli right-wing coalition dominating Tel Aviv has categorically rejected any discussion of Palestinian statehood and removed the term from its political vocabulary. Within this context, the American formulation appears, from Riyadh’s perspective, an attempt to circumvent its explicitly stated position.
Washington may still attempt to introduce additional incentives to shift the Saudi stance—such as outlining a framework for cooperation on Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program or offering U.S. security guarantees. These issues carry significant weight for Riyadh and may be seen by Washington as potential leverage points. From the American perspective, Saudi Arabia’s entry into the normalization process could pave the way for other Muslim and Arab states to follow, embedding Israel more deeply into the region’s political architecture.
While it remains unlikely that the Crown Prince will accede to Trump’s demands today, the critical question is how the dynamics of mutual pressure and possible embarrassment will unfold during the visit. Even more striking is Trump’s insistence—despite well-known and repeatedly articulated Saudi positions—on advancing normalization without providing concrete guarantees, clear commitments, or an explicit timeline for Palestinian statehood. What strategic assumptions underpin Trump’s position? And how politically costly would it be if he fails to secure a favorable Saudi response today?
Another area of intrigue lies in Washington’s persistent and forceful push—particularly under Trump—for the Abraham Accords and the broader concept of regional peace. The U.S. appears to treat these frameworks as core strategic interests, even at the risk of confronting regional partners who object to the approach, especially after Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the hostile policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His actions—including the systematic elimination of any prospects for a viable Palestinian polity in Gaza or the West Bank, escalating confrontations with Lebanon and Syria, and even provocative statements targeting Saudi Arabia—have not dissuaded Washington from pressing ahead with its regional peace narrative. This stands in stark contrast to the Arab—and particularly Saudi—position that a durable regional peace is unattainable without first establishing a Palestinian state, and that such a vision is incompatible with Israel’s current far-right government.
Today’s visit is therefore pivotal in shaping the frameworks of regional dialogue moving forward. It intersects with U.S. ambitions as the central mediator of the post-Gaza-war phase—balancing its unwavering commitment to Israel’s security with the imperative of recalibrating regional dynamics. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to emerge as a critical regional power whose positions and decisions increasingly shape the strategic choices of the wider Middle East.