On the sidelines of the Sun Valley Conference this week, Jordanian King Abdullah II met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Royal Hashemite Court said the two “discussed the positive economic relationship between the United States and Jordan.”

The Jordan Times, an English-language newspaper in the Hashemite Kingdom, wrote that in his meetings, the king “noted the importance of Jordan’s economic and administrative modernisation process in enhancing the Kingdom’s competitiveness and ability to attract investments, highlighting opportunities for building and strengthening economic partnerships.”

The Jordanian king is a rare  foreign head of state who attends the annual confab hosted by Allen & Co. The gathering brings together thought leaders, tech and media titans and current and former government officials every summer in Sun Valley, Idaho. Last year, King Abdullah met with Jeff Bezos and other business leaders on the sidelines of the conference. Jordan’s Queen Rania and Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah were among the guests at the wedding of Bezos and Lauren Sánchez last month.

Other attendees at this year’s conference include Mark Zuckerberg, Andy Jassy, Sam Altman, Barry Diller, Alex Karp, Jared Kushner, Evan Spiegel, Ynon Kreiz, Charles Rivkin, David Zaslav, Brian Grazer, Bob Iger, David Ignatius, Bari Weiss, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mike Bloomberg, Govs. Wes Moore and Glenn Youngkin, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Casey Wasserman.

The goodwill gestures toward Israel from Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa began modestly.

In a surprise move that came only months after he and his Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group toppled the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president — “a jihadi in a suit,” as Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called him over past ties to Al-Qaida — gave Israel Syria’s archive of documents relating to captured Israeli spy Eli Cohen, who was captured and executed in Syria in 1965, and the remains of soldier Zvi Feldman, who was killed in battle in 1982.

Then, al-Sharaa pressured the terrorist groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to disarm, leading some of the groups’ leaders to flee the country.

And when Israel sent its bombers streaking toward Iran’s nuclear sites last month, Syria did not intervene with or publicly oppose Israel’s use of its airspace.

Taken together, these steps and others are leading to a warming of relations between Israel and its northern neighbor, a reality that seemed almost unthinkable just a few months ago. While officials and analysts are stopping short of calling the rapprochement peace talks, there is a new optimism — albeit cautious — following the strikes.

While at the White House on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke positively about an “opportunity for stability, security and eventually peace” with Syria. He said that prospect stems from “the fact that [President Trump] has opened up a channel … and the change of security situation brought about by the collapse of the Assad regime.”

Last week, Sa’ar said in a press conference that Israel “would like to have all our neighbors … in the camp of normalization and peace in the region. That includes Syria, as much as it includes Saudi Arabia … It is too early to prejudge what will happen in the future. We have certain security needs and interests, which we must take into account.”

A senior official in Netanyahu’s delegation to Washington emphasized this week that talk of peace between Israel and Syria is premature, saying that “agreements with Lebanon and Syria are not a matter of the short term, but they’re possible.” 

“There are a lot of challenges,” the official said. “It would be irresponsible to talk about Syria entering the Abraham Accords or normalization at this time. We aren’t there.”

Still, the official said that opportunities opened up after the successful Israeli and American strikes on Iran, among them an agreement with Syria. 

One way the 12-day Israeli operation against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs may have contributed to Israel’s cautious optimism about reaching understandings with Syria is that its airspace played an important role in Israel’s strikes and defense during that time — and Damascus did not get in the way.

Carmit Valensi, head of the Syria program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, told Jewish Insider that “there was intensive Israeli activity in Syria’s airspace on the way to attack Iran, and Israel shot down [Iranian] drones and missiles over Syrian territory.” 

While al-Sharaa’s view of Iran as a “strategic threat to the entire region” is not unique among leaders in the Middle East, Valensi pointed out, “unlike other Arab countries that condemned Israel [for the strikes on Iran], al-Sharaa was totally quiet.”

Israel and Syria “have a shared goal to weaken Iran and its influence,” Valensi said. “I think that gave another push for the interests to bring relations closer.”

Ronni Shaked, a research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew University, views Syria’s willingness to allow Israel use of its airspace to strike Iran as the most significant of a number of “goodwill gestures” from Damascus to Jerusalem that may be contributing to Israel’s shifting approach to Syria.

Letting Israel use Syrian airspace during its war with Iran “gave Israel unusual freedom of action to easily reach the Iraqi border and then Iran, which took a great weight off of Israel,” Shaked said.

“He [Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa] is showing signs that he knows he has to change to get help from the West and so the world will recognize him as the legitimate leader,” said IDF Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya’acov Amidror, a former Israeli national security advisor. “It’s also clear that Arab leaders are not willing to live next to a Taliban state.” 

Other gestures in the months since al-Sharaa’s rise included giving Israel Syria’s archive of documents relating to Israeli spy Eli Cohen, who was captured and executed in Syria in 1965, and the remains of soldier Zvi Feldman, who was killed in battle in 1982. 

In addition, Shaked noted that al-Sharaa pressured the terror groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to disarm, leading some of the groups’ leaders to flee the country.

IDF Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya’acov Amidror, a former Israeli national security advisor, told JI that the main reason for the shift was that “time passed, that’s all.”

“In the beginning, he was a mystery. No one knew who [al-Sharaa] was, only that he came from Al-Qaida, and we only saw Al-Qaida-type people around him,” Amidror said. 

Since assuming leadership of Syria in December, however, Israel has seen that al-Sharaa “is trying to build something else in Syria,” Amidror said. “He is showing signs that he knows he has to change to get help from the West and so the world will recognize him as the legitimate leader. It’s also clear that Arab leaders are not willing to live next to a Taliban state.” 

“Taking all of that together, Israel is willing to talk,” he added.

Trump’s May meeting with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia also motivated Jerusalem and Damascus to enter talks. 

Shaked said that Syria “jumped on [the opportunity] … and said, ‘If Trump is willing to recognize us, then we can get rid of the sanctions and receive grants’” to help rebuild the country. 

The meeting between Trump and al-Shaara “was the breakthrough that set the path we are on,” he added.

Valensi concurred, saying that “the direct motivation for Israel to change its approach is the Americans’ embrace of al-Sharaa.”

After Assad’s fall in December, Israel struck Syria’s air defenses, missile stockpiles and other military capabilities, and moved into the buffer zone between the countries. Valensi said that the “hawkish approach to al-Sharaa came from … the trauma of Oct. 7 [2023 terror attacks]. Israel is much more determined to stop threats that may develop on its border. And paradoxically, Israel had a feeling of increased self-confidence, strength and power after its significant military achievements against the axis of resistance and Hezbollah, including the beeper operation and killing [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah.”

Even before the May meeting in Riyadh, Valensi said, Israel had begun to soften its approach, with indirect talks between the countries, fewer military strikes and talks about deconfliction with Turkey, mediated by Azerbaijan.

“I think Israel started to understand that there were risks to its approach, and was starting to create a hostile dynamic to Israel” within Syria, Valensi said.

Amidror stopped short of describing the current situation as a shift in Israel’s approach: “There isn’t a change yet. We aren’t giving anything up, but we are in talks … We’re not withdrawing [from the Syrian Golan] so fast.” 

That could change in the future, however, Amidror added, saying that if al-Sharaa “really distances himself from where he came from and goes to a less extreme and more normal place, there is no reason for Israel to ignore it.”

Syrian media describes the talks as a “non-aggression pact,” Valensi said. Damascus has said it is looking to return to the 1974 ceasefire agreement that went into effect after the Yom Kippur War, which would entail Israel withdrawing from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights to where it was before the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad last year, and for there to be a buffer zone with U.N. forces between the countries. 

Valensi was skeptical that Israel would be willing to withdraw from the peak of Mount Hermon, a point in Syria which the IDF deployed troops to shortly after the fall of Assad, after so many senior Israeli security figures have called it a strategic achievement.

“Peace with Syria removes the entire threat from the eastern front, which is Israel’s longest front and a strategic one. We have peace with Jordan, and if we had peace with Syria, it would be the greatest gift to Israel,” said Ronni Shaked, a research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew University.

“Israel may want a more gradual formula, a withdrawal in stages. I don’t know if al-Sharaa will accept that, and [withdrawal] is his basic condition,” she said. 

Shaked argued that “Israel has no need for the Syrian Golan. I don’t know what we’re doing there. It’s nonsense, it’s a symbol. If we want peace, we need to stop conquering territory.” 

“Peace with Syria removes the entire threat from the eastern front, which is Israel’s longest front and a strategic one. We have peace with Jordan, and if we had peace with Syria, it would be the greatest gift to Israel,” he said.

While talks are not focused on a comprehensive peace treaty yet, Shaked said anything is possible: “It was a great surprise when [former Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat came to Israel. We pinched ourselves and asked when we’re dreaming. New realities are created by brave leaders. If Netanyahu will be brave enough, he can give a little attention to this issue and make advances towards peace.” 

Valensi, however, argued that “the conversation about expanding the Abraham Accords or normalization is not relevant now.” She noted that al-Sharaa has said that public opinion in Syria would not support normalization with Israel, and it would be too drastic of a shift. “Al-Sharaa is a new leader with very limited legitimacy. It’s a fragile situation … It’s unclear that al-Sharaa would want to take on that political risk,” she said.

Johnnie Moore, an evangelical leader and director of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation who met with al-Sharaa last month, told the “Misgav Mideast Horizons” podcast last week that he “absolutely believe[s] that there will be peace between Syria and Israel. No question. It’s just a matter of time.”

As to an unconfirmed report that Netanyahu and al-Sharaa will meet in September before the U.N. General Assembly, Valensi said that “so many things can change in two months … Reality is so dynamic so I would not go that far. But if things continue on this trajectory, then it is possible.” 

Still, al-Sharaa would have to do a lot of work on Syrian public opinion before being photographed with Netanyahu, she added.

Johnnie Moore, an evangelical leader and director of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation who met with al-Sharaa last month, told the “Misgav Mideast Horizons” podcast last week that he “absolutely believe[s] that there will be peace between Syria and Israel. No question. It’s just a matter of time.” (The writer is a co-host of the podcast.) 

Al-Sharaa, Moore said, is part of a new generation of Middle Eastern leaders who are “future-oriented” and focused on solving problems, in contrast with “older leaders who think only about the past.”

To get there, however, Moore said “there are practical things that have to be done, and there are things that will make the Syrians uncomfortable and things that will make Israel uncomfortable. And yet, I think it will be done.” 

“I’m not sure it’s going to be done as quickly as everybody wants it, but I am certain it’s not going to take as long as people think it might,” he added.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, confronted the ambassadors of Rwanda, Jordan and Qatar, among other countries, over their relationships with U.S. adversaries in China and Iran, at a dinner last night, per a source familiar with the congressman’s remarks.

According to Politico, the Rwandan and Jordanian ambassadors to the United States hosted a dinner honoring Mast, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, also attended by the ambassadors of Qatar, Kuwait, France, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland and Costa Rica.

Mast told the leaders “they would have to figure out which side they were on: American or China/Iran,” a source familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider. “Described as like chess. Sometimes you don’t get to choose who is a pawn and a queen, but you get to decide what side you are on.”

Mast is a longtime, and outspoken, pro-Israel lawmaker who volunteered with a group supporting the Israeli Defense Forces following his own military service.

Iranian ballistic missiles struck Soroka Hospital in Beersheba in southern Israel and sites in the Tel Aviv area on Thursday morning, wounding 89, including three seriously.

A missile struck the hospital’s old surgical building, severely damaging it and causing what a Soroka spokesperson described as “extensive damage in various areas” of the hospital complex. The surgical building had been recently evacuated in light of the war, and patients and staff had been moved to areas with reinforced walls. Injuries from the strike were light, hospital representatives said.

Soroka is the largest hospital in the Negev, such that the strike left a large swath of Israel without a functioning major medical center. Other hospitals in the area, including Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon and Assuta Medical Center in Ashdod, prepared to take in patients from buildings that were damaged. Magen David Adom provided four intensive care buses, able to transport a total of 23 ICU patients and 50 lightly injured casualties.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar wrote that “The Iranian regime fired a ballistic missile at a hospital. The Iranian Regime deliberately targets civilians. The Iranian regime is committing war crimes. The Iranian regime has no red lines.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on X that “Iran’s terrorist dictators shot missiles at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba and the civilian population in the center of the country. We will make the dictators in Tehran pay the full price.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement that the price would be to destabilize the Islamic Republic’s regime.

“The prime minister and I instructed the IDF to increase the force of the attacks against strategic targets in Iran and against governmental targets in Tehran to remove the threats to the State of Israel and undermine the Ayatollahs’ regime,” he stated.

Iranian news agency IRNA claimed that the target of the strike was an IDF intelligence outpost in Beersheba’s HiTech Park, which is over a mile away from the hospital. A television channel tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that the missile was aimed at a “military hospital” in response to strikes on “civilian hospitals” in Gaza.

In the same 30-missile barrage, Iranian missiles struck a school in Holon. No children were present, because schools have been closed across Israel since Friday, but three elderly residents of adjacent buildings were wounded in serious condition, in addition to 62 others with minor to moderate injuries.

Another missile struck near the Ramat Gan Diamond Exchange, abutting Tel Aviv, causing minor injuries to 21 people and damage to 20 buildings in the neighborhood, which includes some of Israel’s tallest buildings.

Shrapnel struck Sheba Medical Center, Israel’s biggest hospital, also in Ramat Gan.

Overnight, the IDF intercepted several drones launched by Iran at Israel towards central and northern Israel. 

Jordanian authorities reported that an Iranian drone fell in a shopping center north of Amman, damaging a car and a bus station. Syrian media reported that an Iranian drone was shot down over the country.

The IDF struck an inactive nuclear reactor near Arak in Iran early Thursday after sending warnings to civilians in the area. The IDF Spokesperson’s Office said the strike included “the structure of the reactor’s core seal, which is a key component in plutonium production.”

“The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Office said.

The IDF also gave details of strikes on the active nuclear site in Natanz, which “contained components and specialized equipment used to advance nuclear weapons development and projects designed to accelerate the regime’s nuclear program.” 

In addition, 40 IAF fighter jets struck dozens of military targets in Tehran and other parts of the country, including factories manufacturing ballistic missile and air-defense components, as well as air-defense batteries, surface-to-surface missile storage sites, radar systems and other targets.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir sent a letter of encouragement to IDF soldiers and commanders on Thursday, saying that they are “writing a new chapter in history for the State of Israel and the entire Middle East.”

”Thanks to a decisive and impressive surprise opening strike, we have achieved tremendous goals: We eliminated the regime’s command echelons, delivered a deep blow to the capabilities used for the Iranian nuclear program, identified and struck missile launchers, and we are continuing and increasing the strength of our operations as necessary,” Zamir wrote.

Iranian news reported that the country’s military shot down a second Israeli Hermes Drome. The IDF confirmed that Iran downed the first UAV a day earlier.

Israel’s Home Front Command loosened restrictions on Israelis on Wednesdays, allowing people to return to workplaces with safe rooms and for up to 30 people to attend synagogue at a time. Schools and kindergartens remained closed.

A poll published by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 70% of Israelis support the campaign launched against Iran last week, while 10% support the campaign but think the timing is wrong and 13.5% oppose it. Among Israeli Jews, 82% support the strikes, whereas only 11% of Israeli Arabs do, according to the poll. Jewish Israelis across the political spectrum support the operation: 57% of those who self-identify as left-wing, 75% of centrists and 90% on the right.

Though in past polls, most Jewish Israelis did not think Israel should strike Iran without help from the U.S., this week 69% thought it was the right decision. In addition, 68% of Jewish Israelis thought that Netanyahu’s motivation behind launching the operation against Iran was security-related, while 68% of Arab Israelis thought it was political.

The poll was conducted this Sunday-Tuesday among 594 Israelis, with a 3.61% margin of error.

American fascination with the Middle East and its colorful leaders — dictators and military generals and royals and Israeli premiers — dates back decades, from Saddam Hussein to Iran’s ayatollahs to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. 

One ruler has survived more or less unscathed over more than a quarter century, avoiding flashy headlines about power struggles or coups, all while keeping a tight grip on power and maintaining close, bipartisan ties with Washington. 

That’s Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who has ruled the country since 1999, taking over from his father, King Hussein, who ruled for 47 years. In The Most American King, a new biography of King Abdullah, author Aaron Magid argues that the Jordanian king’s staying power is what makes him interesting — and that the relative stability he has overseen demands attention in a region so often beset by chaos elsewhere.

“Jordan is a critical U.S. strategic partner, both in terms of money and in terms of U.S. troops — there are thousands of U.S. troops based in Jordan,” Magid, a Middle East analyst and former Amman-based journalist, told Jewish Insider in an interview this week. “But unfortunately, journalists often chase violence and wars and conflicts, and the Hashemite Kingdom has been remarkably stable over the past 25 years … Jordan, because it has less violence, it gets a lower media profile.” (Magid was a reporter at JI from 2016 to 2018.)

The book charts King Abdullah’s journey from boarding school in the U.S. and studying at Georgetown University to ruling a country whose language he hardly spoke, given his many years spent living and learning abroad. But it’s that intimate knowledge of American culture that, Magid argues, has allowed King Abdullah to cultivate the kind of lasting, bipartisan relationships with lawmakers that many other nations covet. King Abdullah was the first Arab leader to meet with Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump — in both terms — in the White House. 

Magid drew a distinction between Washington’s longtime relationship with Amman and Trump’s efforts this year to build closer ties with Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, each of which he visited in May.

“Qatar, which President Trump visited recently, is the same country that Trump called for a blockade against in 2017 for supporting terrorism. And Saudi Arabia, of course, right now might be close with Trump, but when the Democrats were in power, President Biden called them a pariah, and there’s a lot of Democratic opposition to Saudi Arabia,” Magid explained. “What makes Jordan unique is its ability to be close with both presidents and then have those very strong security ties as well.”

Jordan receives roughly $1.45 billion a year from the U.S., making it one of the largest recipients of American foreign assistance dollars. That’s despite King Abdullah’s public criticism of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East — and even harsher language from his wife, Queen Rania, who is of Palestinian descent. 

Still, despite taking a publicly hardline stance against Israel’s conduct in Gaza, King Abdullah has not seriously considered pulling Jordan out of its 1994 peace treaty with Israel, nor has he severed the crucial security ties between the two countries. Jordan also helped shoot down Iranian missiles fired at Israel last year.

“There were many disagreements with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, personally … but at the same time, King Abdullah has ensured that even though many in the country support annulling the peace treaty, he’s refused to do that,” said Magid. “Part of the reason he does that is because he’s been getting about $1.5 billion a year from Congress, and if he were to sever the peace deal, it would be unlikely he would reach that number of aid, and that aid is critical for the country. But I think he does understand that having some sort of relationship with Israel is in his benefit and his national security interest.” 

In his book, Magid reveals that King Abdullah’s public criticism of Israel was not a foregone conclusion. 

“There was a honeymoon period in terms of King Abdullah’s relationship with Israel as king, and it lasted about a year, 1999 and 2000. He says in an interview, ‘I have many friends in the IDF.’ That’s not language you would ever hear from King Abdullah today,” Magid recounted. “He praised Ehud Barak as someone who is great to work with, not something you’d ever hear him say again about an Israeli prime minister. And then he even said that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon raised Israel’s moral credibility. Once again, you’d never hear King Abdullah or any Jordanian official say anything positive about Israel’s morals in today’s day and age.”

King Abdullah has generally succeeded at balancing the concerns of Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are Palestinian, with the nation’s security needs, argues Magid. But he has “done a very poor job of providing jobs for his people,” Magid said. 

“Part of the issue for King Abdullah is he doesn’t have a grand accomplishment, either on the domestic front or on the foreign policy one,” said Magid. “But unlike his father, who had these grand moves, he has been much more toned down.”

During the reign of King Hussein, Jordan had some major victories, both strategic and tactical, as well as some major setbacks — like losing control of Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1967 war with Israel. Still, the stability that King Abdullah has maintained is coupled with a high unemployment rate and a move even further away from democracy, which does not help his image in the eyes of his countrymen.

“When you ask people, often behind closed doors, who is more popular, his father or him, most people will say his father. His father was loved,” said Magid. “But it’s difficult to know, exactly, given that you can go to jail — and many people have gone to jail in Jordan — for criticizing the king.”

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), returning from a trip to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, characterized leaders in the region as being open to the Trump administration’s efforts to reach a new nuclear deal with Iran, but also suggested that they are skeptical that Iran will actually agree to a deal that dismantles its nuclear program.

“I think folks are realistic about the prospects of Iran coming to an agreement, but still want to give the process a chance and try to avoid a conflict if possible,” Lawler told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “But ultimately, you know, I think everybody is very clear about the fact that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Lawler, joined by Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Sheila Cherfilus McCormick (D-FL), met with regional leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir and Jordanian King Abdullah II.

On nuclear talks with Iran, the New York Republican said that leaders in the region are “cautiously optimistic that we can make progress in a negotiation, but I think realistic about the fact that we’ve been here before with Iran, and they continue to operate in the manner that they do.”

Lawler has been a leader in the House on Iran sanctions, sponsoring two bills that passed last year to crack down on the oil trade between Iran and China and a third that is moving ahead in the House this year.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in congressional testimony last week that negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are not engaging with Iran’s support for terrorism or its ballistic missile program, but said that sanctions targeting those areas would remain in place if they are not addressed under a deal. Many Republicans have argued in the past that Tehran would use any sanctions relief, regardless of target, to fund malign activities.

“Let’s see what actually comes out of these negotiations,” Lawler said, of Rubio’s comments. “But, my general view is that the nuclear program, obviously, is a major threat, but so too is their continued funding of terrorism, and all of these issues are going to have to be addressed, one way or the other.”

He said that “as part of any sanctions relief down the road, they would have to cease all terror activity and funding of it. But I think we’re a long ways away from that, and so that’s why I continue to push on the sanctions.”

Lawler described the Trump administration as being more aggressive than the Biden administration in implementing sanctions, including the two bills he spearheaded in the previous Congress, against Iran.

“This has been, from the standpoint of applying pressure, critical, but long term all of these issues are going to have to be addressed,” Lawler said. “One of the immediate issues is the nuclear program and trying to eliminate that through a diplomatic negotiation.”

Amid public reports that the U.S., Hamas and Israel are nearing an agreement on a new ceasefire proposal, Lawler said, “We’ll see if progress can be made there. Hamas continues to put in place demands that are never, ever going to be accepted by the United States or Israel.”

While Israel has said it would agree to the current U.S. proposal, Israeli officials have also implemented plans to expand operations in Gaza even as U.S. officials have reportedly been privately pressuring Israeli officials to end the war.

“Israel is continuing to proceed forward with respect to trying to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas. Obviously, the longer this drags on, the more difficult it is within the region,” Lawler said. “But I think everybody would like to see this come to an end, in which the hostages are released, the Palestinian people are able to live in a more stable area and get the humanitarian assistance that they need.”

Lawler also expressed support for the new American and Israeli effort to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, which began earlier this week.

He criticized the Biden administration for, in 2024, pressuring Israel against expanding operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, arguing that if Israel had heeded that pressure, Hamas and Hezbollah’s leadership would still be alive and the Assad regime would still be in power in Syria.

Lawler denied that the Trump administration had placed any similar pressure on Israel, despite public comments from President Donald Trump that Israel should not attack Iran’s nuclear program while talks are ongoing and reports of private pressure on a number of fronts.

“I think the administration has been very supportive, but they’re in the process of trying to negotiate,” Lawler said, of Trump’s recent comments opposing a strike on Iran. “And obviously, when you’re in the middle of a negotiation, any military action can undermine that negotiation … the talks are in a critical stage, and you have to allow those talks to unfold.”

He suggested that he believes that the administration would support a strike if the negotiations fail, and that Israel should not have to act on its own in such a scenario. “There should be coordination and cooperation if and when any action is taken,” Lawler said.

The congressman said that, despite the ongoing challenges, there are new opportunities in the Middle East and it is in some ways “in a stronger position for change than it was 19 months ago.”

“There’s a lot of work ahead, but I think the dialogue in all three countries was extremely positive and focused on the future and how we kind of bridge these divides and long-term normalization and economic cooperation between all countries in the region,” Lawler said.

Saudi Arabia, he said, was “extremely happy” with Trump’s recent visit. The U.S.-Saudi relationship, he continued, is on a “very positive” trajectory, and Saudi Arabia is poised to be a key player in helping to bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East.

Despite recent reports and public statements indicating that Saudi interest in normalizing relations with Israel has waned in the short term, Lawler said that “they understand how important it is both from the long-term stability and economic prosperity of the Middle East, but also on the global stage.” 

“The sooner this conflict [in Gaza] comes to an end, I think the easier it will be to begin that process,” Lawler continued.

Lawler also described Jordan as “vital to the U.S., to Israel and to the peace and stability of the Middle East” and a “great ally and partner.” 

He said that Jordan’s King Abdullah II had stressed the economic, natural resource and refugee challenges the country faces. Lawler argued that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia should invest in Jordan to help support its stability, “which is vital to our national security interests and certainly that of Israel.”

Stability in Jordan is key to stability in the region as the Trump Administration pursues its plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution said on Tuesday, on a conference call from Tel Aviv.

“The survival of Jordan to me is pretty core to the survival of the Middle East,” Cofman Wittes said. The call was set up to discuss possible fallout if Israel were to annex of parts of the West Bank, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments on the matter during the election in April.

“The King [of Jordan] is already in a very delicate position… a majority of the Jordanian population is Palestinian. If we’re going to see significant, mass mobilization in the wake of an annexation move anywhere in the Arab world, you’re going to see it first in Jordan,” Cofman Wittes said. “I think that given the existing domestic challenges, it just adds this much more fuel to the fire.”

Ms. Cofman Wittes landed in Tel Aviv following a week of travel in the Hashemite Kingdom. She warned Tuesday that Jordanian frustrations are high. The citizenry’s anger over domestic issues — lack of jobs, crumbling infrastructure, poor healthcare and education – could be set off if they feel abandoned by their government and if the King is perceived to be supporting U.S. policy toward Israel and against Palestinian national aspirations.

Jordan maintains a “cool” peace with Israel and has oversight of the Temple Mount, the Muslim Holy Sites of Haram al-Sharif and Al-aqsa Mosque, and it’s unclear what the country’s role would be in any proposed peace plan by President Trump’s Middle East peace team of Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. The two advisors are expected to visit Jordan this week to discuss the Bahrain summit with the King.

Cofman Wittes said that the King faces an impossible choice. He can accept the terms of the Americans and “sell out” the political and national interests of the Palestinians and potentially receive large investment. Or, he could maintain a delicate stability in his country by acting in the national consensus of the population.

“What is a head of government supposed to do in that circumstance?” Cofman Wittes asked. “He cannot sell out his national interest, even for the highest price – is basically saying, ‘Yes, I am prepared to destabilize my own rule, my own life-span in power for the sake of whatever check you say you’re going to write to me or you say whatever pledge you say the Gulf is going to give to me.’ I just don’t think that’s a deal any King of Jordan is going to go for.”