Major Gulf powers are coming together in rare lockstep amid Iran’s strikes around the region, with the United Arab Emirates closing its embassy in Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council declaring it retains the right to respond.

After the U.S. and Israel launched a major operation against Iran on Saturday, the regime struck sites in at least nine countries around the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Syria and every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Despite claiming it is aiming at U.S. military assets in the region, Iran has struck widely at civilian infrastructure, including hotels, residential neighborhoods and airports in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. At least 12 civilians were killed in Israel over the weekend, along with three U.S. servicemembers.

On Saturday, the first day of the operation, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed spoke by phone with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to discuss Iran’s aggression and their response, a significant development and sign of the seriousness of the issue amid a regional rift between the two major powers.

The UAE has taken the brunt of much of Iran’s malign activity — its Ministry of Defense said Sunday that the country had been targeted by 165 ballistic missiles, two cruise missiles and 541 drones from Iran. Three civilians were killed and 58 injured in the barrage. 

Shortly after, Abu Dhabi announced the closure of its embassy in Tehran and the withdrawal of its entire diplomatic mission, citing Iran’s “hostile attacks against civilian sites … in a serious and irresponsible escalation [that] constitute a flagrant violation of national sovereignty.” The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also summoned the Iranian ambassador to the UAE and “delivered a strongly worded note of protest” about Iran’s “terrorist attacks and assault.”

Also on Sunday, the ministerial council of the GCC held a meeting over video conference and issued a statement strongly condemning Iran’s attacks and affirming the countries’ “legal right to respond.” 

“The Council also expressed full solidarity among the GCC countries and their unified stance in confronting these attacks, stressing that the security of GCC member states is indivisible, and that any attack against any member state constitutes a direct attack against all GCC countries,” the statement went on. The countries “will take all necessary measures to defend their security and stability and to protect their territories, citizens, and residents, including the option of responding to the aggression,” they pledged.

The U.S. also joined the GCC in another statement Sunday, saying that Iran’s “targeting of civilians and of countries not engaged in hostilities is reckless and destabilizing behavior.”

Democratic lawmakers are expressing concerns about the administration’s apparent moves toward a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia that would allow the kingdom to enrich uranium, lacking the safeguards that were included in a similar nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates.

There had previously been bipartisan support in Congress for including such safeguards, including intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, under an “additional protocol” of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the “gold standard” commitment of renouncing nuclear enrichment and reprocessing included in the UAE deal. Even Energy Secretary Chris Wright last year denied that the U.S. would allow Saudi enrichment.

Asked about the situation this week, Democrats — across a broad ideological spectrum — expressed concerns, while Republicans generally avoided commenting, saying they weren’t familiar with the administration’s apparent plans.

“I think we should be extremely cautious and scrutinize — very exactingly — any deal with Saudi Arabia that provides nuclear know-how or fuel, and certainly it has to be a part of a broader agreement for normalizing relations with Israel that expands the Abraham Accords,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

“It can’t be a separate action, apart [from] everything else that’s going on, where we need Saudi cooperation,” Blumenthal continued.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told JI he wasn’t aware of the terms of the proposed deal, but said that there is a “whole range” of what enrichment can entail.

“You see this with Iran,” he said. “We gave them, in the 1970s, the ability to do medical-grade enrichment. [There is a] big difference with that and enriching uranium up to 90% have the ability to then make a weapon. I haven’t looked at the proposal. I think we’ve got to be generally very careful about how we transfer this technology.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) last week accused the administration in a statement of “caving to  Saudi demands and … writing a recipe for disaster with its plan to give nuclear-weapon-wannabe Saudi Arabia nuclear technology without the strongest safeguards.” He said Congress should block the deal in order to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a vocal critic of efforts to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich, re-introduced legislation on Tuesday requiring a congressional vote of support for an agreement with Saudi Arabia, saying in a statement, “Any nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia must include ironclad nonproliferation protections. … Without the strongest safeguards, we risk fueling nuclear proliferation in one of the world’s most volatile regions.”

He has previously warned that a Saudi nuclear program could ultimately be turned to target Israel should the kingdom’s stance change or the ruling family fall from power.

Previously, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded the same “gold standard” commitments from Saudi Arabia that the U.S. received from the UAE, with both the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee affirming that stance last year.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the committee chair, said last year that any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia “has to” include the “gold standard.” He did not provide a comment this week.

Asked by JI about the latest developments, several Senate Republicans said they had not been following the situation and largely declined to comment.

A group of nine Jewish House Democrats last year also raised concerns about efforts to move toward a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia unless “explicitly … tied to the Kingdom’s recognition of Israel and normalization of relations between the two countries.”

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow and deputy director of the nonproliferation program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that Israel should be “worried” about a potential nuclear deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, describing it as a “stunning reversal” of longstanding U.S. policy.

 She noted that the decision to disregard typical safeguards is cause for concern, warning that completing such a deal can have unpredictable consequences down the line. 

“We can’t control how the Saudis will use enrichment and reprocessing in the future, even if they are a partner today,” said Stricker. “With weak safeguards in place, Riyadh could duplicate the technology and set up covert fuel-making plants for nuclear weapons.”

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said that Saudi Arabia cannot be trusted with a nuclear deal, adding that it is “bad politics” for the U.S. to “demand that Iran end enrichment while possibly partnering up with its rival’s enrichment program.”

“It also sends the wrong message to partners like the UAE that signed up for the gold standard deal with the United States, which rightly prohibits such activities,” Ruhe added. He warned that such a deal could “set off a regional proliferation cascade,” from actors such as Iran, Turkey and Egypt. 

Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the United States faces a delicate balancing act: pursuing a deal that could carry long-term proliferation risks while also trying to prevent Saudi Arabia from turning to rival powers for nuclear cooperation.

“The United States is trying to do what is arguably impossible: allow Saudi Arabia to acquire American civil nuclear technology while hoping that it isn’t used as a cover for being able to make an atomic bomb,” Henderson said.

Henderson downplayed concerns that the prospective deal is not explicitly tied to Saudi-Israel normalization, telling JI that normalization is “delayed rather than dead.” He also dismissed the notion that a civil nuclear agreement with Riyadh would pose a threat to Israel.

“Iran is the threat to Israel, not Saudi Arabia,” Henderson said. “Even without formal relations, Riyadh and Jerusalem are on the same page on many issues.”

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said Tuesday that he’s pushing for legislation to require an affirmative congressional vote prior to the U.S. reaching any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, following a notification from the administration to Congress indicating that it is moving toward a deal that could allow Riyadh to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.

Sherman has been a longtime opponent of nuclear cooperation with Riyadh, warning that a Saudi civilian nuclear program would be the first step toward a nuclear weapon that could one day be turned against Israel. The White House announced plans for a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia in November during a Washington visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Such a deal had previously been coupled with Saudi normalization with Israel, as had advanced weapons sales to the kingdom, but the Trump administration has de-linked those initiatives.

Sherman said during a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the administration notified some House Republicans in November of plans to forge a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia.

The notification procedures, which do not include specific terms of a potential deal, suggest that that Saudi Arabia will not be required to agree to more intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency inspections (known as the “additional protocol” to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) or “gold standard” safeguards — which would require Saudi Arabia to agree not to enrich or reprocess nuclear material — used for the U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates.

Those “gold standard” safeguards, which would make it more difficult for Saudi Arabia to repurpose a civilian nuclear program for military purposes, have been a baseline expectation for some lawmakers in earlier rounds of nuclear talks with Saudi Arabia.

The text of the congressional notification was shared with and published by the Arms Control Association earlier this month. While the notification does not specifically state that the agreement will allow for Saudi enrichment, it includes language stating that the deal will employ “additional safeguards and verification measures to the most proliferation-sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation … (enrichment, conversion, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing).”

Sherman said that the administration had failed to properly notify congressional Democrats of its plans, as required under law, and that no Democrat on the committee was aware of the report before February.

“We’ve got to look at whether we want a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that does not have the safeguards that we negotiated with the UAE,” Sherman said.

He said he’s collecting support for a bill he originally introduced in 2019 with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then a senator, to require the affirmative support of Congress for any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia.

“I think Sen. Rubio was wise, perhaps sometimes wiser than Secretary Rubio, and I hope that all members will join me in that effort,” Sherman said.

Saudi Arabia led a group of Arab and Muslim states and multinational organizations in condemning U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, claiming that he approved of Israeli expansion throughout much of the Middle East, based on partial and misconstrued remarks from his interview with Tucker Carlson released on Saturday.

Among those who signed onto the condemnation were Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council.

They “express[ed] their strong condemnation and profound concern regarding the statements made by the United States Ambassador to Israel, in which he indicated that it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab states, including the occupied West Bank.”

The statement also says that Huckabee’s remarks “directly contradict the vision put forward by U.S. President Donald J. Trump and the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict … grounded in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence.” 

Huckabee, however, repeatedly denied in the interview with Carlson that he was advocating Israeli expansion across the region, as Tucker repeatedly asked him about it and accused him of it.

The Tucker Carlson Network posted a clip of the video in which Carlson expostulated at length about Genesis 15:18, in which God tells Abraham, “to your descendants I will give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river Euphrates.” The Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judea never included all of the land promised in Genesis, even at its historically largest size. 

Carlson asks if Huckabee believes that Israel was promised to the Jewish people and they therefore have the right to take all of the land promised, which covers modern-day Jordan and parts of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

In the clip, which cuts Huckabee off mid-sentence, he says in a facetious tone of voice, “It would be fine if they took it all.”

The second half of the ambassador’s sentence, as heard in the interview, is: “but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”

Pressed further by Carlson about Israel, Huckabee added that “they don’t want to take it over; they’re not asking to take it over.” 

Carlson asked the question a third time, and Huckabee again said: “They’re not asking to go back to take all of that, but they are now asking to at least take the land that they now live in, they now occupy, they now own legitimately, and it is a safe haven for them.”

Carlson replied, “You’re saying it’s fine with you if they took all of Syria, all of Jordan and all of Lebanon,” and Huckabee interjected: “That’s really not exactly what I’m trying to say.” 

“It was somewhat of a hyperbolic statement if that’s what you feel like we’re talking about, but it isn’t,” the ambassador added. “We’re talking about this land that Israel, the State of Israel, now lives in and wants to have peace in. They’re not trying to take over Jordan … Syria, Iraq or anywhere else, but they do want to protect their people.” 

“I’m simply saying that the people who live in Israel, I think, have the right to have security, have safety. I think they have a right to live in this land that they have a connection to for 3,800 years,” Huckabee added.

Carlson then asked again if Huckabee thought it would be legitimate for Israel to conquer Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and Huckabee responded, “I don’t think in this particular day and time they’re asking for it … I’m not sure that it would be … If they end up getting attacked by all of these places and they win that war and they take that land, then okay, that’s a whole other discussion. But you and I started out talking about something simple, Christian Zionism.” 

Regarding the West Bank, Huckabee twice referred to the roughly 60% of the territory controlled by Israel, where all Israeli settlements are located, as part of Israeli territory, saying, “Area C is Israel.” Israel has not annexed Area C and refers to it as disputed territory.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Thursday rejected the suggestion from some in the Arab world that the deaths of civilians in Gaza does not align with Christian values. Graham made the comments during an appearance on an episode of the “On The Record” podcast with Hadley Gamble, while discussing how Israel’s war in Gaza had impacted regional stability in the Mideast and delayed normalization efforts with the Saudis.

“I just don’t buy that at all, because what did we do in World War II? Did we think for one minute about starving the Germans? Did we bomb every city into smitherreens?” Asked if that meant he was comparing Israel’s response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state to how the U.S. responded in World War II, Graham responded affirmatively.

“This is an absolute, existential threat to the Jewish people. What happened on October the 7th was 1,200 people were slaughtered, raped and murdered, and filmed by radical Islamists who would kill every Jew if they could.”

Gamble then pressed Graham on Israel “flattening Gaza,” which the South Carolina senator said he took no issue with.

“Just flatten it. We flattened Berlin. We flattened Tokyo,” Graham said. “Were we wrong to drop an atomic bomb to end the Japanese reign of terror? Were we? In my view, if I were Israel, I would have probably done it the same way. Without military victory, there is no hope of breaking radicalism. We flattened Germany. We flattened Japan.”

“It’s a TV war. We didn’t have TV in World War II. The behavior of the United States was to pursue total destruction of the enemy. That was our behavior. Take Tokyo and Berlin,” he added. “Those people who are trying to say this is just another conflict, it’s not another conflict. It’s existential to the Jewish state.”

Graham, who is in the Middle East for meetings with Israeli, Emirati and Saudi officials, also criticized Saudi Arabia for “attacking the United Arab Emirates pretty viciously for being in the Abraham Accords” and questioned assertions that the kingdom’s ongoing dispute with the Emiratis was solely based on differences in Sudan and Yemen. 

“Saudi Arabia is now moving backward. They’re attacking the United Arab Emirates pretty viciously for being in the Abraham Accords,” Graham said. “There is no good reason for this. You can have disputes about Sudan and Yemen, but they’re basically declaring war.”

Asked if he believed the dispute “is all about Israel,” Graham replied: “I don’t know what this is about. I know the consequences. [Mohammed bin Zayed], the president of the United Arab Emirates, I’m going to meet him, you could not ask for a better partner. You could not ask for a better partner than the United Arab Emirates. They’ve stuck with the Abraham Accords through Gaza.”

In a post on X after his meeting on Thursday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Graham praised the kingdom while acknowledging his concerns about achieving normalization with Israel. 

“The Crown Prince is dealing with the aftereffects of October 7 like all leaders in the region, particularly with the tremendous loss of life in Gaza,” Graham wrote. “Having said that, his vision for the region is for conservative Islam to coexist — with tremendous economic opportunity — for the people of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and the entire world. He is the first Arab leader in modern history that’s expressed a vision not only for the faith, but for economic empowerment that is simply stunning when absorbed, and will set the tone for the region for generations to come.”

Graham criticized Gulf state opposition to regime change in Iran over fears about potential fallout as politically weak.

“That is a short-sighted view of the problems you face over here,” he said. “You’ve got domestic problems, so do I. I’ve got domestic problems. It’s probably better for me to be at home than it is here, so I don’t have a lot of tolerance anymore for people having to make uncomfortable decisions, because I have to make them all the time.”

Pressed on Saudi concerns about oil prices and regional instability, Graham said all of the Gulf states needed to “suck it up.”

“I’m telling everybody over here to suck it up. You’ve got to suck it up to bring about real change. Real change doesn’t come without sacrifice. Now, this region is going to change one way or the other,” Graham said. “There are two scenarios. … The inflection point is weeks away, not months away. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I haven’t slept, because it’s either going to go really good or really bad.” 

Later Thursday, Graham warned in a post on X that the U.K. should not deny the U.S. the ability to use British military bases to attack Iran. 

“If it turns out to be true that Britain is denying the United States the ability to use British bases against Iran if there is a necessity for an attack – it would be beyond surprising,” Graham tweeted. “I’ve been a military lawyer most of my adult life. What they’re saying about the status of Diego Garcia, the joint US-UK military base, is a huge question.”

“To my friends in Britain, sitting this one out puts you on the wrong side of history and is yet another example of how much our alliances throughout Europe have degraded,” the tweet concluded.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned Saudi Arabia that the escalating tensions with the United Arab Emirates risk benefiting Iran at a critical moment in the Middle East, addressing the nations’ leaders directly in remarks at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

“As to MBS [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] and MBZ [UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan] — knock it off, Saudi Arabia, knock it off,” Graham said from the stage. “I’m tired of this crap.”

Graham also urged “anybody who will listen in the Middle East — don’t let this moment pass,” and warned that the rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia is “emboldening Iran.” He added that “MBZ is not a Zionist,” pushing back against criticism in Saudi Arabia of the Emirati leader’s ties to Israel. Among other escalatory rhetoric out of the kingdom, a prominent Saudi academic publicly accused Abu Dhabi last month of aligning itself too closely with Jerusalem and acting as “Israel’s Trojan horse in the Arab world.” 

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have increasingly been at odds in recent months as the two U.S. allies have backed different sides in several regional conflicts and Riyadh continues to pivot away from its role as a moderating force in the region. 

“Be smart, but don’t be locked down with fear,” said Graham. “I know they [the UAE and Saudi Arabia] got differences in Yemen and they got differences in Sudan, but we got to think big picture,” he said. “To any leader in the region that doesn’t understand you’re on the verge of history, history would judge you poorly.”

In Yemen, Saudi Arabia conducted an airstrike in late December 2025 against what Riyadh said was an Emirati arms shipment linked to the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC). Hours after the strike, the Emirati government announced it would withdraw its remaining troops from the country.

The two countries have also diverged in Sudan, where Riyadh has embraced Islamist-aligned factions while the UAE has aligned with rival forces. The Gulf states have also taken opposite sides in Somalia, with the UAE quietly supportive of Somaliland, while Saudi Arabia condemned Israel for recognizing the region’s independence.

Graham’s remarks in Munich come as the South Carolina senator remains an outspoken advocate of expanded cooperation between Israel and Arab states and has repeatedly emphasized countering Iran as a central U.S. objective in the region. On Monday, Graham met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his Jerusalem office during a trip to Israel.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warned on Thursday that the U.S. needs to continue to monitor the “shifting loyalties” of Saudi Arabia, amid concerns that Riyadh is pivoting away from its traditional allies and toward Islamist actors. 

The Texas senator, who serves on the Senate intelligence Committee and foreign relations committees, told Jewish Insider that while he supports the Trump administration working to add Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords, the U.S. should be cognizant of “shifting loyalties and alliances there.”

“The Abraham Accords were a huge and important development, and I think it’s something worth continuing to try to expand and encourage, but I think we have to go in with our eyes open and realize there’s a lot of shifting and maybe even divided loyalties occurring in this region,” Cornyn told JI. 

“Qatar has been problematic for all sorts of reasons that we all know, playing both ends against the middle, and I think Saudi Arabia is probably looking to figure out how to gain advantage, but my hope would be that we continue to put pressure on Iran and its proxies, which we’ve done,” he continued.

Talking to JI a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s White House sitdown with President Donald Trump that largely focused on Iran, Cornyn said that he was skeptical of the regime’s ability to conduct diplomacy with the U.S. or honor the terms of any agreement. 

“I think diplomacy is destined to fail because they’re not going to live up to one sentence, one word of any negotiated agreement, so they can be depended on to cheat. They are determined to destroy Israel and start a war in the Middle East. I know the president is taking it very seriously,” the GOP senator said. “I think the president is preserving all of his options, but again, how do you negotiate with somebody who cheats and who will not abide by any part of any negotiated agreement?”

“I don’t think it necessarily hurts at least to suggest that there may be some negotiations that could occur, but again, I don’t expect Iran to stand behind any negotiated outcome. I think given their commitment to the destruction of Israel, and obviously they are an ideological movement, a theocracy,” he added. “Negotiating with somebody like that is asking them to change who they are, and that will never happen.”

Despite this, Cornyn argued that it was important for the U.S. to “acknowledge that any military action against the regime in Iran would likely spill over to other places.”

Saudi Arabia and Turkey issued a joint declaration on Tuesday pledging to expand cooperation across a wide range of defense, economic and regional security issues, signaling deepening strategic ties between the two countries and cementing a markedly improved relationship between former foes.

As part of the joint statement, the two countries outlined their alignment on several regional issues, including rejecting Israel’s recognition of Somaliland and calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Syria, as well as a two-state solution. The two leaders also agreed to push the U.S. toward de-escalation with Iran. 

The parties also agreed to “strengthen their cooperation” in areas including oil and gas and renewable energies, “building on Saudi Arabia’s massive energy investments,” the statement read.

The declaration came during Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Riyadh on Tuesday, his first in more than two years. Erdoğan said during the trip that Ankara was determined to elevate relations with Saudi Arabia to a “higher level.” 

The agreement and accompanying statements highlighted a broader rapprochement between Riyadh and Ankara, whose relationship has steadily warmed in recent years after a prolonged period of tension.

The two countries had been on opposite sides of several issues in the region, including the 2013 coup in Egypt and the Libyan civil war. 

Relations plunged further after Saudi agents killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, an episode that triggered a prolonged diplomatic rupture. Turkey’s decision to pursue the case publicly, including opening a formal investigation and sharing findings with the international community, also inflamed tensions. 

Following the incident, Riyadh imposed a partial economic boycott on Turkish products and trade and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not visit Turkey until 2022, during which the two leaders vowed to start “a new era of cooperation.”

That cooperation has since translated into a recalibrated relationship, with both countries increasingly shifting their tone and building partnerships across different sectors. Riyadh and Ankara have also recently adopted similar stances on key geopolitical issues. Both have criticized Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict and voiced support for Syria’s new government.

Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that Ankara had expressed interest in joining a Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, though Riyadh later clarified that the arrangement would remain strictly bilateral and would not be expanded to include Turkey.

Several Jewish and pro-Israel leaders met privately with Saudi Arabia’s defense minister in Washington on Friday afternoon, as Riyadh draws scrutiny for its increasingly hostile posture toward Israel and promotion of antisemitic messaging.

According to several sources familiar with the discussion, Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud denied to attendees that increasing antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric out of the kingdom was reflective of the monarchy’s position and emphasized that Riyadh and Jerusalem have mutual understanding and ongoing military, security and intelligence cooperation. He praised Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon but said he doesn’t agree with Jerusalem’s recent decision to recognize Somaliland’s independence. 

The same day of the meeting, a Muslim cleric in Medina gave a sermon calling for “victory” over the “Zionist aggressors,” while an imam in Mecca preached, “O God support them in Palestine and substitute their weakness with strength.” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the Saudi government selects speakers to deliver Friday sermons.

On Saudi Arabia’s seeming decline in relations with the UAE, the prince acknowledged the two countries have clashed recently in Yemen but denied any broader pivot in Saudi foreign policy or increasing acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom, which experts have alleged.

He also spoke to Turkey’s importance in the region, as Saudi Arabia’s growing alliance with Ankara, in addition to countries including Qatar and Pakistan, has raised concerns about the country’s increasing alignment with Islamist actors.

One source confirmed reporting by Axios that Prince Khalid told the group that if President Donald Trump does not follow through on his pledge to take military action against Iran, “it will only embolden the regime.”

Among the attendees, according to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, were Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations CEO William Daroff, B’nai B’rith International CEO Daniel Mariaschin and Rabbi Levi Shemtov of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad).

An AJC spokesperson confirmed Deutch’s participation at the meeting. “AJC is in regular, ongoing dialogue with our partners across the Gulf and in Israel to strengthen regional security and advance cooperation and integration,” the spokesperson told JI. “Today was another example of that work. We carry out these efforts continuously from Washington, Jerusalem and Abu Dhabi.”

Daroff also confirmed his attendance to JI, saying the group “had a constructive, off-the-record conversation as part of an ongoing dialogue with Saudi Arabia on regional and geostrategic issues, and appreciated the opportunity to speak frankly.” 

Shemtov similarly confirmed his participation and said the prince’s demeanor was “friendly and engaging.” Shemtov said he left the meeting “somewhat encouraged, even if not yet completely convinced” but declined to provide details on what was discussed as the meeting was off the record. Mariaschin confirmed his attendance as well.

The nearly two-hour meeting was also attended by 15 representatives of Washington-area think tanks, including Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel now at the Atlantic Council; Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East peace negotiator now at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Barbara Leaf, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs who is now a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute; Douglas Silliman, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who is now the president of the Arab Gulf States Institute; Rev. Johnnie Moore, the former executive chairman of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and former diplomat Daniel Fried, now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, the sources told JI.

In a separate meeting earlier Friday that ran for almost an hour and a half, Prince Khalid met with a smaller group of pro-Israel national security experts, including Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Michael Makovsky of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Both confirmed to JI they had attended but declined to share details about the discussion.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed confidence on Thursday that Saudi Arabia is intent on maintaining its status as a moderating force in the Middle East amid growing concerns that Riyadh is entertaining more hardline Islamism.

Graham met on Thursday morning with Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman Al Saud in Washington and spoke by phone on Wednesday with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud. The South Carolina senator sat down with Jewish Insider on Thursday afternoon for a wide-ranging discussion, where he said that, despite feeling unsettled by some Saudi conduct, he is not concerned that the kingdom is making a pivot toward a more extremist posture, as some in the region and the Jewish community have worried.

Graham had earlier this week publicly criticized the kingdom for its growing conflict with the United Arab Emirates and what he described as a failure to act to protect the Syrian Kurds against Syrian government advances.

“After having met with the Saudis today, I understand their concerns better. I don’t agree with everything they’ve done, but I fundamentally believe that the vision is still the same,” Graham told JI. “To all those who think like me and have been upset by what you’ve heard, I understand why you’re upset, but I would just say this: If I feel good, you should feel good.”

Once a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman — particularly in the aftermath of the 2018 murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi — Graham said that MBS’ grand economic and development plan, Vision 2030, convinced him that the Saudi government is interested in development, peace and deradicalization, because those factors would be incompatible with MBS’ plan.

“If the man is willing to spend a trillion dollars to make Saudi Arabia a destination of choice, he’s got to be smart enough to know that the old model of the Mideast has to be replaced,” he said of the crown prince.

Graham said claims that Vision 2030 had stalled were “overstated” and dismissed the notion that the Saudis were struggling financially, despite flagging oil prices. The kingdom recently announced plans to significantly scale back the flagship Vision 2030 project and the futuristic megacity Neom.

“They’ve had 97 projects, 94 are on target,” Graham said of Vision 2030. “This idea that Saudi Arabia is running out of money is bulls**t. Every time you fill up your car, they appreciate it. … They’re not abandoning their 2030 model. Has anybody in Turkey talked about a 2030 model?”

The South Carolina senator, a leading advocate for U.S. strikes against the Iranian regime, also said he expects that action against the Islamic Republic is still forthcoming, arguing that the United States’ credibility is on the line after President Donald Trump promised protesters that the U.S. would assist them.

Graham framed the protests and their ultimate outcome as a tipping point for the region and the world.

“[Trump] said, ‘Keep protesting. Help is on the way.’ That is his Ronald Reagan moment. You have to follow through,” Graham said, referring to Reagan’s demand for the Berlin Wall to be torn down, and arguing that there is now a clock running for the U.S. to take action.

“Regime change is being led by the people. The question is: Are you for the ayatollah or the people? Donald Trump said, ‘I’ll be with the people.’ Well, that means you’ve got to be with the people,” he added. “I’d like to find a solution without conflict. I don’t know what that would be, but I am confident that it can’t go on forever. There’ll come a point where the people lose hope. We’re not there yet, but the sooner we can demonstrate help is on the way, the better.”

If the U.S. fails to follow through, Graham warned, “It’s going to make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.”

“Everybody’s gonna hedge their bets. Nobody will follow America. Nobody will trust the idea that, you know, making peace is good. It will set the region back 100 years,” he continued.

And, Graham argued, the fall of the Iranian regime is a precondition for any further progress toward regional normalization.

“Nobody in their right mind can talk about normalization in the Mideast until we know how the protests end in Iran,” Graham said. “If, in fact, the ayatollah is still standing after all this bluster and rhetoric, normalization is lost for decades.”

But if the regime falls, bringing its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis down with it, Graham asserted that normalization would be easy to achieve, adding, “If you could sink the mothership, the ripple effect changes Lebanon and Syria.”

Graham said that, from everything he knows about Trump, he expects the president to follow through on his promise to the protesters. He added that he expects the U.S., and potentially Israel, to deliver a “bigger” hit to the regime now than they might have if they struck several weeks ago when the protests began.

“I will judge the president by what he says and what he does. I have no reason to believe that he will not fulfill the promises he’s made. His track record is pretty good. He doesn’t want conflict, but he won’t be trifled with,” Graham said.

Trump’s vacillating threats to the regime, and the lack of U.S. action following a crackdown that officials said has quelled the recent protests, have created uncertainty about how the U.S. plans to proceed. Media reports and public comments by Trump indicated that the administration was interested in reopening negotiations with Tehran, but over the last week, Trump has gradually amped up threats of a military strike against Iran amid continued intransigence from Tehran. 

Graham said that the Islamic Republic should accept any offers of diplomacy from the U.S., but that he’s not surprised the regime hasn’t been amenable, describing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “religious Nazi.”

He expects that a U.S. campaign would involve “enough lethality to make the people who live without fear live with fear, to make those who are killing the people … wonder if maybe they’ll wake up dead tomorrow.” He said the U.S. would also maintain economic pressure on Iran.

“If whatever we do doesn’t inspire the people and put some fear in the regime, we’ve made a mistake,” he continued.

Still, he emphasized that he does not expect a U.S. invasion of Iran.

Graham rejected concerns that Khamenei could be replaced by someone equally radical if removed from power.

“Most likely, the day after in Iran, if the ayatollah falls, is a long road back to a more accommodating Iran that wants to be prosperous,” Graham said. “Why would you double down on the things that got you in this? … Now, it won’t be Jeffersonian democracy, but it’ll be something we can live with.”

The GOP senator also said that he supports the approach in a post-regime Iran outlined Wednesday by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which would likely involve a transfer of power to others inside the Iranian government, potentially within its military, if the ayatollah falls — akin to the approach the U.S. took in Venezuela.

“We’re not going to do the Iraq thing where we fire everybody,” Graham said. “We’re going to trust the people taking over to understand that the old ways have got to go. If you want to perpetuate the old ways, you’re not going to make it. … To the people taking over in Iran, if you act like the ayatollah, we’ll bomb you too.”

Graham, together with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), introduced legislation on Thursday, the Save the Kurds Act, that aims to largely re-implement the Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, repealed by Congress in December amid pressure from the Trump administration.

Graham was a longstanding skeptic of unconditional sanctions relief, without snapback measures, for the Syrian regime, and the new legislation comes in response to advances on territory run by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the U.S.’ primary allies in Syria in the war against ISIS.

In a reversal of current U.S. policy, the bill would sanction Syrian government officials and financial institutions, and any foreign individuals who engage in any transaction with the Syrian government, as well as re-designating Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the faction that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa led, as a terrorist organization.

The administration would be able to suspend the sanctions if the Syrian government stops all attacks on the SDF, but would be required to immediately reimpose them if attacks resume.

Softening his rhetoric from earlier in the week, Graham told JI he’s optimistic that Saudi Arabia wants to deal as an honest broker to decrease tensions between al-Sharaa’s government and the Kurds — something he said was not the case with Turkey — and urged Saudi officials to maintain that approach. 

He said that he’s very concerned about al-Sharaa, after he “gave him a chance,” warning that failing to protect the Kurds would ultimately lead to a situation in Syria as bad or worse than under the former Assad regime.

“If we let radical Arab groups and [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan eliminate the Kurds, nobody would ever follow America again,” Graham warned. “‘One Syria’ cannot be accomplished through the threat of the gun.”

Graham made waves in Washington and Jerusalem earlier this month with comments that he wanted to quickly wind down U.S. aid to Israel, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he wants to wean the Jewish state off of U.S. financial assistance in the next decade.

He promptly traveled to Israel to discuss the matter of future U.S. aid and Israel’s plans for Iran with Netanyahu and top Israeli defense officials. Following a meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, tensions seem to have cooled, with Graham saying he “understand[s] better what he’s saying” despite the two not being totally aligned.

He said that his concern has been that U.S. aid to Israel has been a strong investment that has paid dividends for the U.S., while Netanyahu is concerned with being perceived as a burden on the U.S. — though Graham maintained that ending aid will do nothing to placate anti-Israel voices in the U.S.

Graham said that Netanyahu had a “very, I think, clever way of modernizing the weapons systems to our mutual benefit that’s different than aid, so I was impressed,” adding, “I’d like to be a partner with” Israel’s technological developments.

Many analysts believe that the future of U.S.-Israel cooperation lies more in co-produced and jointly developed programs than in direct financial assistance from the U.S. to Israel, and such programs have been growing in recent years.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) warned on Thursday that the U.S. would need to reevaluate its relationship with Saudi Arabia if Riyadh makes a long-term pivot against efforts to normalize relations with Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested this week that Saudi Arabia’s increasing rapprochement with Turkey and Qatar would be a nonstarter for continued normalization efforts. Leading Saudi figures and media have also recently taken a strongly anti-Israel and antisemitic tone, which Netanyahu said provides aid to anti-Israel forces.

“If they’re reversing course on normalization, all bets are off for almost everything, including a defense treaty and other kinds of agreements,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “I would very much regret it, and I think they would too in the long run, because it goes against all of the long-term goals of the kingdom to turn a leaf on terrorism and restore or reimagine their economy with less dependence on oil.”

He added that he “would be very surprised” if Riyadh actually makes such a pivot “and I hope that this indication of a change in course is just a short-term flip.”

Pressed on signals that Riyadh’s long-term vision may be shifting — given Saudi Arabia’s deepening ties to Turkey and Qatar and its recent plans to scale back some of the landmark megaprojects that were part of its Vision 2030 push — Blumenthal said he believes that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s plan remains the same.

“I think there continues to be a long-term strategy in MBS’ mind, but there’s no question we need to be very clear-eyed that there are reactionary forces, and frankly antisemitic elements, in the regime,” Blumenthal said. “And we’re going to see those elements bubble up and potentially resist progress — and hopefully not prevent it. But we need to be very mindful of the mantra ‘trust but verify’ when dealing with Saudi.”

Two Republican senators offered a more optimistic view on the future of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said that “every conversation I’ve had with Saudi Arabia is that they’re interested in normalization,” and that he would have to hear from Riyadh directly before judging the consequences of any potential change in direction.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said that he didn’t have a strong read on Saudi Arabia’s current stance on normalization, but that he continues to believe that it is in the U.S.’ and the world’s interest.

“That brings long-term stability to the region,” Lankford said. “It’s been one of the main dividing points in the region is this absurd belief that Israel’s not even a country should be recognized. We don’t break through that until everybody just acknowledges everybody’s sovereignty.”

Jewish and pro-Israel organizations were invited to a meeting with the Saudi defense minister in Washington on Friday afternoon, four sources familiar with the invitation confirmed to Jewish Insider.

Invited groups included the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Republican Jewish Coalition, though as of Thursday morning it was not clear which invitees would be accepting the invitation.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies is meeting with the defense minister in a separate sit-down Friday morning, FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz confirmed to JI.

Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, the brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is in Washington holding meetings with U.S. officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday and Friday. 

The invitation comes as some Jewish organizations have expressed concerns about the recent rise in antisemitic and Islamist rhetoric out of Saudi Arabia, but they’ve been relatively cautious in their language as they seek to maintain their support for the long-sought but elusive goal of bringing Riyadh into the Abraham Accords.

“This meeting will be complete window dressing,” one Middle East analyst familiar with the invitation and with the larger Saudi pivot in the region told JI. “The Saudis may try and rationalize their way out of their new alignment with Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey and say everything is fine with the UAE when evidence says otherwise.”

“They may also want to send a message to Jewish organizations with absolute clarity that they will not be joining the Abraham Accords until there’s a Palestinian state, especially ahead of a rumored visit by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to Washington in the next 30 days,” the analyst added. 

“If these Jewish organizations do attend the meeting, they should give a stern message to Saudi leadership that their new strategic alliances and promoting antisemitism and being destructive in the region regarding Israel are not helpful.”

Saudi Arabia’s growing economic struggles have raised doubts among foreign policy experts about whether Riyadh can fulfill its sweeping monetary commitments to the United States.

During Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House last November, the crown prince pledged to increase his country’s investments in the U.S. to nearly $1 trillion, committing funds to projects spanning artificial intelligence, energy, defense and infrastructure.

But the kingdom is now facing significant financial strain, driven by persistently low oil prices and the immense funding demands of its domestic development agenda, including Saudi Vision 2030, a major government initiative taken on a decade ago to diversify Saudi’s economy, society and culture, which has since been downsized. 

“It’s an economic challenge, and frankly, crisis is a word which works for it,” said Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Saudi economy requires $100 barrels of oil, and although the price of oil has gone up a bit in recent days, it’s still low and way short of $100.”

Henderson emphasized that while Saudi Arabia remains a wealthy country due to its hydrocarbon reserves, declining revenue has forced the government to scale back or cancel marquee projects. 

Among the most visible examples Henderson cited were the indefinite postponement of the 2029 Asian Winter Games, which the kingdom was set to host at a futuristic mountain resort as part of its Neom mega‑project, as well as the postponement of a major construction project in Riyadh.

“They have had some very ambitious projects which are very expensive, and there isn’t the money to fund the projects,” Henderson said. “If you’ve got plans for the economy and you can’t fulfill them and you have to cancel them, then that makes it a crisis.” 

Due to the increasing financial strain and decision to scale back major financial ventures, experts remain skeptical that Riyadh will have the capacity to live up to its major investment commitments in the U.S. 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said the pledge is “in doubt,” and called the initial promise “as much performance as substance.” 

“A lot of the money Riyadh would devote to U.S. investments is instead being plowed into its ambitious Vision 2030 development projects at home,” said Ruhe. “We already see this reflected in the recent announcements that Neom and other high-prestige gigaprojects are being scaled back. Combined with persistently low oil prices, this means the kingdom is running deficits. In this crunch, borrowing to fund overseas investments becomes less likely.”

Henderson echoed those sentiments, calling Saudi’s investment pledge a “headline figure with a very strong Trump dimension to it.”

“Clearly they [Saudi Arabia] can’t do it at the moment,” said Henderson. “Everybody knew it was far-fetched and probably an exaggeration. It’s clearly not going to happen anytime soon.”

Ruhe noted that several countries in the Middle East practice what he called “checkbook diplomacy” in order to “grab headlines during major summits” and “gratify Trump’s desire to be a deal-maker.” He noted that a similar strategy has been employed by Qatar and Turkey.

In May 2025, President Donald Trump signed an agreement with Qatar for an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion during his visit to the country. Four months later, Turkish Airlines completed a deal to buy 225 Boeing planes following a White House meeting between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

“The actual execution is always in doubt, even if some of the investments do come through,” said Ruhe. “During Trump’s first term, Saudi Arabia announced nearly a half trillion dollars of deals and investments in the United States, but only a fraction of that ever came to fruition.

The kingdom’s economic situation, and its ability to invest nearly $1 trillion, is now less favorable than it was in Trump’s first term.” 

Experts noted that should the proposed investment fall through, it is highly unlikely to change the diplomatic relationship between Washington and Riyadh, nor would it have any consequential impact on the U.S. 

“Actual Saudi investment in things like AI and critical minerals supply chains would certainly be great for the United States, but it’s just as important for both countries to focus on advancing other aspects of the strategic partnership,” said Ruhe. “Especially regional collective defense against Iran and keeping Riyadh from becoming too close to Beijing and Moscow.”

Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the former U.S. envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, told Jewish Insider on Tuesday that she’s concerned by the increased pace of antisemitic rhetoric coming from Saudi Arabia, and warned that an extended change of course by Riyadh could have implications on the spread of antisemitism globally.

Lipstadt, who began in the role in May 2022, said that she saw the Saudi government initially very open to addressing antisemitism, but less willing to work with her toward the end of her term, which finished in January 2025. She said that the situation has appeared to deteriorate further since then.

“If this is a real pivot, and not just a momentary detour, it’ll be very disappointing,” Lipstadt said. If that’s the case, “then it’s very disturbing because there was a chance for a change in the culture and in the atmosphere of the Middle East.”

She said she sees antisemitic and extremist sermons recently delivered at Saudi holy sites and around the kingdom as particularly significant — noting the Saudi government also funds imams who preach around the globe. This support gives Riyadh a significant lever to “limit the amount of Jew hatred that is expressed in Muslim communities throughout the world.”

“This is more than just a geopolitical shift,” Lipstadt continued. “It’s that — and it’s certainly an important geopolitical shift — but it also has implications for the spread of hatred, Jew hate.”

The former U.S. ambassador said that she’s also seen a distinct shift in the tenor of translated articles from the Saudi press.

“It’s completely different from what I saw when I was there in July of 2022, and very different from the numerous conversations and interactions I had with Princess Reema, the Saudi ambassador to the United States,” Lipstadt said. “She could not have been more gracious and forthcoming, publicly so.”

The former envoy said that the timing of the Saudi shift is also troubling, noting that it comes as tensions in the region are otherwise easing, as the war in Gaza winds down and progress is made toward a longer-term ceasefire. The Saudi government, she noted, was subject to pressure from its public, which was upset over the war.

“It’s happening now, when things are quieting down — that’s worrisome,” Lipstadt explained. “I hope it can be turned around because it has very, very big implications. … At a time that we’re seeing the impact of radical Islamism, it’s even more troublesome.”

Lipstadt’s first trip abroad in her role in the Biden administration was to Saudi Arabia in June 2022, where she conveyed the “message that I saw real possibilities there.” She said that she came to believe that the Saudis were on a path to joining the Abraham Accords, and that she received “a very warm welcome,” including meetings with the minister of Islamic affairs, who is in charge of the country’s holy sites, and the Saudi deputy foreign minister.

“One high-ranking official, when I walked into his office, introduced himself to me. He said, ‘Hello, welcome. I come from a city of Jews,’ and he meant Medina,” Lipstadt recounted. “Mecca and Medina, where the prophet was, and grew up — that’s a pretty significant way of identifying yourself.”

Her second visit to the kingdom, toward the end of her term in office, “was less promising, less forthcoming on the part of the officials.”

She said it was difficult to gauge at the time whether that was due to a lack of interest in engaging with an outgoing administration or because of pressure from popular opinion in Saudi Arabia against the war in Gaza. 

But she said she believes the situation has continued to worsen since she left office. And, she noted, Saudi Arabia has made no further public strides toward joining the Abraham Accords, which some expected the kingdom to do once President Donald Trump returned to office.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called on Saudi Arabia to end what he described as its “attack on the United Arab Emirates” and slammed the country’s silence regarding the Syrian government’s campaign against the Kurds, demanding the kingdom use its influence to “keep the region from falling further into chaos.”

Graham made the comments in a post Tuesday morning on X, hours after announcing his plans to introduce legislation this week imposing sanctions on any government or group involved in targeting Kurdish forces in Syria. Syrian government forces have recently led a campaign against the Kurdish-led and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, resulting in the loss of SDF control over parts of the country’s territory. 

“As previously stated, I am trying to work with the administration and regional partners to prevent a bloodbath in Syria against our Kurdish allies,” Graham wrote. “It is now time for the region to change their ways and man up for decency.”

“To Saudi Arabia: I have tried to work hard to chart a new path for relations between your country, the United States and the region,” he continued. “I have tremendous respect for many of the changes that have been embraced. However, the Kingdom’s attack on the United Arab Emirates and their silence regarding the Syrian government’s constant assault on the Kurds has to change.”

Last month, Saudi forces carried out airstrikes in southern Yemen targeting what they said were weapons shipments from the United Arab Emirates to UAE-backed separatists, escalating tensions between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi and prompting the UAE to announce a withdrawal of its remaining forces from Yemen.

The South Carolina senator continued, “Please understand that I am smart enough to know that Saudi Arabia has influence on the Syrian government, and I expect them to use it to keep the region from falling further into chaos.”

Graham, who has been closely engaged with the Saudis while lobbying the kingdom to normalize relations with Israel, said earlier this month that he would be “dramatically rethinking” the “nature of” the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states if they “intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action” by President Donald Trump against the Iranian regime.

“All the headlines suggesting that our so-called Arab allies have intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action by President Trump are beyond disturbing. The ayatollah’s regime has American blood on its hands. They are slaughtering people in the streets,” Graham said at the time. 

“If it is accurate that the Arab response is ‘action is not necessary against Iran’ given this current outrageous slaughter of innocent people, then there will be a dramatic rethinking on my part regarding the nature of the alliances now and in the future.”

Several leading Jewish and pro-Israel advocacy groups are expressing concerns about the impact of the recent rise in antisemitic and Islamist messaging out of Saudi Arabia, as the Gulf kingdom’s rhetoric is increasingly raising questions about its standing as a reliable U.S. ally in the region.

In recent weeks, Saudi Arabia has ratcheted up its anti-Israel rhetoric through state-sanctioned media and other regime mouthpieces, amid a widening rift with the United Arab Emirates and closer alignment with Islamist-oriented forces that are hostile toward Israel, such as Turkey and Qatar. 

The new posturing, part of a broader pivot from what national security experts had seen as Saudi Arabia’s moderating influence in the region, has fueled surprise and frustration among Jewish American advocacy organizations that have pushed for the kingdom to normalize relations with Israel, an objective now regarded in some circles as unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League said in a sharply worded social media statement that it was “alarmed by the increasing frequency and volume of prominent Saudi voices — analysts, journalists and preachers — using openly antisemitic dog whistles and aggressively pushing anti-Abraham Accords rhetoric, often while peddling conspiracy theories about ‘Zionist plots.’”

“This is harmful on many levels, diminishing the prospect of peaceful coexistence in the region and weakening regional initiatives promoting tolerance, understanding and prosperity,” the ADL added.

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, for its part, amplified a recent X post by Barak Ravid, a global affairs correspondent for Axios, who flagged what he called Saudi Arabia’s “information war against the UAE” and said “the Saudi press is full of articles that include anti-Israeli conspiracies, anti-Abraham Accords rhetoric and even antisemitic language.”

In a statement to Jewish Insider on Monday, Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, emphasized that “America would be stronger and our interests would be better served if more nations, including Saudi Arabia, joined the Abraham Accords and worked together with our democratic ally Israel to promote regional peace, security and prosperity.”

Brian Romick, the president and CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel, echoed that sentiment, calling the Abraham Accords “a landmark diplomatic achievement” whose expansion, “especially through Saudi-Israeli normalization, should be a bipartisan pillar of U.S. policy.”

“A breakthrough between Israel and Saudi Arabia would be the most consequential step the region can take toward lasting peace, security, and prosperity, and the Trump administration should pursue it relentlessly while linking any upgrade in the relationship to measurable progress toward Saudi-Israeli normalization,” Romick said in a statement to JI. “Despite recent political frictions and unhelpful rhetoric, deep mutual interests in security, economic integration and technology make normalization an enduring strategic imperative.”

The American Jewish Committee, which has also promoted Saudi participation in the Accords, said it is “keeping a close eye on any developments” tied to the kingdom’s shift, but declined further comment.

While experts have linked Saudi Arabia’s recent animus toward Israel to such issues as the war in Gaza, Israeli recognition of Somaliland and unrest in Iran, Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, suggested that one unexplored motivating factor may be the Trump administration’s friendly relations with Islamist leaders in Turkey, Qatar and Syria.

“It sends a signal to the Saudis that you could take more Islamist positions, and it won’t hurt you with the United States,” Makovsky said in an interview with JI on Monday, arguing the administration will need to “reorient” its engagement in the region if it wants to help shape Saudi policies to align more closely with American interests.

But Makovsky said he has not seen interest among Trump officials in pursuing that path — even as the administration has long encouraged Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords.

“I think the administration needs to step back and reflect on the fact that, if the Saudis are acting like this now, and they’ve been more of a moderating influence,” he said, “it should lead to a rethink of how they’re approaching all these other countries.”

Anti-Israel and antisemitic messages from Saudi regime mouthpieces and state-sanctioned media have increased in recent weeks, as Riyadh has pivoted away from a more moderate posture to an alignment with Islamist forces, such as Qatar and Turkey.

Over the weekend, prominent Saudi columnist Dr. Ahmed bin Othman Al-Tuwaijri wrote an article in a Saudi news site attacking the United Arab Emirates, with whom Saudi Arabia has been at odds in recent weeks, as “an Israeli Trojan horse in the Arab world … in betrayal of God, His Messenger and the entire nation.” He also wrote that “Israel is on a path to a rapid downfall and the umma will remain, God willing.”

The column, published after weeks of anti-Israel and antisemitic messaging from Saudi-backed channels, sparked an uproar from Western voices. The Anti-Defamation League condemned “the increasing frequency and volume of prominent Saudi voices … using openly antisemitic dog whistles and aggressively pushing anti-Abraham Accords rhetoric, often while peddling conspiracy theories about ‘Zionist plots.’”  

The Saudi site then took the article down. But when there was a backlash in the Arab world, it went back online. 

An editorial in the Saudi government newspaper Al-Riyadh earlier this month said that “wherever Israel is present, there is ruin and destruction,” and that Israel “do[es] not respect the sovereignty of states or the integrity of their territories, while working to exploit crises and conflicts to deepen divisions.” 

A conspiracy theory that has gained steam on Saudi social media in recent weeks accuses the UAE of trying to push for a “New Abrahamic Religion” melding Judaism, Christianity and Islam, thus destroying Islam, an apparent reference to the Abrahamic Family House — meant to foster religious tolerance. 

The shift in Saudi media comes after months in which imams at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, whose sermons are seen as reflecting official Saudi messages, have railed against Israel and the Jews. In a recent sermon, Sheikh Saleh bin Abdullah bin Humaid said, “Oh Allah, deal with the Jews who have seized and occupied, for they cannot escape your power. Oh Allah, send upon them your punishment and misery.” 

“I’m ringing the alarm; I’m breaking the glass,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said on the “Ask A Jew” podcast earlier this month. “I’m saying, listen, these guys are changing.”

Edy Cohen, a research fellow at the Israel Center for Grand Strategy, told Jewish Insider that the Saudi-backed Arabic news channel Al Arabiya is “very anti-Israel, they glorify the Palestinians,” though he stopped short of the characterization made by a prominent Israeli journalist last week that it has become worse than the Qatar-backed Al Jazeera.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said on the “Ask A Jew” podcast earlier this month that the Trump administration needs “to have a serious talk with” the Saudis.

“I’m ringing the alarm; I’m breaking the glass,” he said. “I’m saying, listen, these guys are changing.”

In the past, “you only got these crazy terrorist clerics, the al-Qaida types … would be inciting against the Jews,” Abdul-Hussain said. “But this week, the [Saudi] state-owned media was inciting against the Zionist plan to partition the region and to divide the region. This is very new.” 

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, a researcher for the Z3 Project, noted in a recent interview on the “Tikvah Podcast” that the Saudi “interest is colliding with that of Israel in many places,” while “the interests of the Israeli and the Emiratis are converging in a lot of places,” leading Riyadh to lash out against both at the same time.

He noted a rise in “the Arabist discourse of Arab sovereignty, Arab unity, the Emiratis and Israelis want to fragment us.”

“[The Saudi leadership] heard [exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi] said the new Iran will normalize relations with Israel, and this drove the leadership crazy,” Edy Cohen, a research fellow at the Israel Center for Grand Strategy, told JI. “Imagine Iran and Israel together … the Shi’a and the Jews together; it’s their biggest nightmare.” 

One reason for the turn in Saudi messaging is that Riyadh is “very afraid of Israel,” Cohen said, noting that it views recent Israeli actions as going against Saudi interests.

Cohen noted that Saudi Arabia was mostly quiet about Tehran’s violent suppression of the recent nationwide demonstrations, but behind the scenes, “the Saudis and the Qataris led a campaign for Trump not to strike Iran.”

“[The Saudi leadership] heard [exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi] said the new Iran will normalize relations with Israel, and this drove the leadership crazy,” Cohen posited. “Imagine Iran and Israel together … the Shi’a and the Jews together; it’s their biggest nightmare.” 

Before that, Cohen said, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, which put Jerusalem on the UAE’s side against Somalia, angered Riyadh, a move he said led a diplomatic push for Arab states to condemn Israel. At the time, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Saudi sources said Israel recognizing Somaliland threatened its chances of normalization with Riyadh.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have also staked out opposing positions on Syria, where Riyadh supports President Ahmad al-Sharaa, while Israel has been much more hesitant to embrace the new Syrian leader and has acted militarily to protect the Druze Syrian minority near its border.

Cohen said Saudi Arabia would still be willing to establish diplomatic relations with Israel if it brought them a defense pact with the U.S., but “at a price no [Israeli] prime minister would be willing to pay.” 

Abdul-Hussain put Saudi’s pivot in the context of its failed regional ambitions. Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, sought to move “from a country that has relied on oil for a living … to a country that looked like Dubai, where you have tourism and services, what they call a knowledge economy. … Israel is clearly one of the highest knowledge economies in the world.”

However, Abdul-Hussain said, “his experiment has just hit a wall and this transformation is not happening.” In an indicative development, MBS’ flagship project of a futuristic city on the Red Sea known as Neom has been scaled back following delays and budgetary limitations, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. 

Now, Abdul-Hussain said, “the quickest tool that [MBS] can get is to reconnect with the Islamists. … Look at Turkey and Qatar using Islamism all the time to project influence, including in Gaza … Washington clearly likes them for some reason, so [MBS is] thinking, why not use Islamism … as a tool to project power at Saudi’s borders? This means they will have to bash the heck out of Israel.”

With the continued talk about a possible American attack on Iran amid the regime’s violent crackdown on protesters, Aboubakr Mansour’s prediction in JI last year after the Israeli and American strikes on Iran remains relevant: He argued that the success of the 12-day war would not bring Jerusalem and Riyadh closer together, nor would regime change in Iran. A less extreme government in Tehran could grow closer to Washington, threatening the Saudi-American relationship. 

“They have an interest in Iran remaining the pariah that it is,” he said at the time. “The Saudis are in a place where they want to see neither the Israelis nor the Iranians win. [The Saudis] want them to put each other in check, which will give [the Saudis] more leverage.” 

Aboubakr Mansour told the “Tikvah Podcast” this month that he was “still shocked” by the Saudis’ “unbelievable pivot in terms of rhetoric, domestically and regionally, against Israel and the UAE.”

“The easiest way for them to [pivot away from Israel] is to insist on a Palestinian state, but that did not entail that, all of a sudden, they will recall a lot of Muslim Brotherhood figures from abroad … using their online channels to denounce the Zionists … getting closer to Turkey and Qatar. That itself, I was definitely shocked by,” he said. 

Now, Aboubakr Mansour said, after Saudi Arabia changed its messaging, “you saw a massive activation of this huge and colossal empire of narrative control that the Qataris run” — meaning Al Jazeera — “in favor of Saudi Arabia. …That’s a form of power, also, that has its own seduction, and I think the Saudis calculated that they have a very large symbolic comparative advantage that is best optimized to use this kind of populist anti-Zionist discourse in the Middle East.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned on Thursday that he would be “dramatically rethinking” the “nature of” the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states if they “intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action” by President Donald Trump against the Iranian regime. 

Graham made the comments in a post Thursday morning on X in response to reports that Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman urged Trump against striking Tehran to avoid disrupting oil markets and sparking broader regional conflict, and without a clear succession plan for regime change. 

The Saudis have also told the Iranians that they would not get involved in a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iran, nor would they allow the U.S. to use their airspace for strikes targeting the regime, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

“All the headlines suggesting that our so-called Arab allies have intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action by President Trump are beyond disturbing. The ayatollah’s regime has American blood on its hands. They are slaughtering people in the streets,” Graham wrote on X. “If it is accurate that the Arab response is ‘action is not necessary against Iran’ given this current outrageous slaughter of innocent people, then there will be a dramatic rethinking on my part regarding the nature of the alliances now and in the future.”

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol on Thursday morning, Graham rejected the notion that Trump was reversing course on striking Iran. “There are a lot of headlines out there that are, in my view, not accurate. … President Trump’s resolve is not the question. The question is when we do an operation like this, should it be bigger or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger.”

“Time will tell. I’m hopeful and optimistic that the [Iranian] regime’s days are numbered,” the South Carolina senator said of what’s to come. 

Graham revealed in a post on X later Thursday that he is on his way to Israel to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “at this crucial time in the history of the Middle East.”

“The goal is to build on the historic opportunities created by President Trump’s unprecedented leadership, to stand up to evil, and to support the people who are sacrificing for freedom,” Graham wrote of the visit. “The Trump-Netanyahu alliance has thus far been one of the strongest partnerships in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I am hopeful it will pay dividends in the near future.”

“We live in a time of great consequence with the Middle East on the verge of previously unimaginable change,” he added. “Standing together and following through on our commitments only makes us stronger.”

Reports that Saudi Arabia may strike a deal with Pakistan to acquire Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder fighter jets are raising concerns in Washington, as Riyadh’s potential acquisition of the aircraft signals a continuation of its recent shift in alliances and could complicate its efforts to secure the U.S.’ F-35 jet. 

The discussions between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, first reported by regional outlets, would deepen defense ties between the two longtime partners while easing Karachi’s financial strain by wiping out its $2 billion in loans from the kingdom. 

The JF-17, which is widely used by the Pakistani Air Force, was jointly developed by Pakistan and China, and incorporates Chinese electronic systems and a Russian engine. 

Grant Rumley, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the aircraft would offer little operational benefit to Saudi Arabia, which already fields a fleet of U.S.- and European-made fighter jets, and could instead be a sign that Riyadh is aiming to strengthen ties with multiple defense partners.

“I don’t think there’s any military justification for Saudi Arabia purchasing this plane,” Rumley said, noting that the kingdom’s existing F-15s and Eurofighter Typhoons — along with its planned acquisition of the F-35 — would significantly outperform the JF-17. “Saudi understands Pakistan is in a tough economic situation and converting it into JF-17s is a way to alleviate some economic pressure and further intensify or accelerate defense cooperation.” 

Rumley added that despite the lack of military advantage from the JF-17, Saudi Arabia’s desire to acquire the fighter jet linked to U.S. adversaries raises concerns about U.S. national security and Riyadh’s political alignment, potentially prompting backlash that could complicate or even derail Riyadh’s procurement of F-35s from the U.S.

“The fact that [the JF-17] has a Russian engine and Chinese avionics means it will very likely be viewed as a security risk if it’s co-located near U.S. forces,” said Rumley, who warned this arrangement could pose a danger to the protection of U.S. intel. “The F-35 is one of the crown jewels of American military equipment. Protecting that proprietary information and capabilities is a top priority across party lines in the U.S. national security apparatus.”

Such a deal could create “undue turbulence” for Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of the F-35, potentially “complicating the discussion” around the deal and even putting it “into jeopardy,” Rumley said. 

While experts said it is unlikely Congress would be able to stop an F-35 sale to Riyadh if the White House gives it the green light, they warned the JF-17 talks could provoke internal pushback within the administration, particularly among officials focused on competition with China.

“The Saudis are publicly entertaining this deal because of their dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, their desire to build leverage that brings America around to the Saudi position and, if that fails, to enable Riyadh to develop alternative security ties,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “The fact that the Saudis are considering such inferior aircraft, from a less established partner, emphasizes their dislike of how the broader U.S. defense relationship is trending.”

“The China hawks within the U.S. will not look favorably on this type of arrangement in general,” said Rumley. “Buying a fighter jet that’s co-produced with China and has Chinese technologies, as well as Russian technologies, is going to burn through a lot of goodwill with the folks in Washington.” 

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said a Saudi deal for the JF-17s could also “throw a major wrench in existing defense cooperation with Riyadh,” framing the reported talks as part of a potential reassessment of the kingdom’s security partnerships.

“The Saudis are publicly entertaining this deal because of their dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, their desire to build leverage that brings America around to the Saudi position and, if that fails, to enable Riyadh to develop alternative security ties,” said Ruhe. “The fact that the Saudis are considering such inferior aircraft, from a less established partner, emphasizes their dislike of how the broader U.S. defense relationship is trending.”

He added that Saudi Arabia has historically used major arms purchases to build political leverage rather than to fill operational gaps, noting that Saudi officials have closely watched Qatar’s use of “checkbook diplomacy” to secure a unilateral U.S. security guarantee last year, even as Riyadh’s own mutual defense treaty discussions stalled.

In recent weeks, observers have noted that Saudi Arabia has increasingly pivoted away from moderation and toward Turkey, Qatar, Iran, and Pakistan, as seen in their actions in Yemen, Sudan, and the horn of Africa, along with attacking the UAE over its relationship with Israel. 

“Riyadh’s current security cooperation with China is not the behavior Washington can reasonably expect from a partner who would like to be trusted with the F-35,” said Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who noted that any deal should be viewed “in the context of Riyadh’s recent naval exercises with China.” 

“Saudi Arabia looks at Turkey and Pakistan and sees sort of a middleweight power that is able to exert a ton of influence in the profession of arms and is able to put platforms on the market that drive, not only revenues at home, but is also a pretty effective instrument of national power,” said Rumley. “And they [Saudi Arabia] want that.”

Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the reported talks likely reflect Saudi Arabia’s desire to “avoid overreliance” on any single defense partner, though he echoed concerns from the U.S. perspective.

“Riyadh’s current security cooperation with China is not the behavior Washington can reasonably expect from a partner who would like to be trusted with the F-35,” said Leopold-Cohen, who noted that any deal should be viewed “in the context of Riyadh’s recent naval exercises with China.” 

However, Rumley argued that such a deal may not necessarily reflect “realignment from a security standpoint,” but could be “more about gaining access to some other technologies.”

“It may be that this is simply a way for Saudi Arabia to get access to these jets, rip them up, or reverse engineer them and take those technologies and use them for their own defense, industrial base development,” said Rumley. 

Lawmakers in Washington are largely downplaying recent developments suggesting that Saudi Arabia is pivoting away from moderation and entertaining more hardline Islamism.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been at loggerheads in Sudan, Somalia and Yemen — including a recent Saudi airstrike on an Emirati shipment in southern Yemen — prompting questions about Riyadh’s continued interest in acting as a moderating force in the region. 

Saudi Arabia has also sided with Muslim Brotherhood-aligned forces in other regional conflicts, is increasing its business ties with Qatar and softening its stance toward other Islamist powers hostile to Israel, among other steps, some analysts say.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, who came away from the meeting indicating that potential disputes or shifts in the kingdom had been overstated.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) — who has been critical of Saudi Arabia in the past — told Jewish Insider that Prince Faisal, in the meeting, sought to directly rebut claims that Saudi Arabia was pivoting away from a position of moderation.

The overall message from Prince Faisal, Sherman said, was “the Saudis claim that they are anti-Brotherhood and that the disputes with the UAE are tactical, not ideological.”

“Just because the Saudis are not Shiite does not mean they’re Zionists. No one should get too carried away. And I’m sure there are elements of the Saudi government that are not nearly anti-[Muslim] Brotherhood as much as they should be,” Sherman said. “That being said, I see a foreign minister who is not Qatar or Turkey.”

“If you’re worried about Israel, you should never put any of the countries we’re talking about here in the ‘don’t worry about it’ category — you’ve got to worry,” he continued. “But the foreign minister went out of his way to say that when it comes to the Brotherhood or Iran, that there’s less reason to worry about Saudi Arabia.”

He said that he expects Saudi Arabia and the UAE to come to an agreement on the anti-Houthi campaign to deconflict the situation — likely one which would see the UAE take a decreased role in Yemen.

Sherman also said he did not see evidence that Saudi Arabia has significantly accelerated or expanded its relationship with Qatar — though he also noted that Saudi-Qatari tensions have gradually eased over the past few years and particularly since the Arab League blockade of Qatar. Saudi Arabia signed a major deal earlier this month to link Riyadh and Doha with a high-speed rail line. 

Even so, Sherman said he has other pre-existing concerns about Saudi Arabia, such as its pursuit of a nuclear program and bid to purchase F-35 fighter jets, neither of which was discussed at Wednesday’s meeting.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also met with Prince Faisal. He said it was “great” to see the foreign minister and that the group had discussed various issues including Yemen, Sudan and Gaza.

“Saudi Arabia and UAE are very close, right? I mean, that’s an understatement,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told JI. “What I’m saying — everybody can have disagreements, spats, misunderstandings about different things, and that relationship is no different, but those two are two very, very close allies.”

“The U.S.-Saudi relationship remains a pillar of U.S. policy in the region,” Mast said in a statement. “I look forward to continuing to build upon our decades-old alliance to help resolve some of the region’s most pressing and complex challenges.”

He dismissed concerns about a potential Saudi repositioning or clash with the UAE.

“Saudi Arabia and UAE are very close, right? I mean, that’s an understatement,” Mast told JI in a brief interview. “What I’m saying — everybody can have disagreements, spats, misunderstandings about different things, and that relationship is no different, but those two are two very, very close allies.”

A congressional source deeply involved in Middle East issues argued that ties between the Sudanese Armed Forces — the faction Saudi Arabia is backing in Sudan — and the Muslim Brotherhood have been overstated and that the Saudi decision to back the SAF is a tactical one rather than an ideological signal of alignment with the Brotherhood. The source said that the Saudis have indicated that they are working to push the Brotherhood elements out of the SAF faction.

And, the source emphasized, both sides in Sudan have committed significant atrocities, further noting that the Trump administration sanctioned the Rapid Support Forces — which successive U.S. governments have found is committing genocide. The source said that Saudi Arabian officials have been clear they do not want the U.S. to sanction the UAE over its alleged support for the RSF, as some in Abu Dhabi heard after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit.

Regarding the Saudi strike in Yemen, the source said that Saudi Arabia was concerned about anti-Saudi forces approaching its territory and that the shipment the UAE convoy was transporting was being provided to those forces. 

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said that there “a lot of concerns” about a Saudi dispute with the UAE in Yemen but that he is not “worried about [the Saudis] repositioning to an extreme point.”

“I don’t think we see that yet. There’s still a lot of conversations going on,” Mullin said. “I think that was just one of those regional things that sometimes we have a lack of understanding — or maybe understand it, but don’t understand it.”

Another lawmaker who has had conversations with individuals in the region said on condition of anonymity that — despite recent headlines — they did not believe that Saudi Arabia was making a fundamental pivot in its posture away from moderation or toward a more extremist Islamist stance.

The lawmaker added that the tensions between the two U.S. partners have been “surprising” but also noted there is a long and complex history between the two countries.

Addressing the Saudi-Emirati tensions, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged that the two countries had conveyed “different interests,” but did not appear concerned that their differences would alter the Saudis’ view of Iran as the top threat in the region. 

“The UAE seems like they’re trying to diversify their sources of support in the region, and that’s a point of some disagreement between the Saudi leadership and UAE leadership,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told JI.

“I have no insight into what’s going on there, but clearly they’ve got different interests,” Ricketts told JI. “Saudi Arabia’s long-term interest is in a peaceful Middle East where they have allies to offset Iran. Saudi Arabia knows that in the region their worst enemy is Iran, and so they’re going to want allies to push back.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as on Foreign Relations, said his primary concern was the UAE’s deepening ties with Russia.

“I mean, the UAE seems like they’re trying to diversify their sources of support in the region, and that’s a point of some disagreement between the Saudi leadership and UAE leadership,” Cornyn told JI.

“What worries me a little bit is UAE talking about allowing the Russians to build a military base there,” he continued. “They seem to be less convinced that they can rely on support from the United States and so they are looking for other friends. That concerns me.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) attributed the fissures to the situation in Sudan and instability in Yemen that neither country could independently solve, but said he had been informed that the Saudis and Emiratis had addressed their differences. 

“Well, Yemen is a mess,” Kennedy said. “The UAE and the Saudis have been allies. Now, they recently got crossways, but I understand they got it worked out. I don’t know what else to say. I mean, Yemen is just, … it’s not a stable country.”

Pressed on the Gulf states having “worked out” their issues, the Louisiana senator responded, “Well, I think that got a lot of it worked out. The Saudis and UAE … they’re crossways in Sudan. They’re not always joined at the hip, so I wasn’t particularly shocked about it, but my understanding is they got it worked out.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he hadn’t been following all of the developments with Saudi Arabia’s regional posture but had been tracking the conflict in Sudan, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been backing opposing sides in the civil war. Warner emphasized that “neither one of them are the good guys,” referring to the UAE-aligned RSF and Saudi-aligned SAF.

“It does bother me, not just where [the Saudis] may be moving, but also just … in terms of bombing [in] Yemen,” Warner added, referring to the Saudi strike.

Warner, who led Intelligence Committee members on a visit to Saudi Arabia to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2024, said that the Saudis were, at the time, “anxious to get normalization with Israel,” but the Gaza war interrupted that progress.

And Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said the “instability” in the region — including the Saudi-UAE tensions —  demonstrates the need for strong congressional oversight of “any agreement that’s reached with any of our potential partners there.

President Donald Trump recently announced a series of deals with Saudi Arabia, including selling the kingdom F-35 fighter jets and naming Riyadh a major non-NATO ally, without making public strides toward Saudi-Israeli normalization.

“And very bluntly, it reemphasizes that our one truly reliable ally in the Middle East is Israel,” Blumenthal continued.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who visited Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia over the weekend, said that the Gulf countries have yet to commit personnel to be directly involved in the International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, without which the next phase of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas cannot proceed.

Gottheimer visited Qatar and Bahrain alongside Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Jason Smith (R-MO) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX). Members of the delegation were photographed meeting with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, who also serves as the kingdom’s foreign affairs minister. 

“All the countries in the region who I’ve met with seem very eager to get to Phase 2. I think the question remains of which countries are willing to put boots on the ground and take the necessary steps to disarm Hamas,” Gottheimer said. “We’re all waiting for announcements on who that will be — that’s still the outstanding question … and what level of commitment.”

Building and staffing the ISF, he emphasized, is a “very important piece of the puzzle right now.”

Mullin briefly commented on the visit in a video posted to social media on Monday praising President Donald Trump for ordering the operation that deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last week. 

“I just got back from the Middle East. A little tired, but it was a good trip,” Mullin said from the steps of the U.S. Capitol. “We have a lot of investments coming into the United States and we want to make sure that Oklahoma is part of that.”

Gottheimer continued on to Saudi Arabia and Israel without the rest of the group. He said that there was not much direct discussion during his meetings in Saudi Arabia about normalization with Israel, though he believes that the ceasefire deal is a necessary prerequisite to an agreement between Riyadh and Jerusalem.

“I was much more focused on … how do we actually get to Phase 2? What does that look like? How do you think that functions?” Gottheimer said.

Visiting Israel and meeting with members of the U.S.-led Civil MIlitary Coordination Center overseeing the ceasefire, Gotthiemer said he saw “a lot of very constructive plans,” a “ton of progress” in preparing the Israeli-controlled “yellow zone” in Gaza for a transition and rebuilding and that sufficient humanitarian aid is flowing into Gaza. But he emphasized that it’s still unclear which countries will commit personnel on the ground to maintain order and disarm Hamas.

Gottheimer dismissed narratives that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he met on Monday in Jerusalem, is creating obstacles to moving forward with the ceasefire plan.

“I didn’t see that at all, both in talking to partners and in talking to the prime minister,” he said. “He was much more agreeable on the idea of getting to Phase 2, but the question of tactically how to disarm Hamas and who’s going to be on the ground to engage remains an elusive challenge.”

He said that partners, including Bahrain, are “eager to make it happen, but realize it’s challenging” because of the reluctance among Arab states to step forward.

In his conversation with Netanyahu, Gottheimer said that the prime minister highlighted that Iran’s “continued, aggressive ballistic missile posture … continues to be a significant issue.”

There has been increasing speculation in recent weeks that another round of conflict between Israel and Iran, and potentially the United States, could be on the horizon, with Iran making strides to rebuild its missile capacity.

According to a statement on the trip from Gottheimer’s office, he also discussed with Israeli officials Hezbollah’s failure to disarm, as required under the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire deal, its efforts to rearm and its continued threat to Israel.

Saudi Arabia is recalibrating its regional posture in ways that are challenging long-held assumptions about Riyadh’s role as a moderating force in the Middle East, as recent moves across Yemen, Sudan and the Horn of Africa expose the country’s widening rift with the United Arab Emirates and a growing alignment with Qatar and Turkey — two countries with openly hostile positions toward Israel.

The realignment has been most stark on the issue of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia led an airstrike on an Emirati shipment of vehicles on Tuesday which Riyadh claimed was intended for the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC), which has consolidated power in the country’s south as Saudi-backed efforts to stabilize the war-torn nation have stalled. Hours after the strike, the Emirati government announced it would withdraw its remaining troops from the country.

The Saudis’ decision to embrace Islamist-aligned factions in Sudan, where the UAE is aligned with rival forces, has caused additional fissures with the Emiratis, putting the two U.S. allies and Gulf power players at odds. 

The Gulf states have also taken opposite sides on Somalia, with the UAE quietly supportive of Somaliland, while Saudi Arabia condemned Israel for recognizing its independence and Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the move threatened the chances of Riyadh and Jerusalem establishing diplomatic relations. 

These actions, taken together, have raised questions about Riyadh’s role as a moderating force in the region and potential partner for normalization with Israel.

“Yes, Saudi Arabia is moving away from its position of recent years,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider on Tuesday. “Since [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] came to power, he promised drastic change under the banner of ‘Saudi First.’”

Abdul-Hussain said that Saudi Arabia is “abandoning its past policy and distancing itself from the UAE and the moderate capitals and getting closer to Islamist Qatar and Turkey. … How far on the scale of Islamism the Saudis decide to go remains to be seen.” 

“There have been two alliances competing in the region: A radical Islamist one led by Turkey and Qatar and allied with Iran and Pakistan and a moderate one led by Israel and UAE and allied with India, Greece and Cyprus,” Abdul-Hussain said. “While America has friends on both sides, it is clear that American national interests are served by taking the side of Israel, the UAE, India and Greece coalition against the rival axis.”

Nervana Mahmoud, a political commentator based in the U.K., told JI that while “it’s very difficult to read the strategic decisions within the kingdom because they don’t announce plans … I noticed a shift in the Saudi [posture] from mid-2024.”

Mahmoud said that the Saudi-UAE divergence has also expanded because of the Saudi’s softened stance on Qatar, something she argued reflects the kingdom’s acknowledgement of Doha’s growing influence both in the region and globally, specifically pointing to Qatar’s positive standing with the Trump administration. 

“I see the Saudis saying, ‘We cannot defeat the Islamists, but we can influence [them], using them for strategic influence,’” Nervana Mahmoud, a political commentator based in the U.K., told JI. “They think they can influence Islamists rather than be fooled by them. Before Islamists were infiltrating Saudi, now Saudi thinks [they’re] powerful enough to influence and tame them to serve strategic interests. I see that as wishful thinking.”

Saudi Arabia has improved ties with Qatar, ending a blockade on Doha in 2021 and signing a deal earlier this month to link Riyadh and Doha with a high-speed rail. 

The UAE, meanwhile, has expressed concerns over Doha’s influence in Trump’s Gaza peace plan, including its potential role in post-war Gaza, as well as Qatar’s Islamist ties. 

“I see the Saudis saying, ‘We cannot defeat the Islamists, but we can influence [them], using them for strategic influence,’” Mahmoud told JI. “They think they can influence Islamists rather than be fooled by them. Before Islamists were infiltrating Saudi, now Saudi thinks [they’re] powerful enough to influence and tame them to serve strategic interests. I see that as wishful thinking.”

Mahmoud pointed to Saudi Arabia’s engagement in Syria where Riyadh has supported efforts to rehabilitate Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and encourage engagement with the Trump administration, despite Al-Sharaa’s Islamist background. Israel, meanwhile, has taken a more suspicious view of al-Sharaa and has thus far failed to secure a security agreement with Damascus. 

Another cause for concern has been the Saudis’ reticence to engage on joining the Abraham Accords, despite publicly expressing willingness to normalize relations with Israel on condition of the establishment of a pathway to Palestinian statehood and a ceasefire in Gaza. 

“Since 9/11, and especially since MBS came to power in 2015, Saudi Arabia made enormous effort to distance itself away from Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said. Now, “Saudi is getting closer to all Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-West governments, whether it’s Iran and Pakistan or Qatar and Turkey.”

Mahmoud accused Riyadh of “playing the game” on the normalization issue, saying that the kingdom had continued to signal interest in joining the Abraham Accords while “always [having] an excuse not to.”

“The excuses will never end,” Mahmoud told JI of the Saudis, adding that the kingdom was “trying to be on the good side of [President Donald] Trump.”

Riyadh’s shift away from moderate Gulf states has also been marked by diverging views on how to approach the Muslim Brotherhood. While Qatar has long sponsored the Islamist movement’s actions, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have historically taken a harsher stance against the group, proscribing it as a terrorist organization, aligned with the Trump administration’s recent moves to do the same. 

“There was a period from 2017 to 2021 where the Saudis, Emiratis and Bahrainis completely isolated Qatar because they considered the Qataris as sponsoring the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood meant harm to the political systems in Saudi and UAE and Bahrain,” Edmun Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former British diplomat who served in Kuwait, told JI. 

Abdul-Hussain argued that there has been “some reversal” on Saudi Arabia’s reputation as a moderate actor on the brotherhood, creating a potentially concerning landscape for Israel and dampening efforts toward normalization.

“Since 9/11, and especially since MBS came to power in 2015, Saudi Arabia made enormous effort to distance itself away from Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism,” Abdul-Hussain said. Now, “Saudi is getting closer to all Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-West governments, whether it’s Iran and Pakistan or Qatar and Turkey.”

During a Friday sermon at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Saleh bin Abdullah bin Humaid — one of the nine imams of the mosque — prayed for Allah to punish Jews and urged Muslims to view Palestinian children as role models in the face of what he described as an “oppressive and brutal Zionist enemy.”

“Oh Allah, deal with the Jews who have seized and occupied, for they cannot escape your power,” bin Humaid said. “Oh Allah, send upon them your punishment and misery, that can never be repelled by the wrongdoers. Oh Allah, we seek your protection from their harms, and we seek refuge with you from their evils.”

The imam praised Palestinian children as “among the most joyful examples and noble images are the young children of Palestine.”

“Heroic children whose fathers were killed while they watched and whose homes were demolished while they witnessed. Jerusalem and Palestine will remain high and lofty in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims,” he said.

The imam also praised what he described as Palestinian steadfastness, saying that the “blood of the martyrs, the stances of men and the steadfastness of heroes will, by God’s will, yield proud souls and hearts that refuse humiliation.”

Mecca is the holiest city in Islam and is known as the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad. Sermons delivered at the Grand Mosque are closely watched across the Muslim world; a YouTube channel carrying the Saudi government’s logo translates the sermon into several languages, including English, French, Chinese, Russian, Turkish, Indonesian and Malay. The sermons are widely seen as reflective of official Saudi religious and political messaging, making it notable that the senior Saudi cleric used the address at Islam’s holiest site to condemn Israel as President Donald Trump continues to promote normalization between the two countries.

Edy Cohen, a research fellow at the Israel Center for Grand Strategy who was born in Lebanon, said that the antisemitic sermons did not begin last week, and that of the nine sheikhs who take turns giving Friday sermons, three have frequently made statements against Jews.

“The Saudis and other Arab states used to say, ‘We’re not against the Jews; we’re against Israel,'” Cohen said. “Here he’s clearly saying he’s against the Jews.”

Cohen added that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, does not have plausible deniability when it comes to antisemitic sermons. 

“MBS knows about every ant that crawls in Saudi Arabia, so he certainly knows what’s in every Friday’s sermon. He cannot claim he doesn’t know. He appointed [bin Humaid],” Cohen stated.

Cohen also warned that pro-Israel figures are turning a blind eye because they want normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, but “even if there is normalization, they will continue to say antisemitic things. … It’s systemic.”

“The Saudis don’t care that [Israelis and Jews] know about it, but they do care if American politicians know [about state-sanctioned antisemitism]. They don’t want it in the American media,” Cohen said.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the remarks point to broader political implications.

“Preachers in most Gulf countries are government employees, and their sermons often reflect official talking points,” Abdul-Hussain said. “Sheikh bin Humaid’s speech suggests that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar succeeded in one of the goals of his Oct. 7 attack on Israel by halting normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

Following a trip to Riyadh last week, Dan Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Obama administration, said that while the Saudis “are open” to normalization, “it is not imminent.”

“I think it’s unlikely that it could happen in 2026,” Shapiro said on social media. “[MBS] wants to see progress toward a stable future in Gaza, but I do think the crown prince sees that there’s value for his wider regional project to have Saudi Arabia be part of a group of integrated moderate states.”

Talks of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel have largely remained stalled. Following MBS’ Oval Office meeting with Trump on Nov. 20, 2025, the Gulf leader spoke of wanting to join the Abraham Accords but insisted any progress still hinged on securing a “clear path [toward a] two-state solution.”