President Donald Trump is slated to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday in a meeting that experts told Jewish Insider is expected to move forward a U.S.-Saudi defense pact and sale of F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom — yet normalization with Israel, once tied to the prospect of such deals, remains elusive. 

U.S. and Saudi officials have been holding intense negotiations to finalize a defense agreement ahead of the visit, according to reports. Since an Iranian attack on Saudi oil refineries in 2019, Riyadh has sought to formalize American security guarantees, according to Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“Saudi Arabia is an important American security partner,” said Brad Bowman, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The United States and Saudi Arabia have been working toward a regional security architecture for years.”

The agreement is expected to be modeled after the assurances Trump gave to Qatar in a September executive order, which stated that the U.S. will regard “any armed attack” on Qatar “as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” 

“Having for better or worse made the commitment to Qatar, it seems to me unfathomable that the administration wouldn’t offer at least the same commitment to Saudi Arabia and probably to other traditional Gulf partners like the UAE who over the years have often been more steadfast and reliable allies in their support for U.S. regional and global objectives,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. 

Al-Omari said such guarantees help to solidify American leadership in the Middle East and “serve to limit Chinese influence in the region.” 

“It is almost certain that Saudi Arabia will get defense guarantees in this visit,” said Al-Omari. “Providing such guarantees is the correct policy. The security of Saudi Arabia is an American interest, and is key to deter Iran and its proxies from destabilizing the Kingdom. It also sends a clear message that the U.S. remains committed to its Middle East allies.”

Should the defense agreement be formalized as an executive order, like with the Qatar deal, it will need to be enforced by the next president to remain effective. Bowman argued that any serious agreement should instead go through the appropriate process even if it takes time.

“[The security deal] is essentially a treaty that should go through the U.S. Senate,” said Bowman. “That’s not going to be quick, but if we really believe what we’re saying about the value of Saudi Arabia as a security partner … then why not take the time and build consensus and explain that to the American people and their representatives on Capitol Hill and make the case?”

Hannah said that a more formal defense pact is also in Saudi Arabia’s best interest. 

“The problem for the Saudis is that until recently, they were holding out for an actual Senate-approved defense treaty that would have made the U.S. commitment to the Kingdom’s future wellbeing a bipartisan and permanent feature of the American foreign policy landscape rather than the temporary pledge of a polarizing, mercurial, and increasingly unpopular president who will be gone in three years time,” said Hannah. “That’s a pretty public climb down and trimming of ambitions from the kind of history-making agreement and lasting transformation of U.S.-Saudi ties that MBS has been insisting that he needed for the past three years.”

“It is likely that an announcement about the F-35s will be made,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “However, turning such an announcement into reality will have to contend with a number of challenges — whether the legal requirement to maintain Israel’s [qualitative military edge is met], or other congressional processes required to finalize such a deal.”

Riyadh is also reportedly seeking to purchase a weapons package from the U.S. that would include F-35 fighter jets. If agreed upon, Saudi Arabia would become the first nation in the Middle East other than Israel to procure it. 

The Trump administration has been open to such a deal this year, but questions still remain regarding the impact such an agreement might have, including on Israel’s qualitative military edge, which the U.S. is bound by law to uphold.

“It is likely that an announcement about the F-35s will be made,” said Al-Omari. “However, turning such an announcement into reality will have to contend with a number of challenges — whether the legal requirement to maintain Israel’s [qualitative military edge is met], or other congressional processes required to finalize such a deal.”

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said in an interview published on Thursday by The Jerusalem Post that Israel “prefer[s] that Turkey not receive F-35 [fighter jet]s from the U.S.” but said that “there’s no indication that Israel’s qualitative edge will be compromised” if Saudi Arabia were to acquire them.

The potential F-35 deal has also prompted concern on the risks of transferring sensitive technology to Riyadh while it cooperates militarily with China, a key U.S. adversary. 

“Guess what the Saudi military forces did last month? Last month, Saudi naval forces conducted a military exercise with China,” said Bowman. “That’s not a good look for a country. That’s not going to sit well with a lot of folks on Capitol Hill.” 

Bowman said that in the past, Saudi Arabia has suggested they would turn to Beijing if they couldn’t get “what they wanted” militarily from the U.S. 

Should the Trump administration formally approve the sale, it is required by law to be submitted to Congress where there is first a non-statutory, but normally respected, review process that involves leaders of the two foreign relations committees. However, it is highly unlikely for the sale to be stopped even if lawmakers disapprove, once the administration decides to formally submit the sale to Congress.

“The law provides a mechanism for Congress to try to stop an arms sale up to the point of delivery, but that requires both chambers to pass joint resolutions of disapproval and then overcome a prospective presidential veto,” said Bowman. “The Congressional Research Service noted last year that Congress has never blocked a proposed arms sale this way.”

While the Biden administration had tied such security deals to progress on normalization, Al-Omari said that the Trump White House has “abandoned this approach.”

“I think it would be folly not to insist that the ultimate integration of these planes into the Saudi order of battle be tied to normalization and a more fundamental and permanent transformation in Saudi-Israel relations and the regional security landscape,” said Hannah. 

Bowman agreed, “The F-35, to me, provides valuable leverage in getting Riyadh to recognize the world’s only majority Jewish state. Forfeiting that leverage would be unwise. I can’t imagine giving our nation’s most advanced fighter jet to a country that refuses to normalize relations with our best ally in the Middle East.” 

While experts believe Trump is unlikely to push normalization in the upcoming meeting, they say it is still something the Trump administration is pursuing. 

“The price for MBS clearly has gone up after two years of devastation in Gaza — and more important, two years of non-stop 24/7 coverage in Arab media of Palestinian suffering and carnage,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “MBS knows how significant his entry into the Middle East peace club will be for regional and global politics and he seems set on delivering something significant in exchange.” 

“President Trump is still committed to pushing forward Saudi-Israeli normalization,” said Al-Omari. “Yet he is also aware that the gap between the two countries at the moment is too wide to bridge.” 

Saudi officials have said they require an Israeli commitment to a two-state solution as a prerequisite to normalizing ties. Hannah said that he does not expect progress towards normalization during the trip, also adding that in the wake of the war in Gaza, Riyadh may be looking to gain more concessions before formally entering a peace agreement.

“The price for MBS clearly has gone up after two years of devastation in Gaza — and more important, two years of non-stop 24/7 coverage in Arab media of Palestinian suffering and carnage. MBS knows how significant his entry into the Middle East peace club will be for regional and global politics and he seems set on delivering something significant in exchange.” 

“I wouldn’t rule out that Trump might be willing during the visit to show greater openness and even U.S. support for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state along lines articulated by [MBS] in an effort to inch him along a little faster on normalization,” Hannah added. “Trump’s pressure and powers of persuasion, and his ability to offer other economic and military incentives to [MBS], also might help temper the crown prince’s demands and ambitions at the margins if the side payments are significant enough.”

Still, Al-Omari believes there are other ways the Trump administration could utilize the upcoming meeting to gain progress towards this goal.

“Instead, the U.S. should explore areas of economic cooperation between the two countries,” said Al-Omari. “That may fall short of full normalization, but would lay the groundwork for future progress.”

Weeks after President Donald Trump announced a 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that this could be a “new moment of hope and possibility.” But it will only be successful if there is “a level of organization” applied to the implementation, a lesson that can be drawn from the Oslo process, she said.  

“One thing that can be learned from the Oslo process and applied to the situation now with the peace plan is that there was a process,” Clinton said during a panel hosted by Columbia University’s Institute of Global Politics. The event commemorated the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist, soon after signing the Oslo II Accords peace agreements with then- Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat in 1995 — two years after the signing of the Oslo I Accords. 

“You have to have a level of organization, it can’t just have few people at the top — whether it be a president or special envoy, as necessary as they are, you have to have teams of people who can be working with their counterparts,” continued Clinton, who is a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia. 

As phase two of Trump’s plan is still being formulated, Hillary Clinton said the “devil is in the details” to determine its success. “Who’s gonna hammer out those details? Who’s going to be there going over maps?” she said. 

“In the plan are many of the same goals as the Oslo process,” she continued. “But it starts from a different perspective. The region is different. Israeli leadership is different. Palestinian leadership is not different and that has to change. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned. Understand some of the procedural lessons that will enable us to build more of an infrastructure of peace going forward.”

The panel discussion also featured Jacob Lew, former U.S. ambassador to Israel; Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal; and former diplomat and Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. It was moderated by Keren Yarhi-Milo, dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. 

The event opened with remarks delivered by Claire Shipman, acting president of Columbia University, and former President Bill Clinton. Shipman, a former journalist, reflected on her time covering the White House during the Clinton administration. 

In 40-minute remarks, former President Clinton, who mediated the Oslo Accords signing — which he hosted at the White House — spoke about his close personal and professional relationship with Rabin, calling the assassination one of the worst days of his life. 

“We have to begin again, where the trust level is low,” Clinton said of achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. “People in power might not be in favor of giving up on anything now.” 

Clinton invoked “Rabin’s law — that’s what we called it in the White House.” 

“We will fight terror as if there are no negotiations. We will negotiate as if there is no terror, never stop talking to people about resolving this,” Clinton said. “[Rabin] always believed peace is achieved through compromise.” 

President Donald Trump defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to order what the prime minister called “forceful” strikes on Hamas targets in Gaza on Tuesday in response to ceasefire violations by the terror group, dismissing concerns that the actions could upend the deal.

“They killed an Israeli soldier, so the Israelis hit back and they should hit back. When that happens, they should hit,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday evening. “Hamas is a small thing, but they kill people. They grew up killing people, and I guess they don’t stop. Nobody knows what happened to the Israeli soldier, but they say it was sniper-fire and it was retribution for that. I think they have a right to do that.”

“Nothing’s going to jeopardize that [the ceasefire],” he continued. “Hamas is a very small part of peace in the Middle East, and they have to behave. They’re on the rough side, but they said they would be good, and if they’re good, they’re going to be happy. If they’re not good, they’re going to be terminated. Their lives will be terminated, and they understand that.” 

The Associated Press reported at least 80 killed in the strikes, including dozens of children. The Israeli army said it had hit dozens of terror targets and struck over 30 terrorists holding command positions within terrorist organizations operating in Gaza.

Initial reaction to Netanyahu’s decision to strike in Gaza fell largely along party lines, with Israel’s Republican allies in the Senate defending the Jewish state’s actions as self-defense while Democrats expressed concerns that the ceasefire in Gaza could be in jeopardy. 

“You’re going to see a lot of this,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider of the renewed skirmishes in Gaza. “I mean, the Hamas soldiers are not terribly civilized, and the fact that there’s a ceasefire is of no moment to many of them. You’re periodically going to see them continue to shoot at the Israeli soldiers, and when they do, the Israeli soldiers are going to shoot back and kill them.”

“Eventually the really stupid Hamas members will stop doing it, because they’ll be dead,” the Louisiana senator continued. “But this is gonna happen. I mean, you’re not talking about sane people.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) suggested “we ought to expect” the Israelis to still conduct operations in Gaza given Hamas’ actions targeting IDF troops and Palestinian civilians since the ceasefire went into effect. 

“Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are going to continue to commit acts of violence, and Israel is going to need to respond,” Ricketts told JI. “That’s why it’s imperative that the Gulf states work together to get an international police force to be able to keep peace in Gaza while we go through this transition.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he felt it was “entirely appropriate” that Israel struck Hamas targets in order to protect Israeli forces.

“Because Hamas is attacking the IDF, that is entirely appropriate for Israel to defend itself — today, yesterday, tomorrow. If Hamas is attacking them, violating, obviously, the ceasefire and attacking IDF soldiers, Israel has been very clear: If you shoot us, we’re going to actually stop you,” Lankford told JI. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who offered his support for further Israeli confrontation with Hamas earlier this week, wrote on X on Tuesday afternoon that he was in “total support” of “the recent military action by Israel against Hamas.”

“Without Hamas being disarmed and removed from power permanently, there will be no pathway to stability and peace in the Middle East. Hamas is killing their opposition and consolidating their power,” Graham wrote. “If Israel believes it is necessary to reengage Hamas militarily, so be it. They have my complete backing.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) concurred with his GOP colleagues, telling JI, “If Hamas is going to strike Israel, they [Israel] don’t have a choice. They have to strike back. It’s too bad, but they don’t have a choice.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) surmised that Israel launched the strikes because Hamas was not honoring their side of the ceasefire deal by refusing to disarm. 

“I think the reasoning for it was: Hamas is supposed to be planning on disarming, but I suspect that there’s probably some portions of Hamas that don’t want to disarm, and they’re probably regrouping,” Rounds told JI. “If [Netanyahu] can take out some more of those terrorists, I think he probably decided he would do it now as opposed to later.”

“We want that ceasefire to be successful, but it means Hamas has got to give up their weapons,” he added.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) wrote on X on Tuesday that, “Hamas is in direct violation of the ceasefire, including deceptively & cruelly obstructing the return of deceased hostages to their families. The @IDF’s actions are a result of Hamas’ repeated violations & their targeting of Israeli troops.”

The North Carolina senator declined to elaborate when asked by JI at the Capitol about the developments, noting that he wanted to hold off on commenting further until he had been fully briefed on the situation. 

Some Senate Democrats who have been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state said they hoped the latest developments would not completely upend the ceasefire deal. 

“It is very troubling,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said of Netanyahu launching the strikes. “I give President Trump a lot of credit for really working hard to get him [Netanyahu] to accept the deal. He wouldn’t have accepted it before.”

Kaine questioned if Netanyahu was aiming to derail the ceasefire, and noted that such a development would upend current efforts by the U.S. to bring more Gulf states into the Abraham Accords. 

“My question is: Is he trying to undo the deal?” the Virginia senator asked of Netanyahu. “If he’s trying to undo the deal, then he’s got another problem, which is [that] they [the U.S.] want more nations in the Abraham Accords, and those nations have said we’re not coming in unless there is a path forward to Palestinian autonomy.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told JI that he was waiting to be briefed before speaking publicly, but said it would be “unfortunate if we wound up in a situation where this unravels.”

Middle East experts with whom JI spoke described Israel’s strikes against Hamas as necessary for its security, and dismissed concerns that Israel was acting without U.S. involvement or trying to disrupt the deal, while others expressed concern regarding Washington’s ability to constrain the Israelis. 

“Israel has shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of multiple Hamas violations of its ceasefire obligations, but attacks on its personnel are something no government can accept,” Rob Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told JI. “Hamas’ violations are real and serious, deserving of an appropriate response.”

Mona Yacoubian, director and senior advisor of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, remained skeptical over Israel’s decision to strike. She said the operation could reflect a developing pattern where Israel takes military action with or without U.S. cooperation, and argued that Washington should be willing to adjust accordingly to “enforce” and monitor the ceasefire arrangement.

“Although we are still very much in the ‘fog of war,’ it does not appear that the United States approved the strike or necessarily even agrees with Israel’s interpretations that Hamas violated the ceasefire,” Yacoubian told JI. “We are likely seeing the beginnings of a ‘new normal’ where Israel strikes as it sees necessary. The key question is whether or not the United States will acquiesce to that.”

Gaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, predicted that the breakout of strikes was an isolated episode that would be “contained.” 

“The current escalation is concerning but not surprising. Ceasefires take a while to solidify and stabilize, whether because of accidents or because the sides testing the limits of the ceasefire,” al-Omari said. “The challenge facing the U.S. now is how to balance supporting Israel’s right to respond to Hamas’ violations while at the same time ensuring that this round of escalation does not spin out of control.”

Visiting the new U.S.-run Civilian Military Cooperation Center in southern Israel, Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that he is “very optimistic” about the advancement of the peace plan, but warned that Hamas must disarm and cooperate with international interlocutors, or else it would be “obliterated.” 

The vice president’s comments came shortly after President Donald Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, threatened Hamas with “elimination” should the terror group continue to carry out violence in Gaza and violate the terms of the peace deal. 

“Numerous of our NOW GREAT ALLIES in the Middle East … have explicitly and strongly, with great enthusiasm, informed me that they would welcome the opportunity, at my request, to go into GAZA with a heavy force and ‘straighten out Hamas’ if Hamas continues to act badly, in violation of their agreement with us,” Trump wrote. “There is still hope that Hamas will do what is right. If they do not, an end to Hamas will be FAST, FURIOUS, & BRUTAL!”

The president’s statement, which came hours after Vance touched down in Israel in part to keep the deal on track, underscored his growing impatience and frustration with the terrorist group.

“Hamas has to disarm,” Vance said. “They’re not going to be able to kill their fellow Palestinians. … If Hamas doesn’t cooperate, as the president of the United States said, Hamas will be obliterated.”

“But I’m not going to do what the president of the United States has thus far refused to do, which is put an explicit deadline on it,” the vice president continued, “because a lot of this stuff is difficult … In order for us to give it a chance to succeed, we’ve got to be a little bit flexible.”

Asked about Turkish troops entering Gaza despite the country’s hostility to Israel, Vance said that Israel will have to agree to any foreign troops on the ground. “We’re not going to force anything on our Israeli friends when it comes to foreign troops on their soil, but I think there’s a constructive role for the Turks to play,” he said. “They already played a constructive role.”

As for reconstruction of Gaza, Jared Kushner, who has played a central role in negotiating the end of the war, said that “no reconstruction funds will be going to areas Hamas still controls. … There are considerations in the area the IDF controls to start reconstruction of a new Gaza, in order to give the Palestinians in Gaza a place to go, a place to get jobs, a place to live.” 

Vance said that the eventual governing structure of Gaza is still undetermined, as the plan focuses on getting “to a point where both Gazans and our Israeli friends have some measure of security.” After that, he added, “we’ll worry about long term governance.”

“Let’s worry about security, give people food and medicine,” he said.

Vance said that the CMCC’s focus is on repatriating the bodies of the 15 remaining Israeli hostages, but that “it’s not going to happen overnight.” 

The administration’s push for Hamas’ disarmament is expected to face hurdles. “On the one hand, Hamas wants to avoid losing the sympathy of Turkey and Qatar and wants to avoid wasting Egypt’s desire for a political settlement that creates Palestinian unity with Hamas support,” said Rob Satloff, executive director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “On the other hand, it is clear that Hamas has no intention of voluntarily giving up the battle against Israel, let alone voluntarily disarming.”

But while Trump threatened that “many countries” will get involved, other nations have been reluctant to send in reinforcements, despite talks of forming an International Stabilization Force, as laid out in the unfinalized second phase of the peace deal. 

At the CMCC facility on Tuesday, the vice president noted that the force is still in the process of being formed, but said no American troops will be on the ground in the enclave. There are about 200 U.S. servicemembers at the CMCC in Kiryat Gat, Israel, tasked with coordinating the effort.

Trump himself emphasized that the U.S. will not send troops into Gaza, telling reporters at the White House on Monday that “Israel would go in in two minutes if I asked them to go in … But right now we haven’t said that.”

“Many countries are hesitant to send troops to serve as peacekeepers,” said David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “So, it will be very difficult to find a country able and willing to strike Hamas as punishment.”

Even if Trump is able to get other countries on board to take a more involved role in defanging Hamas in Gaza, May said more firepower does not always mean better results. 

“There’s a certain value in threats and provocative language, especially from an unpredictable president,” said May. “But striking Hamas and not killing civilians requires surgical precision — something the Israelis excel in — not the overwhelming force that the United States alone possesses. [At the same time,] Hamas’ violations are mounting, and the terrorist group cannot be allowed to retake Gaza and execute its potential replacements.”

May said a return to fighting would sink any possibility of the current deal developing into full-fledged peace. The Trump administration has sought to avoid a return to hostilities and build on the momentum from phase one. Experts warned the administration is in a precarious position, balancing between keeping the president’s deal stable and preventing Hamas from reasserting power. 

“The Trump administration is trying to navigate between these poles,” said Satloff. “Taking advantage of political pressure while avoiding a showdown with Hamas without the Arab, Muslim or international troops to back it up, all the while trying to avoid a collapse of relapse into full-scale Hamas-Israel war that would undermine the president’s great diplomatic achievement.”

The vice president also spoke of the significance of Israel to him as a Christian, sharing plans to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. “I pray that the Prince of Peace,” he said, using a name for Jesus,” can continue to work a miracle in this part of the world.”