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.

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.”

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he had called off the U.S. bombing campaign against Houthi targets in Yemen after the terrorist group told the Trump administration this week that “they don’t want to fight anymore.”

Trump made the comments, which he described as “very good news,” while speaking to reporters from the Oval Office ahead of a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. 

“The Houthis have announced that they are not, or they’ve announced to us at least, that they don’t want to fight anymore. They just don’t want to fight, and we will honor that, and we will stop the bombings,” Trump said. “They have capitulated, but more importantly, we will take their word. They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore, and that’s what the purpose of what we were doing.”

The president added that his team had “just found out” about the developments, which he called “very, very positive.”

Israel conducted intensive strikes against the Houthis on Monday and Tuesday after the terror group struck Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport complex over the weekend, injuring six.

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the Houthi Political Council, told Bloomberg News that the group may stop attacking U.S. ships if the bombardment stops “but we will definitely continue our operations in support to Gaza” and that Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and against Israel “will not stop regardless of the consequences until the end of the aggression on Gaza and blockade on its people.”

The foreign minister of Oman, Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, said in a statement that “recent discussions and contacts conducted by the Sultanate of Oman with the United States and the relevant authorities in Sana’a … have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides. In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping.”

Trump told reporters, “They were not going to have a lot of ships going, as you know, sailing beautifully down the various seas. It wasn’t just the canal, it was out of other places. And I will accept their word, and we are going to stop the bombing of the Houthis effective immediately,” later adding in response to a question about the news, “They don’t want to be bombed anymore. I sort of thought that would happen.”

Trump then turned to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss the change in strategy, who stated, “This was always a freedom of navigation issue. These guys are a band of individuals with advanced weaponry that were threatening global shipping. And the job was to get that to stop, and if it’s going to stop, then we can stop. And so I think it’s an important development.”

Vice President J.D. Vance expressed deep reservations about the U.S. conducting strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this month in a private group chat with other senior administration officials, according to a bombshell report by The Atlantic.

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, reported on Monday that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz had inadvertently added him to a group chat on Signal, an encrypted messaging application, with Vance and numerous Cabinet-level officials. Goldberg reported that Vance told the group chat, which debated and detailed the Trump administration’s plans to launch the strikes, that he thought they should hold off on the mission.

“Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake,” Vance reportedly texted the group on the morning of March 14. “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance continued. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back on Vance’s arguments, explaining why he believed it would be a mistake to wait to conduct the strikes. 

“Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should,” Hegseth wrote to the group. 

“This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” Hegseth continued, referring to operational security.

Vance replied directly to Hegseth shortly after, writing: “[I]f you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

The comments underscore that Vance’s views are at odds with the prevailing foreign policy view in the Trump administration, and aligned with an isolationist wing of GOP foreign policy circles that has sought to expand its influence. By suggesting that Europe benefits more than the United States from the U.S. Navy’s protection of the Red Sea shipping lanes, he downplayed the national security threat posed by the Houthis in threatening international waterways.

(After the strikes against the Houthis, the Trump White House issued a statement reiterating the American interest in the region: “No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.”)

A user with the initials SM — believed to be Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House and a close Trump advisor — replied to these messages by suggesting the U.S. expects some recompense from its allies for carrying out the strikes.

“As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return,” the user wrote. “We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the U.S. successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

A spokesperson for Vance said in a statement to Jewish Insider on Monday, “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”

The statement did not address whether the vice president did believe or still believes that striking the Houthis serves U.S. national security interests. 

A spokesperson for the National Security Council said in a statement, “At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our national security.”

The leaked messages also revealed that senior Pentagon advisor Dan Caldwell and Joe Kent, the nominee to be director of the National Counterterrorism Center — subordinate to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — had been named as the lead deputies coordinating the operation for the Defense Department and ODNI.

Caldwell, a Koch network alumnus, took a leading role in the Pentagon transition process, helping to bring on a series of isolationist foreign policy hires into the Pentagon. Caldwell himself faced scrutiny for calls for the U.S. to pull back from the Middle East.

Kent, who is reportedly acting in an advisory role at ODNI before his confirmation, has past ties to white supremacists and neo-Nazis and promoted conspiracy theories.

The revelations have prompted immediate backlash from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

“Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels — and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said.  “Safeguards must be put in place to ensure this never happens again.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said that the messages should not have been shared on unclassified systems, adding that U.S. adversaries are likely monitoring Hegseth’s personal phone.

“If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

Leaders of multiple intelligence agencies are set to appear before the Senate and House Intelligence committee on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, where they’re likely to face fierce scrutiny from Democrats over the security breach.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, posted an image mocking Hegseth. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “horrified” by the reports and that they were illegal and posed “calamitous risks.”