The subtext of a recent White House meeting
The recent meeting between Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman at the White House took place at a critical and turbulent moment in regional developments. This encounter was not merely a bilateral diplomatic meeting; it occurred at the intersection of deep geopolitical interests and challenges that could shape the future of regional relations and U.S. foreign policy. Analyzing this meeting requires considering recent field developments that have clearly shifted the balance of power in favor of the Resistance Axis and against the long-term goals of Washington and Tel Aviv.
The timing of this meeting comes amid fundamental shifts in regional equations. Iran’s heroic resistance against the Israeli regime during the 12-day war, combined with the joint failure of Washington and Tel Aviv to achieve their objectives in the two-year Gaza conflict, has given new weight to regional powers. The successful Iraqi elections and the increased influence of Resistance-aligned parties, the redefined power and influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the consolidation of Ansarallah’s power in Yemen are all evidence of the effective advance of the Resistance front.
In fact, the “subtextual” and “textual” regional equations have evolved in ways that conflict with Washington and Tel Aviv’s short-, medium-, and long-term objectives in the region. One factor visible in Riyadh’s subtextual behavior is the growing uncertainty regarding the U.S.’s security commitments to its traditional allies. Additionally, shifting U.S. policies toward Saudi Arabia—including the Biden administration’s initial handling of the Jamal Khashoghchi case—have created strategic trust gaps. This has compelled Riyadh to activate multiple diplomatic channels to safeguard its interests.
Another point is that the media maneuvering by Trump and Republican-aligned outlets emphasizing the economic dimensions of the meeting reflects a deliberate and targeted publicity strategy. At a time when Trump’s popularity has dropped below 40% according to polls such as Emerson, he needs a “success” to boost his electoral campaign. Emphasizing investments and commercial contracts with Saudi Arabia is an effort to “downplay” geopolitical and regional failures. Washington does not want to admit that its regional strategies have failed; therefore, presenting a narrative of “constructive economic partnership” with Riyadh serves to justify high-level negotiations and achieve short-term symbolic victories. This approach also attempts to marginalize the successes of America’s regional competitors and reclaim the dominant narrative.
Undoubtedly, one of the main topics of discussion between bin Salman and Trump was the effort to complete and expand the Abraham Accords and provide “artificial breathing space” for the Israelis. However, this plan faces serious obstacles. Riyadh, due to the intense sensitivity of Arab and Islamic public opinion regarding the Palestinian issue and the Gaza atrocities, currently lacks the capacity to “digest” normalization within the framework of the Abraham Accords—especially in the shadow of Netanyahu’s presence.
This situation places Saudi Arabia in a strategic dilemma. Simultaneously, Trump has made commitments to Netanyahu for the post-ceasefire period, which, due to ongoing Resistance actions and the failure to achieve military objectives, are not practically enforceable. Domestically, any hasty attempt to normalize Riyadh-Tel Aviv relations could undermine the legitimacy of the ruling family in the eyes of a large segment of Saudi citizens with strong Arab and Islamic identities. Simply put, Saudi Arabia’s fundamental condition for normalization—the establishment of a sustainable Palestinian state—is currently unacceptable to Netanyahu’s cabinet.
Ultimately, the recent Trump–bin Salman meeting reflects both sides’ efforts to manage a difficult geopolitical situation. Trump seeks a performative electoral victory focused on economic achievements, while bin Salman attempts to preserve Saudi Arabia’s position amid the shifting balance of power in the region according to its long-term interests. Even foundational joint projects such as the Abraham Accords remain uncertain. This meeting underscores the reality that regional actors no longer fully accept Washington’s directives—a truth that will be difficult for Trump to fully acknowledge.