I happened to be traveling through several Saudi cities during Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the US last week. Citizens were watching closely to see what would happen, what the results would be and how all this would reflect on the Saudi domestic scene and on security in the Middle East. The last point was particularly pertinent given the wars the region has witnessed since Oct. 7, 2023, which have posed real challenges to the Kingdom and its ambitious development plans. Stability is a key factor in achieving economic growth and, in this sense, the domestic and foreign files overlap and intertwine.

The warm reception accorded to the crown prince and the announced economic, defense and technological agreements constituted a source of pride for Saudis, who aspire to see the positive results of these agreements, their impact on income levels, the opening of new job opportunities and the achievement of major economic growth. Yet, at the same time, they also hope that the Saudi-US partnership will be utilized as a tool for managing and resolving the crises in the Middle East, not merely securing bilateral interests that could be exposed to enormous risks if problems remain unresolved.

President Donald Trump described the crown prince as “a true partner for peace and prosperity for our two countries, for the world, and for peace in the Middle East.” The crown prince responded by affirming that “the strong relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia is bad for extremism and terrorism.” These mutual descriptions are not mere diplomatic flattery or polite compliments. They rather outline a political framework through which the prospects for cooperation on several issues are to be interpreted. These include combating terrorism and armed groups in the Middle East, the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility of finding practical solutions that preserve the security of the Arabian Gulf, in addition to joint work aimed at supporting state stability in Syria and Lebanon, peace in Palestine and stopping the Sudanese war.

Citizens hope that the Saudi-US partnership will be utilized as a tool for managing and resolving the crises in the Middle East

Hassan Al-Mustafa

Granting Saudi Arabia the status of major non-NATO ally, as Trump announced during the White House dinner, means that the security of the Arabian Gulf is not a secondary file in US calculations. Instead, it has become tied to military arrangements more than before, including the strategic defense agreement and civilian nuclear cooperation.

Although the details and final legal form of these agreements have not yet been revealed, nor what they require in terms of lack of opposition in Congress, this announcement nonetheless carries an essential political and symbolic message: that Washington opposes exposing the security of the Arabian Gulf to risks, whether the threat comes from Israel or Iran.

This development in bilateral relations allows Riyadh to build a solid deterrence system that protects maritime routes and vital energy and industrial facilities. At the same time, it lowers the level of tension between the two shores of the Gulf through serious dialogue with Tehran aimed at making the Beijing Agreement a practical framework rather than a merely theoretical agreement. Through this deal, a step-by-step transition toward greater security, political and economic coordination can be made, as trust between the two parties needs to be solid, with action as its foundation rather than mere intentions.

Washington opposes exposing the security of the Arabian Gulf to risks, whether the threat comes from Israel or Iran

Hassan Al-Mustafa

In this context, the file of US-Iranian dialogue becomes more controllable and capable of advancing, despite the stagnation it has experienced over recent months. Here, Saudi Arabia can play a greater role, as it maintains good relations with both Washington and Tehran.

It is in the Kingdom’s interest that there be a peaceful agreement between the US and Iran on the latter’s nuclear program — an agreement that takes into account the interests of the Arab Gulf states. Yet, at the same time, what matters to Riyadh is curbing the Revolutionary Guards and ensuring that the Iranian missile program does not pose a threat to Saudi security, as well as reducing the danger of cross-border militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, in exchange for easing sanctions and providing opportunities for Iranian economic recovery.

As for Gaza and the West Bank, the crown prince’s visit reaffirmed that the Kingdom supports peace for Palestinians and Israelis and that, at the same time, it links any future relations with Tel Aviv to the existence of “a clear path toward a two-state solution.” Riyadh believes that it is impossible to achieve regional stability without a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and that the continuation of Israeli violations and forced displacement operations will fuel extremist logic among various parties and strengthen the rhetoric of fundamentalist groups. True peace would prevent all of that and grant everyone the opportunity for a dignified and safe life.

Concerning the Syrian and Lebanese files, Riyadh and Washington seek to strengthen the state structure in Damascus and Beirut, confining weapons to the hands of the army and official security institutions, while preventing militias from playing any negative roles. This shared vision could lead to enhanced investments in both countries and their reintegration into the Arab sphere in a practical rather than superficial manner. However, this depends on the performance of the two governments and on Israel ending its constant violations of Syrian and Lebanese territory.

Despite their political clarity, these paths are complex, especially since there are other actors, including Israel and armed militias, that wish to capitalize on the chaos. Therefore, the success of these political and security pathways in the Middle East will not be determined theoretically, but rather by the extent of cooperation among the region’s states and their adoption of policies that reduce instability, as is the case with Saudi Arabia’s active diplomacy.