President Donald Trump’s approach to Middle East policy increasingly faces challenges both within the region and domestically as tensions escalate, particularly surrounding Iran and the ongoing conflict involving Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Experts and U.S. intelligence officials have warned that Trump’s aggressive stance toward Iran risks plunging the region into a wider and unpredictable conflict, a development now unfolding amid signs of diminished American support for key Gulf allies.
Despite Saudi Arabia’s substantial investments in American arms and military bases—some of which have suffered damage from Iranian-backed attacks over the past seven months—the Trump administration has been hesitant to engage directly in Yemen’s civil war by striking the Houthis. This reluctance has reportedly embarrassed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as billions of dollars have been funneled into business ventures connected to Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization. The resulting U.S. support for Riyadh against the Houthi insurgency has been characterized as lukewarm.
Domestically, Trump appears cautious about expanding U.S. military involvement in a conflict widely unpopular among the American public, including factions of his own political base that supported his earlier promises to avoid new wars. The ongoing confrontation with Iran has contributed to rising energy prices in the United States, fueling inflation that reached 3.7% in September—just weeks before midterm elections in which Republican candidates face voter discontent related to the cost of living.
Looking ahead, uncertainties persist about whether Trump will maintain his current stance after the midterms. Should the Houthi forces intensify attacks on Saudi infrastructure or capture more territory aligned with Riyadh’s Yemeni allies, pressure could mount from within the Republican Party and from the Saudi leadership to intervene militarily. A shift in congressional power toward Democrats post-election may also influence the calculus, either limiting or redirecting U.S. engagement.
Prince Mohammed is reportedly grappling with the conflict’s detrimental effect on Saudi oil exports and may leverage financial ties to the United States and Trump’s business interests to compel a more robust American response. Analysts suggest that Trump’s governance style, characterized by transactional relationships and intertwined business dealings, raises concerns about U.S. foreign policy priorities being influenced by personal and economic interests.
The relationship between Trump and the Saudi crown prince was solidified early in Trump’s presidency. Saudi Arabia was the first foreign destination Trump visited in office in May 2017, marking a break from tradition. The kingdom offered extensive honors and hospitality, recognizing Trump’s affinity for flattery, while Prince Mohammed was consolidating power amid controversial regional moves, including the 2015 Saudi-led intervention in Yemen and the blockade of Qatar.
Their alliance deepened despite international condemnation following the 2018 assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Prince Mohammed ordered the killing, but Trump’s administration shielded the crown prince from sanctions and congressional pressure. In subsequent years, the Saudi government also provided crucial backing to Trump’s family business during periods of political isolation, particularly after the January 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Following a seven-year absence from the United States after the Khashoggi incident, Prince Mohammed resumed high-profile visits under Trump’s administration, including a 2022 White House luncheon and business events intended to secure investments from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. Trump publicly defended the prince regarding Khashoggi’s murder, dismissing suspicions despite CIA assessments attributing responsibility to Mohammed.
As the regional conflict intensifies, Trump faces the prospect of escalating U.S. involvement in a war with significant humanitarian and geopolitical consequences—an outcome that analysts warn could stem from the administration’s close ties to Saudi Arabia and its leadership.