Trump-MbS Meeting Was Strained Behind Closed Doors: ‘Disappointment & Irritation’

Axios reported some new details this week related to the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House.

There were more tensions in the private dialogue between the two leaders than previously known, and some significant disagreements centered on policy toward Israel.

While the two leaders exchanged compliments in front of the cameras, aspects of the private discussion were strained, Axios noted. Officials described Trump as being frustrated by the resistance he encountered from the crown prince on joining the Abraham Accords.

Bin Salman presented his stance that a firm commitment toward a two-state solution involving the Palestinians must be made for Saudi Arabia to join the accords.

Behind closed doors the crown prince reportedly pushed back when Trump pressed him to formally join the Abraham Accords which establishes normalization with Israel.

MbS reportedly argued that he has to represent his people at a moment Saudi public sentiment has turned sharply against Israel in the aftermath the Gaza war.

But Trump had “pressed hard” on the issue in the November 18 meeting, Axios underscored. One unnamed admin official explained in the meeting’s aftermath, “The best way to say it is disappointment and irritation. The president really wants them to join the Abraham Accord. He tried very hard to talk him. It was an honest discussion. But MBS is a strong man. He stood his ground.”

The Saudis are insisting that Israel must agree to “an irreversible, credible and time-bound path” for a Palestinian state, but the Netanyahu government has firmly rejected this possibility, especially in the wake of the Oct.7, 2023 terror attack.

Another US official said, “MBS never said no to normalization. The door is open for doing it later. But the two-state solution is an issue.”

In relation to the Hamas Oct.7 attack, there’s long been speculation that the terror raids on southern Israel were launched precisely because the militant group was worried that as more and more regional countries join the Abraham Accords, the question of Palestinian statehood would be permanently abandoned.

According to this theory, the brazen and history-altering attack was meant once again to sow deep division among the ‘Arab world’ and Israel. To some degree, this may have succeeded as a broader geopolitical goal, given the Abraham Accords have indeed been stalled. But it also backfired, given Iran and Hezbollah are more weakened than ever, and the Syrian government was overthrown a year ago. These were all key, well-armed and historic resisters of Israeli expansion and Zionist hegemony.