The Saudi-led conflict with Houthi rebels in Yemen has escalated dramatically, with the kingdom receiving little support from its key US ally despite billions in arms purchases and investments. Following a devastating cruise missile attack on Riyadh’s international airport that killed 13 and wounded over 300, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman found himself unable to secure meaningful US intervention. The stark contrast between past US support and current reticence reveals a fundamental miscalculation by Saudi leadership in assuming transactional relationships with US officials would guarantee security backing.
Transactional alliance falls short
Prince Mohammed’s rise to power coincided with Donald Trump’s first presidency, cultivating what appeared to be a mutually beneficial partnership. The relationship deepened significantly after Trump’s 2017 maiden overseas trip included a stop in Saudi Arabia, where the prince lavished attention on the president with elaborate banquets and the kingdom’s highest civilian honour. This proximity bore fruit in subsequent defence agreements and arms sales worth billions, with the crown prince promising massive US investments following Trump’s 2025 return to the White House. The Saudi leadership believed these economic ties would translate into unwavering political and military support, particularly after securing approval for F-35 fighter jet purchases that cemented their position as a key regional partner.
Growing pains in the Gulf
The honeymoon period ended abruptly as Trump’s second term revealed the limits of personal relationships in foreign policy. Despite calls from Prince Mohammed for US airstrikes against Houthi positions following intensified rebel attacks, the administration has maintained a cautious stance. Intelligence assessments suggesting Saudi involvement in journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s 2018 assassination had previously strained ties, yet Trump’s defence of the crown prince during their recent meetings demonstrated continued support. However, the Houthis’ escalation—including the October 10 missile strike on Riyadh’s airport—has exposed the fragility of assumptions about US commitment to Gulf allies, even those with substantial economic investments in American businesses and military procurement.
Energy and domestic politics collide
Trump’s reluctance to expand US military involvement extends beyond principled restraint; it reflects genuine concern about domestic backlash. The ongoing Iran conflict has contributed to rising energy prices, pushing inflation to 3.7% in September—weeks before crucial midterm elections where Republicans already face voter dissatisfaction over cost-of-living pressures. The president’s base, many of whom supported his promises to avoid new wars, would likely view additional Middle East engagements with suspicion. This political calculus creates a difficult position for Saudi Arabia, whose oil exports have been disrupted by regional instability, forcing Prince Mohammed to weigh whether threatening to withdraw substantial US investments might actually damage the very relationship he seeks to leverage.
A web of dependencies and vulnerabilities
The situation illuminates a dangerous pattern where wealthy autocrats exploit personal connections with leaders to extract concessions beyond what national interests justify. Prince Mohammed’s strategy of channeling investments through entities linked to Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization during Trump’s first term created dependencies that now constrain effective diplomacy. Rather than pursuing diplomatic solutions to de-escalate the Houthi-Saudi conflict, the current trajectory suggests both sides are trapped in a cycle where military posturing serves domestic political needs more than strategic objectives. The Houthis, backed by Iran, continue targeting Saudi infrastructure with increasing sophistication, while Riyadh struggles to balance its regional ambitions with economic realities both at home and abroad.
Why it Matters
This escalating conflict threatens to draw America deeper into a regional war that offers diminishing returns for US security while undermining America’s credibility with other allies. The precedent of transactional diplomacy—where military support is purchased rather than earned through partnership—could destabilise the entire Gulf region if other nations conclude that economic investment alone guarantees US protection. More broadly, the situation exemplifies how personal relationships in foreign policy can override strategic interests, potentially leading to disasters that both domestic politics and regional actors must ultimately bear the cost of resolving.