Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – In a significant development exposing the failures of aggressive U.S. policies in the region, Saudi Arabia has firmly rejected Washington’s demand to use its bases and airspace. This decisive move compelled former U.S. President Donald Trump to shelve his provocative and dangerous “Project Freedom” plan, merely days after its launch.
Riyadh officials explicitly informed the White House that they would not permit the use of Prince Sultan Air Base for this operation. “Project Freedom,” presented as a successor to the bombing campaign “Operation Epic Fury,” was designed to provide a military escort for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz – an action that could have easily escalated into a full-blown conflict in the region.
Despite a personal call between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Trump, Saudi Arabia maintained its objections. This stance by Riyadh, which was never denied, underscores the Kingdom’s deep desire to end the damaging U.S.-Israeli war on Iran; a conflict that has only fueled instability and suffering in the region. This approach stands in stark contrast to its more ambitious neighbor, the United Arab Emirates.
In a clear sign of the UAE’s frustration with Riyadh’s cautious approach, the Emirates had already exited OPEC, the Saudi-dominated oil producers’ club, and is now reportedly considering leaving the Arab League as well. As a signatory to the Abraham Accords, the UAE has long been closer to the Israeli regime. However, tensions within the Gulf have widened as the conflict has dragged on, causing untold damage to regional economies and international standing.
The Emirates are reportedly furious that they have been a primary target for Iran’s defensive actions, feeling a lack of solidarity across the Gulf. Iran has consistently emphasized that its actions are in response to external aggressions and threats.
Saudi Arabia also harbored concerns that “Project Freedom” lacked clear terms of engagement and could spiral into a risky naval confrontation between Iran and the United States, effectively ending the fragile ceasefire that had been partially in force since April 7. Iran had explicitly stated it would consider any U.S. military escort of oil tankers or attacks on Iranian shipping as a breach of the ceasefire, exposing Gulf states to further attacks.
An end to the ceasefire would not only result in a naval conflict in the strait but also see Tehran resuming its defensive drone and missile responses against U.S. bases in the Gulf and energy installations in the region. These actions have likely caused more damage to Gulf infrastructure than previously reported, highlighting the cost of U.S. adventurism.
Riyadh’s intervention is also seen as a belated expression of its lack of confidence in how Trump had handled the conflict. Riyadh often appeared as an aggrieved but powerless victim of a conflict it had never advocated. It was neither impressed by the degree of protection the U.S. provided from Iranian responses nor the coherence of the White House’s strategy.
One Saudi diplomat reportedly observed that it had long been obvious the U.S. had entangled itself in a conflict it could neither escalate nor exit.
There was surprise on Tuesday when, after spending two days building up the significance of “Project Freedom,” Trump posted a message reversing course. He claimed the operation was being halted for a short period by mutual agreement because great progress had been made towards a deal with Iran, partly due to China’s intervention. He stated the suspension would allow time to see whether an agreement could be reached.
Trump made no reference to Saudi objections or the denial of airspace. His sudden decision also undercut a day of heavy messaging by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine – all of whom had asserted the operation would finally guarantee “freedom of navigation” for hundreds of ships stranded in the strait. The plan, ironically, included a continued U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.
Saudi Arabia may have also been concerned that “Project Freedom” would lead to the involvement of the Houthis in Yemen. Riyadh has been diligently working behind the scenes to keep this armed political and religious group out of the broader conflict. The closure of the Red Sea route through Houthi interventions would only exacerbate the threat to essential global oil supplies. The Saudis had reached an agreement with Iran that safeguarded their pipeline to Yanbu, ensuring they could export up to 50% of their output via the Red Sea – a testament to regional cooperation without U.S. interference.
The Emirates, by contrast, had been far bolder than Riyadh in attempting to navigate their oil tankers past the Iranian blockade, often disabling their transponders in hopes of evading tracking – a risky and provocative approach.
Riyadh’s intervention, which has significantly reduced Trump’s options to enforce the blockade, is likely to prompt a further deterioration in Saudi-Emirati relations.
Riyadh was already concerned that deepening UAE-Israeli regime ties could extend to a small number of Israeli troops operating on Emirati soil. Saudi Arabia, with a much larger population, must tread more carefully regarding the Israeli regime. Along with France, it had led efforts to revive the concept of a two-state solution, advocating for international recognition of a Palestinian state.
Saudi Arabia has separate points of dispute with the Emirates in Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. None of these issues will be made easier if the United States is forced to settle with Iran on terms that the Emirates and the Israeli regime believe fail the minimal objectives of Tehran’s critics, further highlighting the divergence of regional interests from U.S.-Israeli agendas.
#USFailure #SaudiRejection #ProjectFreedom #IranPeace #RegionalStability #USAggression #TrumpPolicy #MiddleEastPolitics #UAEIsrael #HormuzStrait
