By Richard Brown
In a dramatic turn in U.S.–Saudi relations, President Donald Trump signalled that Riyadh would receive advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets as part of the high-profile visit of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to the White House this week. The announcement marks a potentially seismic shift in regional military balances — and has provoked sharp concern from global human-rights groups, U.S. lawmakers and strategic analysts.
“We will be selling F-35s,” Trump declared in the Oval Office on Monday, referring to Riyadh’s long-standing request for the jets. Axios+2Agbi+2
If finalized, the agreement would make Saudi Arabia the second Middle East nation — after Israel — to field the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II, an aircraft known for stealth capability, advanced sensors, and integrated combat systems. Wikipedia+2The Times of India+2
What’s at Stake
Strategic Implications. The introduction of F-35s into Saudi Arabia’s air force could dramatically shift the military balance in the Middle East. The jets’ stealth and sensor-fusion technology allow them to operate undetected in contested airspace, raising serious concerns for Israel’s current qualitative military edge in the region. Axios+2The Independent+2
Furthermore, given Saudi Arabia’s vast investment and global relationships, the sale may influence future security alignments — and could encourage other Gulf states to pursue similar capabilities. Algemeiner.com+1
Human Rights and Reputation. The deal comes at a controversial time. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is widely suspected of authorizing the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — a crime that drew global condemnation. The decision to give him advanced U.S. military hardware has sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and among human rights advocates. The Real News Network+1
Rep. Ilhan Omar, deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the White House reception for MBS a “disgusting display” and urged Congress to block the sale. She criticised the administration for prioritising weapons deals and defense-contractor profits at a time when Saudi Arabia has been accused of human-rights abuses and destabilising military operations in Yemen. The Real News Network
Defense Industry and U.S. Interests. From the Pentagon’s perspective, the sale advances U.S. strategic and economic interests. The F-35 program — managed by the Joint Program Office (JPO) — is already one of the largest weapons projects in history, and foreign sales help justify continued production and sustainment costs, estimated in the trillions over the coming decades. Every CRS Report+1
International Reactions & Regional Repercussions
Though potentially a geopolitical win for Saudi–U.S. ties, the proposed sale is meeting resistance from allies. According to Israeli officials, any F-35 transfer to Saudi Arabia must be tied to Riyadh’s formal normalization of relations with Israel. Without progress on that front, giving the kingdom such powerful jets could jeopardize regional stability. Algemeiner.com+1
Meanwhile, defense experts warn that supplying F-35s to a country with ties to multiple global actors — including nations with advanced missile technology — could risk sensitive systems or even lead to unwanted technology leaks. Critics warn that this could undermine U.S. and allied security in the longer term. Asia Times+2KCSM Jazz 91+2
Why It Matters
This deal underlines an emerging U.S. foreign-policy strategy: using advanced arms sales as diplomatic leverage, even with regimes criticized for authoritarian practices. For Saudi Arabia, acquiring F-35s would be a game-changer — enhancing its military stature and deterring adversaries in the Middle East.
For the United States, the sale represents both economic benefit and diplomatic risk: billions in defense industry revenue, but potentially eroding long-standing global norms on human rights and regional balance.
And for global observers, the developments raise urgent questions: can strategic arms sales be separated from morality? Should economic profit ever outweigh the reputational costs of arming controversial regimes?
