MBS Calls, Trump’s Line Busy.

Published on: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 05:36:59 GMT
Original Story: Trump declines Saudi crown prince’s call for US strikes on Houthis – report – jpost.com

Alright, gather ’round, kids, because it’s time for another thrilling installment of “Guess Which Way the Geopolitical Wind Blows Today,” starring everyone’s favorite unpredictable protagonist. Just when you thought you had a handle on the former guy’s foreign policy playbook – assuming such a thing actually exists outside of a fever dream and a Sharpie – he goes and pulls a classic Trump maneuver. We’re talking about reports that Donald J. Trump, the man who once famously said he knew more about ISIS than the generals, apparently told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS, to his friends and anyone with a functioning internet connection) to kindly take a seat when MBS reportedly asked for U.S. strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. Yes, you read that right. The man who never met a military intervention he couldn’t simultaneously criticize and then, occasionally, authorize, apparently gave a hard pass to a key regional ally. Prepare for whiplash, folks, because consistency is clearly for the weak.

The Unexpected “No” From Mr. “Strongman”

Let’s unpack this with the weary resignation of someone who’s seen too many corporate restructurings. The Jerusalem Post, citing a source familiar with discussions (because, of course, everything’s a whisper network in this world), dropped the bombshell. MBS, allegedly, was keen for some good old-fashioned American firepower to deal with the Houthi menace, who’ve been making shipping lanes in the Red Sea considerably more exciting than anyone outside of a modern-day pirate might prefer. And what did our man Trump say? According to the report, he declined, stating that the U.S. should not get involved in Saudi Arabia’s wars. Cue the record scratch sound effect heard ’round the world.

Now, for those of us who’ve been paying attention – or at least trying to stay awake through the last few cycles of global chaos – this is a head-scratcher. This is the guy who, for years, positioned himself as the ultimate arbiter of strength and decisive action. The very notion of him telling an ally, especially one with deep pockets and even deeper geopolitical importance, “Nah, you handle it,” feels like a glitch in the Matrix. It’s like finding out your high school bully secretly volunteers at an animal shelter. Not impossible, just… unexpected, and frankly, a bit unsettling in its implications for consistency. It certainly makes you wonder if his “America First” slogan is less a doctrine and more a mood ring.

America First: A Moving Target?

The “America First” doctrine, as articulated (or, more accurately, ad-libbed) by Trump, has always been a rather fluid concept. On one hand, it championed a reduction in foreign entanglements, a pulling back from “endless wars,” and a focus on domestic priorities. From that perspective, telling MBS to manage his own backyard squabbles *could* be spun as a textbook “America First” move. No more getting dragged into other people’s fights, right? It’s a compelling narrative, especially for a base tired of perceived foreign policy overreach and ready to embrace a more isolationist stance.

But here’s where the snark starts to curdle into genuine confusion. This isn’t just about avoiding “endless wars.” This is about an ally, a significant oil producer, facing threats from a group often seen as an Iranian proxy, asking for aid, and being rebuffed. The Red Sea shipping crisis isn’t just some regional kerfuffle; it has global economic implications. And Trump, the self-proclaimed master negotiator and deal-maker, apparently saw no deal worth making here, no strategic advantage to be gained from demonstrating solidarity with a partner. Or perhaps, more cynically, the deal he envisions for a potential second term is so grand that this particular skirmish simply isn’t worth his time or political capital right now.

Remember When “No” Meant “Bomb Them”?

Ah, memory lane. It’s a treacherous path, especially when dealing with politicians whose stances shift faster than a PowerPoint presentation during a merger. But let’s take a little stroll back to a simpler time, when Donald Trump’s foreign policy statements were less about *not* intervening and more about… well, intervening. And often quite dramatically. The “truth” of his past actions, you might say, stands in stark contrast to the “reality” of this current refusal.

Cast your mind back to April 2017. Less than three months into his presidency, after years of criticizing President Obama for getting bogged down in the Middle East and arguing against intervention in Syria, what did President Trump do? He authorized missile strikes against the Assad regime’s Shayrat Airfield in response to a horrific chemical weapons attack. Remember the dramatic press conference? The righteous indignation? He did it again in April 2018, joining with the UK and France to launch further strikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Remember the “red line” Obama supposedly drew and then erased? Trump drew his own, then apparently decided to color outside the lines with Tomahawk missiles. This was a clear, decisive, military intervention, directly contradicting his prior rhetoric about avoiding such entanglements. It was a moment of pure, unadulterated “America Is Back In The Game” theater.

And let’s not forget January 2020. In a move that sent shockwaves through the Middle East and nearly triggered a full-blown war with Iran, Trump authorized the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, in Baghdad. That wasn’t a “hands-off, let the allies handle it” moment. That was a unilateral, high-stakes military action, taken without explicit congressional approval, against a major regional power. It was a projection of American power, designed to send a clear message. A very, very loud message. So much for not getting involved in Middle Eastern affairs, right?

So, we have a pattern here: criticizing intervention, then intervening. Now, we have a request for intervention *from an ally* against an Iranian proxy, and the response is a shrug and a “thanks but no thanks.” The inconsistency isn’t just a quirk; it’s a policy pendulum swinging wildly, seemingly without a clear directional compass beyond “whatever feels right at the moment.” The “truth” of his past actions – decisive, sometimes unilateral military force – is now colliding with the “reality” of this particular refusal. It’s almost like the rules only apply when he deems them personally advantageous or politically expedient. Which, come to think of it, tracks pretty well for the brand.

The Art of the Convenient Pivot: Election Edition?

One might cynically suggest that this sudden aversion to getting involved in “Saudi Arabia’s wars” isn’t about a newfound, deeply held commitment to non-interventionism, but rather a calculation born of political expediency. An election looms, as elections tend to do. Riling up the anti-war segment of the electorate, even if it’s a small one, by refusing to be dragged into another Middle Eastern conflict, might play well. Or perhaps it’s a subtle signal to his base that he’s *truly* committed to bringing troops home and avoiding foreign entanglements, contrasting sharply with perceived Democratic “globalism” and interventionist tendencies. It’s a neat trick, if you can pull it off without anyone noticing your past predilection for missile diplomacy.

Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a transactional play that hasn’t fully revealed itself. “You want U.S. strikes? What are you offering? And is it enough to justify the political capital spent and the potential international blowback?” With Trump, everything is a negotiation, and sometimes the best negotiation is walking away from the table, at least temporarily. It leaves everyone guessing, which, let’s be honest, he probably loves. The chaos is the point, or at least a highly effective byproduct. Keeps the media guessing, keeps the allies on edge, keeps the base entertained. It’s a multi-faceted approach to global affairs, if nothing else.

Snarky Takeaway

So, there you have it. The man who once authorized missile strikes against Syria and took out a top Iranian general is now, allegedly, telling the Saudis to figure out their Houthi problem on their own. It’s a foreign policy strategy that defies neat categorization, oscillating between hawkish interventionism and pragmatic isolationism with the speed of a squirrel hopped up on espresso. For those of us trying to track the consistency of American foreign policy, it’s less a coherent strategy and more a game of geopolitical musical chairs. Just remember to grab a seat when the music stops, because you never know who’ll be left standing, or, more importantly, who’ll be left to handle their own damn war. Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode, where we’ll probably discover he’s decided to build a luxury golf course on the moon. Nothing would surprise me anymore. Absolutely nothing.