Different Narratives on MBS Visit to the US

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the United States should have been a major diplomatic moment. Washington is reportedly seeking up to one trillion dollars in Saudi investment and is pushing to secure large-scale defence deals—developments that would ordinarily draw substantial media attention. Yet the muted coverage reveals a deeper divergence in narratives, shaped by political interests, historical biases, and selective framing within the US media.

American media reporting on the visit was surprisingly limited, and when it did appear, it was often filtered through familiar lenses. One reason lies in the highly polarized nature of US media, where influential lobbies and advocacy groups help shape editorial priorities.

Coverage of Middle Eastern leaders—especially from the Muslim world—tends to be influenced by domestic political calculations and long-standing geopolitical alliances. The result is not necessarily overt hostility but selective emphasis. In the case of the Crown Prince, this has meant that past allegations continue to overshadow the strategic dynamics of the visit.

A second dimension is the recurring focus on old controversies. Even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Riyadh have evolved substantially, parts of the US press remain firmly tied to earlier narratives.

Over the past several years, both countries have recalibrated their relationship, recognizing shared interests in energy stability, defence cooperation, and regional security. The Biden administration’s strategic engagement with Riyadh—especially in the face of global competition and shifting economic centers—underscores this recalibration. Yet certain media outlets still prioritize revisiting past accusations rather than analyzing the present-day stakes.

A third narrative thread centers on the Abraham Accords. Much of the American media continues to portray Saudi Arabia as the “missing link” in the normalization framework, framing Riyadh as hesitant or resistant. However, such portrayals often overlook the Kingdom’s stated position - normalization cannot move meaningfully forward without addressing Palestinian rights and a credible path to peace. This is not a rejectionist stance but one rooted in longstanding regional consensus. Oversimplifying it into reluctance ignores the political and moral considerations shaping Saudi policy.

What the muted media response fails to capture is the broader significance of the visit. The U.S. push for extensive Saudi investment—at a time of domestic economic uncertainty—reflects both economic urgency and geopolitical necessity. Saudi Arabia’s global profile is expanding, backed by deep financial reserves, ambitious economic reforms, and growing ties with China, South Asia, and emerging markets. For the U.S., maintaining strong ties with the world’s largest energy exporter remains strategically vital. For Saudi Arabia, diversifying partnerships does not mean distancing itself from Washington; rather, it reflects a more assertive, multi-vector foreign policy.

Ultimately, the contrasting narratives surrounding the Crown Prince’s visit say more about American media dynamics than about the visit itself. The gap between U.S. foreign-policy priorities and media portrayals highlights a persistent misalignment: domestic political framing often eclipses strategic realities. In this instance, the real story lies not in how the visit was covered—but in how much was left uncovered.