Image by sina drakhshani.
The hardest question in American Middle East policy is no longer only what Washington wants from the region. It is who gets to shape that policy. That question has become impossible to ignore. During Donald Trump’s first term, Kushner played a central role in White House diplomacy, especially the normalization push that produced the Abraham Accords. Today, Trump has restored a hardline Iran posture, including a “maximum pressure” campaign, while Kushner has deep ties to Gulf capital and remains close to Middle East diplomacy. That overlap does not prove corruption. It does, however, make America’s Iran strategy harder to describe as a purely public policy project.
Kushner’s first-term role was not marginal. He was one of the most visible architects of an approach that tied Arab-Israeli normalization, Gulf relations, and pressure on Iran into one regional vision. The Iran policy around it relied on economic coercion and regional isolation. Washington was trying to build a regional order in which Israel and key Arab states aligned more openly, while Iran was pushed further out.
That is why what happened after Kushner left government matters. In 2022, House investigators opened a probe into the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s $2 billion investment in his private equity firm, Affinity Partners. By the end of 2024, Reuters reported that Affinity’s assets under management had grown to $4.8 billion after additional Gulf-backed capital. Kushner has defended his business dealings and argued that he followed applicable laws. But ethics in foreign policy is not only about criminality. It is also about whether the public can trust that major strategic decisions are being made for the country, not inside a political ecosystem where family proximity, sovereign wealth and personal access reinforce one another.
The more recent developments make the issue harder to dismiss as old news. Kushner has also discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, including Saudi-Israeli normalization. In April 2026, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee opened a sweeping inquiry into Kushner’s foreign entanglements, arguing that diplomacy and private fundraising had become dangerously blurred. That same month, Axios reported that Kushner and Steve Witkoff were headed to Pakistan for Iran talks mediated by Islamabad. Allegations are not proof. Still, the concern is hard to shrug off: someone who helped shape the first Trump-era Iran posture is also a private fund manager backed by Gulf money and reappearing in Iran-related diplomacy.
This is where “privatization” becomes useful. The issue is not simply that Kushner has Saudi-linked money behind him. It is that a region once framed in terms of national interest is increasingly being managed through an overlapping web of state power, personal relationships and private capital. In that web, alignment with Saudi Arabia and Israel is not only formal strategy. It also sits beside the business incentives of people close to the president. That does not mean every anti-Iran move is “for” Kushner’s fund. It means the boundary between public policy and private opportunity is becoming harder to see.
The war with Iran makes this more than an ethics seminar. Trump’s latest Middle East posture still presents itself as a defense of order, deterrence and, at times, the Iranian people. Yet the surrounding architecture tells a different story. Saudi Arabia remains central to the wider regional design Trump wants, particularly if normalization with Israel can be revived. In that context, Kushner’s Gulf-backed capital is not an unrelated side story. It is part of the environment in which America’s Iran policy is being formulated and marketed.
A serious foreign policy cannot operate like this indefinitely without damaging its credibility. The problem is the narrowing of political imagination that follows when the same relationships keep reproducing the same instincts: tighter alignment with Saudi Arabia, closer alignment with Israeli regional priorities and more pressure on Iran. When public policy moves inside private networks, alternatives become harder to imagine, because the people with the most access are invested in a particular regional order.
The right conclusion is not that Kushner alone explains Trump’s Iran policy. American hostility toward Iran long predates him, and the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli triangle has deeper roots than any one family. But it is no longer convincing to treat Kushner’s Saudi ties as irrelevant to how Trump’s Middle East strategy operates. They suggest a model of policymaking in which family proximity, foreign sovereign capital and regional realignment sit at the same table. That is not merely bad optics. It is a warning that America’s Iran strategy may be becoming more private, less accountable and harder for the public to see.
