‘Ambassador extraordinaire': well wishes pour in as Saudi envoy concludes tenure in London
RIYADH: As Prince Khalid bin Bandar concludes his role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the UK, his six-year tenure is being marked as a period of renewed engagement and modernization in Saudi-UK relations. As per Royal Decree issued last March, Prince Khalid has been appointed as an advisor at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is expected to head back to Riyadh in the next few days.
Since his appointment in 2019, Prince Khalid has led efforts to strengthen ties and redefine the Kingdom's image across political, economic, academic and cultural spheres.
His approach is marked by transparency, accessibility and strategic foresight as well as consistent outreach to both political institutions and the wider British public.
In April this year, he was named Diplomat of the Year for the Middle East and North Africa by Diplomat Magazine, an award voted on by representatives of more than 180 missions in the UK.
One of his final public engagements was an on-the-record panel discussion with Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal Abbas at the Frontline Club, hosted by the MENA-based think tank SRMG Think (videos above).
Current British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Neil Crompton described Prince Khalid as 'an exemplary ambassador' and said: 'He tirelessly engaged the media, universities, and parliamentarians to explain Saudi views and illuminate the changes under Vision 2030. He will be much missed.'
(Prince Khalid) tirelessly engaged the media, universities, and parliamentarians to explain Saudi views and illuminate the changes under Vision 2030.
Neil Crompton
British ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Former UK ambassador to the Kingdom, Sir John Jenkins, said, 'Prince Khalid has been one of the best connected and most visible — and articulate — ambassadors in the whole of the London diplomatic corps … The Kingdom needs advocates like him, and we need friends like him.'
Prince Khalid has been one of the best connected and most visible — and articulate — ambassadors in the whole of the London diplomatic corps.
Sir John Jenkins
Former UK ambassador to the Kingdom
Among the hallmark initiatives of his tenure was the Great Futures event in Riyadh, a flagship moment for UK-Saudi engagement. The event brought together investors, policymakers, academics and creatives, fostering trade, education and public understanding of the Kingdom's transformation.
Sir Ben Elliot, former chairman of the Conservative Party, commended Prince Khalid's diplomatic instinct: 'His unwavering dedication over six years has transformed the UK-Saudi relationship. The UK has now become the largest source of visitors to Saudi Arabia — a milestone he personally championed. He reshaped perceptions of the Kingdom with diplomacy, charm and grace.'
The UK has now become the largest source of visitors to Saudi Arabia — a milestone he personally championed.
Sir Ben Elliot
Conservative Party, former chairman
This vision of diplomacy extended beyond politics to academia and community engagement. Prince Khalid actively reached out to British Muslim communities, students and universities such as Oxford and Durham — not as formalities, but as forums for real dialogue and shared values.
Othman Al-Omeir, veteran Saudi journalist and former editor of the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, told Arab News: 'I have witnessed the tenure of seven Saudi ambassadors who served at the Saudi Embassy in London. In truth, Prince Khalid stands out for his profound and precise understanding of British society, and for the universal respect he commands due to his competence, capability and discernment. His presence was positive, effective and influential.'
Prince Khalid stands out for his profound and precise understanding of British society, and for the universal respect he commands due to his competence, capability and discernment.
Othman Al-Omeir
Veteran Saudi journalist
Dr. Najah Al-Osaimi, a trustee of the Saudi British Society, said: 'Prince Khalid changed the dynamic. For decades, relations were political and elite driven. He brought it to the people — through media, academia and civil society. His television appearances tackled complex issues with openness.
'I was fortunate to meet him many times, particularly through the Saudi British Society, where he is our patron alongside King Charles. Thanks to his support, we launched the annual Ghazi Al-Gosaibi Memorial Lecture. His efforts brought momentum to Saudi Arabia's presence in the UK's cultural, sports and economic landscape.'
His efforts brought momentum to Saudi Arabia's presence in the UK's cultural, sports and economic landscape.
Dr. Najah Al-Osaimi
Saudi British Society trustee
Prince Khalid prioritized public diplomacy, focusing on transparency and dialogue. One of his final appearances was at the Frontline Club in London last February— moderated by Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal J. Abbas — which offered a rare candid conversation about Saudi reform and regional diplomacy with British journalists and policy thinkers.
Prince Khalid ensured Saudi voices were better represented in British media, academic panels and think tanks, earning him praise across the diplomatic spectrum.
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: 'Prince Khalid brought a dignified presence to the Arab diplomatic circuit in London, especially during times of regional turmoil.'
Prince Khalid brought a dignified presence to the Arab diplomatic circuit in London, especially during times of regional turmoil.
Chris Doyle
Council for Arab-British Understanding director
Prince Khalid also deepened ties with institutions like the Saudi British Society, one of the UK's oldest platforms for cultural diplomacy. He supported its events and initiatives, highlighting arts, heritage and mutual understanding.
Roxana Mohammadian-Molina, deputy chair of the Saudi British Joint Business Council, added: 'Prince Khalid's presence brought energy, engagement and a modern perspective to the bilateral relationship, particularly at a time of profound transformation in the Kingdom.
We were honored to work alongside him to advance commercial and cultural ties, and we are grateful for his steadfast support of UK-Saudi collaboration.
Roxana Mohammadian-Molina
Saudi British Joint Business Council deputy chair
'At the Saudi British Joint Business Council, we were honored to work alongside him to advance commercial and cultural ties, and we are grateful for his steadfast support of UK-Saudi collaboration. He leaves a lasting legacy, and we wish him every success in his future endeavors.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
What is Netanyahu's endgame?
A direct, large-scale military confrontation between Iran and Israel was always perceived as too dangerous because it risked consequences too devastating for either side to seriously contemplate, let alone initiate. That was until Israeli authorities decided last week to strike first in what is their biggest military gamble since the nation's founding fathers made the decision to declare independence. An overnight Israeli operation, daring and successful beyond imagination, turned a decades-long war of words into an actual war between the two major military powers in the Middle East. And they have already demonstrated their ability, and desire, to inflict great damage on one another in what might become an open-ended war of attrition. Unless common sense prevails among both leaderships, which appears a far-fetched hope, or, more likely, concerted international pressure can succeed in halting this deadly confrontation immediately, it might well spiral out of control. To state the very obvious, no one outside Iran, and few inside the country, wants to see it armed with nuclear weapons, which would inevitably lead to a nuclear arms race. As a matter of fact, a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East must be a long-term objective. But Israel's decision to embark on a military operation of this scale, and the timing of it, raises questions and concerns about its true objectives. It is no secret that for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the self-proclaimed 'Mr. Security,' there have for a long time been two main overarching objectives, to the point of obsession: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. He views them both as existential threats to the Jewish state and, equally, as his own ticket to political relevance and endurance. There has been much discussion about, and will eventually be a formal investigation into, the ways in which Netanyahu's destructive policies designed to prevent the possibility of a two-state solution to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians contributed to the events of Oct. 7, 2023, the most devastating Israeli security failure ever which led to the ongoing war in Gaza. For him to now embark on what might prove to be the most consequential war in his country's history, people need to be convinced beyond any shred of doubt that the decision was not tainted by any ulterior motive. Alas, the Israeli prime minister's behavior throughout his political career, and most definitely during his present term in office, has failed to instill the necessary confidence that this is the case. Moreover, entering into a conflict that by some estimates could result in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties requires a united country. His government has not only divided the nation more than ever before, it has made unwarranted and acerbic criticisms of the very people now charged with carrying out the strikes against Iran, simply because they peacefully opposed the government's attacks on the country's democratic foundations, or called for an end to the war in Gaza and to bringing the hostages home. In such a high-stakes confrontation with an enemy in possession of potentially devastating capabilities, there is a need for trust in the leadership directing it, but this is hardly the case here. Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government. This is not that surprising, considering his legal woes, his desperation to remain in power, and his record of trying to deflect attention from his own domestic and foreign failures by pursuing a more aggressive stance, verbal or otherwise, on unresolved conflicts with Israel's neighbors. Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government. Yossi Mekelberg There is a lingering concern that his decision to turn up the heat on Iran had as much to do with the ongoing crisis within his own coalition government, and the fact that he is in the early stages of the prosecution's cross-examination in his corruption trial, as it had to do with the security threat emanating from Tehran. In the event of a prolonged war with Iran, it is almost impossible to envisage that any member of the coalition would resign, and Netanyahu would have the perfect excuse to delay for weeks, if not months, his appearance in court. He has claimed that the attacks on Iranian targets were justified based on new information, which he was not prepared to share, about the imminent successful conclusion of a secret Iranian program to finally obtain nuclear weapons. He stated that Tehran already had the capacity to build a number of bombs, a claim refuted by several American intelligence reports that concluded Iran is still a few years away from developing such weapons. It is more likely that Israeli authorities feared the US might reach what they consider to be an unsatisfactory nuclear deal with Iran. It is also the case that Israeli decision-makers identified an opportune moment to strike, given that Iran's 'axis of resistance' has been substantially weakened, and the Trump administration, while it did not give a green light for Israel to proceed with a military operation, neither did it order them to hit the brakes. In fact Washington is still sending mixed signals about whether it is more interested in an immediate ceasefire, or would be happy to see Iranian negotiators return to the bargaining table with their country badly wounded and humiliated — a strategy that might backfire. Israel, despite its impressive military performance until now, does not on its own have the capability to completely degrade Iran's nuclear project, and it is too early to assess the extent of the damage inflicted so far. Netanyahu gambled the US would be sucked into the conflict, either to finish the job, should the first stages of the war succeed in creating a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity to put to bed the Iranian nuclear program once and for all or, if things went seriously wrong, that Washington would come to Israel's rescue. Increasingly, it seems as though Trump is inclined to order his military to finish the job; he has stated his desire to see a 'real end' to the conflict and demanded 'total surrender' from Iran, rather than a ceasefire. Top Israeli officials, chief among them Netanyahu, have not hidden their yearning for a humiliating defeat of Iran on the battlefield that could lead to regime change. However, there is no evidence to suggest the regime in Tehran would not be able to weather such a storm, or that there are opposition forces ready and able to mount an effective challenge. If anything, Iranian citizens who see their country under attack are more likely to rally round the flag. To the regime, meanwhile, the conflict provides a further excuse to take even harsher action against any signs of domestic discontent. Moreover, regime change commonly suggests a desire among the external forces that attempt to initiate it to install an administration more favorable to them — yet past experiences do not provide much reassurance that this is what would happen; quite the reverse, in fact. Netanyahu has taken the gamble of his life and in doing so he is also gambling with Israel's long-term security, and possibly that of the wider region as well. No one will benefit from a prolonged war that could entangle other regional powers. Diplomacy must step in quickly and play a central role in resolving the conflict or this will be a long and bloody summer.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Ex-bodyguard of slain Hezbollah leader killed in Israeli strike in Iran
His former bodyguard Hussein Khalil was killed in IranAn Iraqi border guard officer said Khalil and a member of an Iraqi armed group were killed by 'an Israeli drone strike'BEIRUT: A former bodyguard for Hassan Nasrallah, the slain leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah, was killed Saturday in an Israeli strike in Iran, an official from the Tehran-backed militant group more than a week, Israel has been carrying out waves of air attacks on Iranian targets in the foes' worst confrontation in assassinated Nasrallah in a strike on Beirut's southern suburbs on September 27 last year, during a war that left Hezbollah severely former bodyguard Hussein Khalil — commonly known as Abu Ali, and nicknamed Nasrallah's 'shield' — was killed in Iran near the Iraqi border, the Hezbollah official told AFP on condition of Iraqi border guard officer told AFP that Khalil and a member of an Iraqi armed group were killed by 'an Israeli drone strike' after crossing into the neighboring Iraqi group, the Sayyed Al-Shuhada Brigades, said that the commander of its security unit, Haider Al-Moussawi, was killed in the 'Zionist attack,' along with Khalil and his son former bodyguard had appeared alongside Nasrallah for years during the leader's rare public two men also shared family ties, with one of Khalil's sons married to a granddaughter of Nasrallah's funeral in February, Khalil stood atop the vehicle carrying the slain leader's funeral drew a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, the first mass event organized by Hezbollah since the end of its war with five children were wounded in Iraq on Saturday by fallen debris from a missile near the town of Dujail in the northern province of Salaheddin, security and medical sources told AFP on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to the children sustained moderate and minor injuries, a medical source said.A security source in the area confirmed the children were wounded by 'a fallen fragment from a missile.'The origin of the missile was not Israel launched its unprecedented attack on Iran last week, Iranian missiles and drones have been crossing paths with Israeli warplanes in the skies over Iraq, forcing Iraq to close its airspace to commercial traffic.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Why the world can't afford a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz
RIYADH: As the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies, attention has turned to the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow, 33-kilometer-wide stretch of water separating Oman and Iran carrying a fifth of the world's daily oil supply. While this strategic waterway remains open for now, analysts have told Arab News any further escalation could put the vital shipping route at risk if Iran chooses to impose a blockade or attacks vessels. A little over a week into the confrontation, which began on June 13 when Israel began striking Iran's nuclear sites, scientists, military commanders and cities, daily exchanges of fire have killed hundreds. Now, with threats of a maritime blockade looming should the US decide to join the conflict on Israel's side, global energy markets are on edge. Any disruption could send prices skyrocketing, destabilize economies and trigger a new energy crisis. 'The Strait of Hormuz is not just a waterway; it is the artery of global energy. Any blockade would trigger a chain reaction the global economy is not prepared for,' Saudi geopolitical analyst Salman Al-Ansari told Arab News. According to the US Energy Information Administration, 20 million barrels of oil — 20 percent of global consumption — pass through the Strait of Hormuz every day, along with one-fifth of the world's liquefied natural gas trade, primarily from Qatar. The oil lane is so vital because no real alternatives exist. Most Gulf oil cannot be rerouted without massive delays. It is the only deep-water route capable of handling the world's largest crude tankers. The EIA has estimated that 84 percent of its crude flows to Asia, with China, India, Japan and South Korea as top buyers. In February last year, the Washington-based Center for Security Policy analyzed Iran's escalating activity in the Strait of Hormuz and said 76 percent of the crude oil transiting the waterway was destined for Asian markets. When geopolitical tensions spiked over the past week after Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel, Brent crude surged from $69 to $74 per barrel in a single day — even though no ships were blocked. Jassem Ajaka, an economist and professor at the Lebanese University, said this shows just how sensitive markets are to the mere suggestion of instability. 'The closure of the Strait of Hormuz will inevitably lead to a rise in the price of a barrel of oil to over $100, meaning the price will increase by about $25 in a single jump — something the global economy is not accustomed to,' Ajaka told Arab News. He added: 'Oil is a strategic and vital commodity, and when its price rises, inflation will rise with it because it is involved in 95 percent of other goods. The extraction of raw materials, the manufacturing of food products and other items will see their prices increase.' Al-Ansari noted that 'with Iran and Israel already in direct confrontation, the risk of escalation in this critical corridor is dangerously real. Iran sees the strait as its ultimate pressure point. Shutting it down would ignite a global oil shock, push inflation higher, and send vulnerable economies into panic.' Ajaka explained high oil prices would confront central banks worldwide with a dilemma over whether to lower or raise interest rates. He added insurance prices would rise, contributing to inflation, and that it would also cause disruptions in supply chains across several countries. 'In the case of Lebanon, for example, it would result in a complete electricity blackout, as the country relies entirely on fuel oil coming from Iraq,' he added. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, moved 5.5 million barrels per day through Hormuz last year. That is 38 percent of total crude flows in the strait, according to tanker tracking data produced by the London-based real-time insights delivery firm, Vortexa. While the Kingdom has contingency pipelines, they are not a perfect solution. The East-West Pipeline, with a capacity of 7 million barrels per day, can divert crude to the Red Sea, but it is already running near full capacity due to recent Houthi attacks on shipping. The UAE's Fujairah Pipeline, with 1.8 million barrels per day capacity, is also heavily used, leaving little to spare. Iran's Goreh-Jask Pipeline, designed for 300,000 barrels per day, is barely operational, having handled just 70,000 barrels per day before shutting down in late 2024. If the Strait of Hormuz were blocked, the EIA said Saudi Arabia and the UAE could only reroute about 2.6 million barrels per day — far less than the 20 million that normally passes through. Given that the economies of most Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, rely heavily on oil exports, a closure of the Strait of Hormuz would deal a severe blow to their economic stability, according to Ajaka. 'The extent of the financial damage would hinge on how long the strait remains blocked, with prolonged disruptions likely triggering budget deficits across the region,' he said. For energy-hungry Asian economies, a blockade would be catastrophic. 'This narrow stretch carries nearly a third of the world's seaborne oil. Its closure would cripple global trade routes, choke energy supplies and slam the brakes on economic growth from Asia to Europe,' said Al-Ansari. China relies on the Strait of Hormuz for nearly half its crude imports. India, Japan, and South Korea would face severe shortages, forcing emergency releases from strategic reserves. Global shipping costs would explode as tankers would need to take longer routes around Africa. 'The first Asian economy to be affected by any closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be China,' said Ajaka. 'If the repercussions of the strait's closure spill over into multiple economies, it could lead to a global recession — posing another challenge in terms of how to revive the global economy.' The US is less vulnerable, importing only half a million barrels per day from the Gulf, equivalent to 7 percent of total US imports. But it would still suffer from skyrocketing global prices. Al-Ansari emphasized that the crisis is not merely about oil: 'It is about the fragile balance that keeps markets stable and societies moving.' Iran has historically threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz but has never done so. In a recent op-ed for Arab News, Abdulaziz Sager, founder and chair of the Gulf Research Center, said a full closure 'would harm Iran's own economy given that it relies on the waterway for its oil exports.' Despite Iran's heavy reliance on the waterway, Behnam Saeedi, a member of the parliament's National Security Committee presidium, was quoted by Mehr news agency on Thursday as saying a blockade remained on the table. 'Iran has numerous options to respond to its enemies and uses such options based on what the situation is,' he said. 'Closing the Strait of Hormuz is one of the potential options for Iran.' Mehr later quoted another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikhah, as saying Iran would continue to allow free shipping in the strait and in the Gulf so long as its vital national interests were not at risk. 'If the US officially and operationally enters the war in support of the Zionists (Israel), it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressuring the US and Western countries to disrupt their oil trade's ease of transit,' said Yazdikhah. However, it is not a decision Iran would take lightly. 'If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will undoubtedly lose economically and militarily,' said Ajaka. 'Any country that wants to wage war will lose if it does not have foreign currency reserves, as war depletes these reserves — preventing it from making the decision to close the strait. 'The only circumstances that might lead Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz are if it feels its regime is on the verge of collapse,' he added. As Iran already seems to have been backed into a corner, there is every chance it could take this final leap. As Al-Ansari said: 'Iran is already economically crippled and is facing an existential reality. The scenario of closing the strait should never be ruled out.' Past incidents have shown the global impact of regional events. In 2019, attacks on Saudi tankers near Fujairah and the Abqaiq drone strikes briefly cut 5 percent of the global oil supply. World powers, therefore, have a major interest in keeping the strait open. 'Any closure of the Strait of Hormuz would prompt military intervention by the US and the UK,' said Ajaka. On June 17, US officials informed The New York Times that Iran had positioned missiles and military assets for potential strikes on American bases in the Middle East if the US entered the conflict. Other officials also warned Iran could resort to mining the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack — a strategy designed to trap US warships in the Persian Gulf. In the event of a blockade, Ajaka suggested Western and Asian nations would likely tap into strategic petroleum reserves to mitigate immediate shortages. However, he added this would only provide temporary relief, as non-OPEC countries have already maxed out their production capacity, leaving OPEC members as the only potential source of additional supply. 'If the strait is closed and oil prices rise, oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, may resort to halting production cuts and instead increase output to curb the sharp rise in prices,' he said. 'One other possible measure would be for the US to ease restrictions on oil-producing countries like Venezuela to increase oil supply in the market.' Nevertheless, Ajaka said: 'The core position of oil — and the fundamental reason for the necessity of security in the Middle East — is that the Arabian Gulf must remain the ultimate guarantor.'
