The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is a complex and deeply intertwined saga, rooted in strategic interests that have, from their very inception, woven together threads of oil, security, and evolving geopolitical concerns. It’s a truth that this partnership, often veiled in discretion, has profoundly shaped American foreign policy and economic engagement for decades, demonstrating how shared (and sometimes diverging) interests can forge an enduring bond, even between vastly different societies.
Our story truly begins in 1945, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy. This pivotal encounter laid the groundwork for a relationship primarily defined by common interests: the U.S. seeking stable oil supplies for global markets and Saudi Arabia desiring protection against external threats. For the U.S., Saudi Arabia was viewed as an “immense aircraft carrier” crucial for global transportation networks, leading to the lease of a large air base at Dhahran. This strategic importance of Saudi oil and the US reliance on it became a bedrock of the alliance, a connection that endures to this day.
Yet, this foundational understanding has been tested by numerous challenges and contradictions:
Navigating the Cold War and its Aftermath:
- Financial Tapestry: The financial ties between the two nations ran deep. Morgan Guaranty, a prominent American bank, served as Aramco’s banker, managing vast Saudi oil revenues and even providing investment counseling to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA). There was a hopeful, if ultimately unfulfilled, expectation that the Saudi International Bank, partially owned by Morgan Guaranty, would cultivate a future Saudi financial elite. However, banking was often found to be “too boring” for many young Saudis, who were drawn to more direct business opportunities in their rapidly enriching homeland. This flow of Saudi capital into the U.S. extended to influence: some retired U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials even found themselves on the Saudi payroll as consultants, acting as “eyes and ears” in Washington and London.
- A “Chalice, Sometimes Poisoned”: During the Cold War, Saudi Arabia became a key partner in countering Soviet ambitions, particularly through its involvement in Afghanistan. Saudi intelligence, under Prince Turki al-Faisal, aligned closely with Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA, contributing substantial funds to the Afghan mujahideen – often exceeding CIA contributions. Prince Turki, an intellectual who appreciated Western culture and was a champion of Saudi Arabia’s austere Islam, embodied the kingdom’s “cascading contradictions”. He cultivated alliances with various intelligence services and generously subsidized those in poorer Arab nations, buying access to information and people.
- The Rise of Islamist Challenges: The Mecca uprising in 1979 highlighted the Saudi royal family’s fear of Islamic radicalism, prompting them to strategically “embrace it, hoping to retain control,” a tactic rooted in their own history of being founded by jihadists. This approach meant tolerating and even funding radical Islamist movements abroad as a way to appease domestic conservative religious establishments and compete with rival Iran.
- Bin Laden and Shifting Sands: Osama bin Laden, a son of a Saudi billionaire, emerged from this context. Initially, Saudi officials found his proposals to fight Saddam Hussein “foolishness” but handled him with deference due to his family’s prominence. However, as bin Laden grew more openly hostile towards the Saudi royal family and its alliance with the U.S., particularly after the deployment of American troops for the Gulf War, the kingdom expelled him and sought his extradition. Yet, Saudi officials, fearing a domestic backlash, were hesitant to imprison or execute him, often hoping the U.S. would take on that political risk. The U.S., despite its “sour experiences” with Saudi counterterrorism cooperation, remained reluctant to reexamine its core alliance assumptions, often categorizing Saudi Arabia as a “non-threatening” model of Islam compared to Iran. This reluctance meant a continuation of “very limited oversight” of Saudi charitable donations, which inadvertently allowed al Qaeda to find “fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom”.
- Strained Cooperation: Throughout the Clinton administration, counterterrorism efforts with Saudi Arabia were frequently “strained”. U.S. officials often found themselves frustrated by a lack of direct access to important al Qaeda financial figures detained by the Saudis. Despite high-level appeals, including from Vice President Gore and President Clinton, Saudi cooperation on intelligence sharing remained “limited”. Concerns about anti-American sentiment taught in Saudi schools and preached in mosques also persisted. The CIA’s Counterterrorist Center often felt that its alliance with Saudi Arabia (and Pakistan) made it a “prisoner,” observing a “ritual of evasion” from Saudi officials on counterterrorism issues.
The Trump Era: A New Level of Entanglement and Transactionalism:
The entry of President Donald Trump into the White House ushered in a new, perhaps more overt, phase of financial entanglement and transactional diplomacy with Saudi Arabia, building on the underlying historical currents of influence.
- Personal and Financial Intertwining: Trump’s business interests, and those of his family, became demonstrably intertwined with Saudi largesse. His properties, including hotels and golf clubs, became “magnets for companies and foreign governments that hope to curry favor” with his administration. Lobbyists for the Saudi government notably booked hundreds of rooms at Trump’s D.C. hotel, sometimes through “ghost bookings,” ostensibly to lobby Congress but effectively channeling funds to the Trump Organization. This approach, where foreign governments sought to “curry favor… without directly handing him envelopes of money,” was a continuation of practices seen in his first term.
- The Kushner Connection: Perhaps the most striking example is the $2 billion investment secured by Jared Kushner’s newly formed investment group, Affinity Partners, from the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) just months after he left the White House. This deal raised significant “eyebrows” and was widely perceived as a “payoff” for Kushner’s influential role as an informal advisor on Middle East matters during the first Trump administration. Despite a lack of experience in the field, MBS reportedly overrode his own board’s concerns to approve the investment.
- Influence-Peddling Strategy: The Saudi PIF, controlling nearly a trillion dollars, has actively pursued an “influence-peddling strategy” through widespread investments in American ventures, including UFC, Elon Musk’s companies (Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink), and various tech, AI, and surveillance firms. This strategy, prioritizing influence over immediate monetary returns, aims to “normalize” Saudi Arabia on the world stage and gain “a sign of approval from a global superpower”.
- Policy Shifts and Controversies:
- Arms Deals: The Trump administration greenlit a substantial $142 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a move that coincided with personal business dealings by the Trump family.
- Iran Nuclear Deal: Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal was a significant foreign policy move that aligned with Saudi Arabia’s view of Iran as a primary adversary.
- Yemen War: The administration continued U.S. support for the Saudi-backed war in Yemen, despite a congressional resolution to end it.
- Khashoggi Murder: Notably, the Trump administration was perceived as giving MBS “a pass” on the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, with Trump publicly stating “America first for me” when questioned about siding with the Saudis over U.S. intelligence findings. This approach “set the tone” for how human rights violations by the Saudis would be addressed.
- The “Sky Palace” Gift: Another eyebrow-raising event involved the Qatari royal family gifting a $400 million luxury Boeing 747-8 jet to the U.S. government, intended to serve as Air Force One before being transferred to Trump’s presidential library foundation. This raised significant concerns about the Foreign Emoluments Clause, though the Supreme Court effectively ensured that no precedent would be set against the president in such matters.
- Transactional Diplomacy: Trump’s foreign policy approach has been characterized as transactional, focusing on what the U.S. can “get” from other nations, often presented as if negotiating a business deal rather than a long-term diplomatic partnership. This approach is not limited to Saudi Arabia, as evidenced by his use of tariffs on other countries like Mexico, Canada, and China.
- Undermining Institutions: Concerns have been raised that Trump’s actions, often aligned with “Project 2025” goals, aimed to increase executive authority and weaken regulatory bodies, including by undermining merit-based civil service protections. This systemic push to “turn the federal government upside down” leads to a perception of “an existential state” where “everything but everyone can be bought or sold”.
In essence, the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, while historically shaped by common geopolitical and economic interests, has, under the Trump administration, become overtly characterized by a convergence of personal financial gain and foreign policy decisions. This underscores a long-standing concern: the pervasive influence of immense wealth on political decisions and the potential for a “repressive theocracy” to leverage such influence with an “unmatched global hegemon,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of American foreign policy and democratic accountability itself.