To get a grip on Wahhabism, see the following:
Few bilateral relationships are as longstanding, contradictory, and strategically consequential as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Since the end of the Second World War, Washington and Riyadh have been bound together by a pragmatic compact in which security, oil, regional geopolitics and, more recently, technology have outweighed ideological incompatibilities and human-rights concerns. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — and more recently during Donald Trump’s second presidency — this relationship has entered an ambitious and, at times, controversial new phase.
Foundations of an Unlikely Alliance
The origins of U.S.–Saudi cooperation trace back to the 1930s, when American firms began developing the kingdom’s oil fields. During the early Cold War, this commercial relationship evolved into a geopolitical partnership. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1945 meeting with King Abdulaziz aboard the USS Quincy helped establish the post-war bargain that has shaped Middle Eastern politics ever since: American security guarantees in exchange for a stable supply of Saudi oil.
Several agreements and arrangements gave the partnership structure:
- The Dhahran Airfield Agreement provided the U.S. with strategic access to the Arabian Peninsula.
- The United States Military Training Mission (USMTM), established in 1953, created a permanent advisory and training presence.
- The Carter Doctrine (1980) formally declared the security of the Gulf a vital U.S. interest, implying that Washington would counter any external threat to the region — a policy that effectively encompassed Saudi Arabia.
Over subsequent decades, Saudi Arabia became one of the largest purchasers of American arms, while its role as the world’s leading oil exporter ensured its centrality to global markets. Even when tensions arose — over Wahhabi religious influence, oil embargoes, or human-rights concerns — mutual strategic interests ensured the partnership endured.
Religion, Realpolitik, and Accusations of “Cosying Up”
To critics, American willingness to align so closely with a conservative monarchy grounded in Wahhabi Islam has long been seen as morally inconsistent. Washington maintained an intimate partnership even as Saudi-backed religious networks propagated a puritanical Islamic doctrine abroad.
Yet U.S. policy has rarely been ideological. It has been instrumental, shaped by:
- Cold War anxieties about Soviet influence in the Middle East
- The need for reliable oil supplies and price stability
- A desire to maintain access to military bases and airspace
- Regional power balancing, especially against Iran after 1979
For American policymakers, Saudi Arabia was indispensable — a powerhouse with the resources to shape the geopolitics of the Gulf. For the Saudis, the relationship offered protection, prestige, and unrivalled access to advanced military technology.
Crisis, Continuity, and the Khashoggi Shock
Despite the resilience of the partnership, the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul caused a rare rupture in Western political discourse. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible. Yet formal diplomatic ties remained largely intact, and arms sales continued.
It was within this context that MBS delayed visiting the United States for years, wary of public backlash and congressional scrutiny. This fraught backdrop made the extravagance of his eventual White House reception all the more striking.
The Trump–MBS Axis: A New Chapter
When the Saudi Crown Prince returned to Washington, the welcome orchestrated by Donald Trump was the most ostentatious of his presidency. The prince was greeted on the South Lawn with ceremonial horses, flags and a fighter-jet flypast — theatrics rarely granted even to official state visits.
Inside the newly refurbished Oval Office, Trump spoke with unabashed admiration. He dismissed questions about Khashoggi, defended the prince against intelligence assessments, and emphasised their “royal friendship”. To critics, this was a symbolic abandonment of human-rights principles; to supporters, a pragmatic affirmation of strategic priorities.
The shift under Trump’s second administration has been defined by three major developments:
1. Advanced Weapons: Rethinking the Israeli “Qualitative Military Edge”
Perhaps the most consequential item discussed during the visit was the potential sale of F-35 stealth fighters to Saudi Arabia. Traditionally, U.S. policy has ensured that Israel maintains a decisive military advantage in the region. Granting Riyadh access to the same generation of aircraft would represent a historic departure from that principle.
Trump stated that both countries were “great allies” deserving of “top-of-the-line” equipment — wording that rang alarm bells in Jerusalem and among national-security analysts.
2. Major Non-NATO Ally Status
The Trump administration recently designated Saudi Arabia a Major Non-NATO Ally, a classification that expands defence cooperation and preferential access to U.S. military technologies. Although it does not constitute a formal defence treaty, it pushes the relationship to its closest legal form of alliance.
3. Technology, AI, and a New Strategic Frontier
Beyond weapons, the U.S. lifted restrictions on exporting advanced artificial-intelligence chips to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This decision positions Riyadh as a potential global technology hub, capable of building massive data-centre infrastructure powered by its abundant energy resources.
Some analysts have compared this moment to the 1930s, when American oil companies laid the foundations of the kingdom’s energy economy. A joint U.S.–Saudi AI ecosystem could form a new, durable bond — one that might ultimately eclipse military ties in strategic importance.
The MBS Doctrine: Centralisation, Vision 2030, and Regional Ambition
Mohammed bin Salman has redefined Saudi Arabia’s domestic and foreign policy. Under his leadership:
- The kingdom has pursued Vision 2030, a sweeping plan to modernise the economy and reduce reliance on oil.
- State control has been consolidated through bold — sometimes brutal — crackdowns on rivals and dissidents.
- Saudi Arabia has adopted a more assertive regional posture, intervening militarily in Yemen and competing with Iran for regional dominance.
- Social changes, including the expansion of entertainment and restrictions on the religious police, have sought to reshape Saudi society and appeal to Western investors.
The United States has become a crucial partner in these reforms, supplying investment, technology, and political cover.
A Relationship Defined by Pragmatism, Not Principle
The U.S.–Saudi partnership has always been a study in contradiction: a secular democracy aligning with an autocratic monarchy rooted in conservative religious doctrine. Why does this relationship persist — and even strengthen?
The answer lies in shared interests:
- Security: Saudi Arabia relies on American protection; the U.S. relies on Saudi stability.
- Economics: Oil markets, though changing, still matter.
- Geopolitics: Countering Iran and projecting influence across the Middle East.
- Technology: As the global economy shifts toward AI and big data, the partnership is expanding into new, strategically crucial domains.
Human rights, democratic values, and ideological concerns repeatedly take a back seat. In practice, Washington’s commitment has always been pragmatic: a calculation that Saudi Arabia remains too central to global politics and economics to alienate.
Conclusion: A Partnership Evolving, Not Ending
The U.S.–Saudi relationship is transforming rather than waning. Under Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom is attempting to become a technological and geopolitical heavyweight. Under Trump, the United States has signalled a willingness to rewrite long-standing assumptions — from Israel’s military edge to restrictions on advanced technology.
From the 1940s oilfields to today’s AI data-centres, the partnership has survived crises, ideological divides, and global shifts. Whether one sees it as cynical, necessary, or dangerously unstable, it remains one of the most enduring and influential alliances of the post-war era — a relationship shaped less by shared values than by mutual strategic imperatives.
