Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will make his first visit to Washington this month since 2018. Over the past seven years, the Middle East has transitioned from a period of de-escalation and integration to one of post-October 7 turmoil and uncertainty. All along, though, the Saudis have sought a U.S. security guarantee, something the crown prince will look to secure on this trip to DC.
The de facto Saudi leader will undoubtedly point to the security assurances President Trump provided to Qatar in the aftermath of Israel’s attack in Doha to press Washington for a similar, if not stronger, arrangement for America’s oldest Gulf ally. It remains unclear if the administration will continue to insist on Saudi normalisation with Israel as part of such a deal. Regardless of the agreement’s contours, Trump should avoid making any security guarantees to the Saudis, as well as any other type of pledge that further entangles the United States in the Middle East.
Amid a complex geopolitical environment and mounting domestic challenges, the Trump administration has already devoted excessive attention and resources to the Middle East. From bombing Iran and the Houthis to the significant amount of senior-level bandwidth spent on achieving the Gaza cease-fire — something the administration could have simply forced on Israel by cutting off weapons provisions — and working through the next steps for Israel and the Palestinians, the United States’ focus on the region does not match its strategic significance.
Historically, Washington’s decades-long focus on the Middle East centered on two chief issues: oil and counterterrorism. But the United States no longer relies on Middle East oil, and regional actors are capable of taking on today’s diminished terrorist landscape. If anything, continued U.S. involvement in the region, particularly its culpability in what many international and Israeli organizations and scholars consider a genocide in Gaza, is stoking future terrorist threats to America.
The security pledge Trump provided to Doha will loom large over bin Salman’s visit. The U.S. pledge is not a NATO Article 5-like commitment. Trump promulgated the pact through an executive order; it is not a congressionally approved treaty. Subsequent U.S. presidents can decide whether or not to uphold the agreement. Nonetheless, Trump would be wise to stop short of offering something similar to Saudi Arabia and should certainly avoid providing a formal security guarantee.
For one thing, a security guarantee could embolden the Saudi regime to pursue a more aggressive, adventurous foreign policy. From destabilising competition with Iran to Riyadh’s futile military intervention in Yemen — which led to one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises in recent years — Saudi Arabia has exhibited a recent penchant for reckless foreign policy. This is, in part, because of what it assumed would be continual U.S. backing. Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad U.S. security guarantee.
Israel stands out as a particularly salient example of how U.S. security assurances can foster this type of moral hazard. When a great power provides a security pledge to a less powerful ally, the weaker state is more willing to take on risk, and the patron often ends up paying the price. There is simply no strategic reason for the United States to imperil its interests or incur costs if Saudi Arabia engaged in renewed adventurism.
Roughly a week after Trump announced the Qatar security pledge, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a mutual defence pledge. Many observers suggested such a move was a warning to Washington that the Saudis would look elsewhere if they couldn’t count on the United States for security. That’s precisely what the United States should want. Saudi Arabia’s security should be its own responsibility. The Saudi-Pakistani deal is a reflection of an increasingly multipolar world, not some cautionary tale for the United States. In this new geopolitical landscape, middle powers will increasingly exert their own agency and hedge their relationships with the great powers.
The United States does not need to give away the farm to maintain its influence over Saudi Arabia
While a U.S. security guarantee for Saudi Arabia has long been discussed in the context of normalization with Israel, the burgeoning Saudi-Chinese relationship has also been a central consideration for Washington. The Saudi-Pakistani deal likely renewed those U.S. concerns, given Islamabad’s tight military ties with Beijing.
But the United States does not need to give away the farm to maintain its influence over Saudi Arabia. For one, the Saudis are the largest customer for U.S. foreign military sales. Despite being invited in 2023, Riyadh has abstained from formally joining the BRICS bloc because of the potential ramifications for its important relationship with the United States. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to sever ties with the United States anytime soon.
It’s one thing to compete with Beijing for influence over Saudi Arabia, a key middle power with major ambitions. Washington can do that by making economic and technology deals with the Saudis, as the crown prince will look to secure this month. But it’s another to put U.S. interests and security on the line. In the end, Trump should just say no to any security pledge for Saudi Arabia.
