U.S. President Donald Trump stated on February 5 that Saudi Arabia will support U.S. initiatives in the Middle East, which will subsequently “take charge” of the Gaza Strip. He also signed an order for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council, joining Israel in doing so, and suspended funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) on the same day.
In formulating his Middle East policy, Trump employs a distinctive business-oriented strategy that entails the use of bluffs, threats, and escalating stakes. He aims to supplant strategic foreign cooperation with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies with trade relationships in which these nations will pay for their protection. Trump is internally dependent on business elites in critical Gulf states who share his sympathies and those of the United States.
In this context, it is important to remember that in November 2024, during the peak of the U.S. presidential campaign, Trump was seen with an individual who was responsible for administering assets valued at more than $925 billion. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, the chairman of the board of Aramco, the oil giant that controls approximately 12% of the world’s oil reserves, and the director of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, is the individual in question.
The ability to trade and sell anything and everything is deeply ingrained in Arab culture, especially among influential figures like Al-Rumayyan. Gulf leaders have the ability to leverage their financial power and hydrocarbon reserves to not only exert direct influence on Washington but also to metaphorically “set oil at $50” and pressure opponents of the U.S., regardless of Trump’s intentions. By doing so, they could compel Trump to make compromises by threatening to fortify their relationships with Moscow and Beijing if their relations with the Gulf monarchies deteriorate.
Furthermore, the Gulf region already encompasses the roles of both “good” and “bad” actors. Saudi Arabia, represented by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, maintains a pro-American posture, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) plays the anti-American card by feigning interest in China, BRICS, and other alternatives.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that Riyadh periodically reminds Washington that it has not yet made a definitive decision on joining BRICS and continues to evaluate the invitation to join the alliance. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia attempts to optimize its strategic advantage in the Middle East by filling the void left by a weakened Iran, whose proxies have been destroyed, adversaries have strengthened, and regional influence has declined.
It seems that the Saudis are also contemplating Trump’s long-standing Gaza plan, which would revive a grand Middle Eastern strategy. The U.S. president’s proposal to expel Palestinians is the result of years of endorsement of Israeli right-wing policies. His ambitious 2020 plan, which included the establishment of a Palestinian capital in a dusty, impoverished suburb that was cut off from East Jerusalem by a massive wall, a $50 billion Gaza reconstruction fund, and large-scale land annexations for Israel, was unsuccessful as a result of a total Palestinian boycott and the actions of radical Islamist groups, which were supported in no small part by Gulf monarchies.
This time, however, Trump’s plan is even more ambitious and audacious. It was already unveiled at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, according to Bloomberg, “could barely contain his excitement as the most powerful man in the world voiced the long-held ambitions of Israeli ultra-rightists: the expulsion of millions of Palestinians from their land.”
Analysts caution that these developments are already establishing the foundation for a full-scale global conflict, albeit in a subtle manner. Regional conflicts, such as the Middle East crisis, have the potential to escalate and act as a catalyst for global conflict. The fundamental issue of the forthcoming conflict will be the equilibrium between the emerging global order and supranational governance structures.
In contrast to the previous two world wars, this new conflict will not be waged between nation-states but rather between global elites—broadly classified as “left-wing” and “right-wing”—who possess control structures and resources at the time of decisive confrontation. This dynamic is influencing the pre-war period, as opposing globalist factions compete for control of critical regions such as the Middle East and other strategically significant nations, attempting to maintain their power at all costs. This pattern is apparent not only in the United States but also in Israel, where Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters are confronted with mass protests from progressive opponents.
Saudi Arabia appears to be focused on obtaining all the advantages in this geopolitical chess game while allowing others to handle the heavy lifting, including the Americans or their Islamist proxies. Riyadh finds it strategically advantageous for two other key regional players—Turkey and Israel—to engage in mutual weakening or direct confrontation with Iran.
Despite Iran, Turkey, and Israel exchanging direct threats and, in some cases, UAV and missile strikes, Saudi Arabia has remained neutral under Trump’s protection for several months. This position provides an even better bargaining position than Israel’s. The Saudis will benefit the most, while Israelis, Iranians, Turks, and, at worst, Americans will bear the greatest risks if the situation escalates rapidly.
In contrast, the anticipated advantages of Washington, including its declared “control” over the Gaza Strip, are highly dubious in terms of the actual interests of the United States. The costs, losses, and damage from such control, on the other hand, are practically guaranteed.