A System in Upheaval

President Trump has, in a matter of days, rewritten the rules of global trade, using tariffs as leverage and discarding decades of economic diplomacy based on open trade and soft power. His approach is not simply about economics—it is an ideological shift that places national strength and security above economic orthodoxy.

This recalibration is unsettling for the global elite, white-collar middle class, and multinational institutions, all of whom relied on the predictability of the post-1980s economic order. The old system served both Western liberal democracies and China, offering stability in competition. That status quo is now over.

Rather than following the traditional cycle of campaign rhetoric followed by moderation in governance, MAGA represents an *accelerationist revolution—redefining finance, trade, foreign policy, and culture. Accelerationism, in this context, refers to the belief that disrupting existing systems—sometimes to the point of chaos—will force a transformation into a new order.

Trump is not just a political figure; he is the figurehead of a movement that is part libertarian, part nationalist, and deeply pragmatic in execution. His strategy is based on the assumption that destabilization will create an opening for the U.S. to reassert itself as the dominant global power, but on its own terms.

However, much of this dramatic policymaking is also performative, aimed at consolidating domestic power. The flurry of executive orders and radical trade policies serve two immediate purposes:

1.    Keeping Trump’s populist base energized, ensuring their continued support.

2.    Forcing Congress to move quickly on his Cabinet approvals, which are being met with resistance.

This suggests that we have yet to see the final shape of U.S. foreign policy under this administration. While Trump’s approach is currently disruptive, his goal remains negotiation, not outright economic war.

Trump’s Game Plan: Disrupt to Dominate

Trump and his team have shifted U.S. power away from the soft-power diplomacy of USAID-funded liberalism to a high-stakes, transactional model. The U.S. is no longer interested in funding ideological projects that don’t serve direct national interests. The game now is simple: if you want access to U.S. markets, military support, or diplomatic backing, you must pay—either economically or politically.

•     Mexico and Canada quickly adjusted after Trump’s sudden 25% tariffs, offering immediate concessions like deploying 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

•     Panama withdrew from China’s Belt & Road Initiative, hoping to stay on Washington’s good side.

•     Greenland’s strategic resources are now a U.S. target, with Denmark reluctantly making moves to accommodate Trump’s demands.

This high-risk, high-reward strategy is forcing allies and competitors alike to reassess what they can resist and what they must comply with. For some, this shift is liberating, allowing them to operate without ideological constraints. For others, particularly liberal democracies in Europe, it is causing confusion and internal instability.

What This Means for Saudi Arabia and the Region

The Trump doctrine forces non-American Western allies, Gulf nations, and BRICS players to choose sides carefully. For Saudi Arabia, the stakes are especially high.

On one hand, Riyadh recognizes that its role as a regional economic and security hub aligns with U.S. interests. On the other, the disruption of global trade and alliances introduces new uncertainties—particularly as the Kingdom works to balance relations with both Washington and emerging powers like China and Russia.

The U.S. is reshaping the Middle East through an economic lens, reviving its co-prosperity vision: a regional economic hub that integrates Gulf states, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria into a shared security and trade framework. The goal is to neutralize Israel’s security concerns by embedding it in a stable, economically interconnected Middle East.

However, this approach is fundamentally accelerationist—based on the assumption that destabilizing the region, forcing rapid economic integration, and sidelining political grievances will produce a new order. The Gaza crisis has significantly altered the equation, exposing the risks of this theory.

The idea of offering prosperity in exchange for Palestinian political submission assumes that Arab aspirations can be neutralized through neoliberal progress. Yet, history suggests otherwise—class tensions, nationalism, and religious identity do not disappear just because economic opportunities exist.

For conservative Arab governments, this presents an impossible dilemma:

•     If they resist, they risk alienating the U.S. and facing economic repercussions.

•     If they comply, they risk backlash from their own populations and further erosion of legitimacy.

Saudi Arabia, like Jordan and Egypt, must tread carefully. The Sisi government and the Hashemite monarchy are already in precarious positions, knowing full well that their Western allies take their dependence for granted. Meanwhile, Iran oscillates between reformist pragmatism and hardline defiance, with Russia supporting its resistance against U.S. pressure, and Turkey continues its destabilizing imperial games.

Saudi Arabia’s Cautious Watch on U.S. Security Guarantees

Trump’s realignment offers Saudi Arabia both opportunity and risk. The Kingdom would accept a security deal with the U.S. in a heartbeat—but only if it carries congressional approval. Anything less than a formal congressional-backed agreement leaves Riyadh vulnerable to the whims of future U.S. administrations.

This is particularly critical given that Trump’s use of tariffs as a political weapon extends beyond trade. He is linking economic policies to security guarantees, demanding that allies either align with American priorities or face strategic isolation.

Saudi Arabia, like the rest of the Middle East, must recognize that the U.S. is now openly bypassing traditional diplomatic processes. Washington’s new unilateral approach leaves little room for allies to negotiate on their own terms.

Recommendation:

Saudi Arabia must avoid being pressured into an agreement that lacks permanence. While the U.S. will undoubtedly push for swift commitments, Riyadh must recognize that short-term deals with no congressional backing are temporary at best and liabilities at worst. A deal made under duress may later be regretted, particularly if Washington shifts focus or withdraws strategic support.

The Global Economic Fallout & The New Order

The shockwaves of MAGA’s new world order are being felt everywhere—from Washington to Brussels, Beijing to Riyadh. The Europeans are scrambling, facing energy dependence on the U.S. and threats of tariffs while struggling with their own internal fractures. Meanwhile, China and Russia remain cautiously observant, having long accepted that the era of American predictability is over.

For Saudi Arabia, this is a moment of careful recalibration. The Kingdom must leverage its position as an economic and security hub, ensuring that any agreements align with its long-term interests rather than reacting to short-term pressures. The world is entering a phase of negotiated power, not dictated rules—and those who navigate this reality with strategic patience will emerge stronger.

 Sanaa Issa

Strategic Media Expert – Beth  Agency