Sunday Times 2
The largest multi-billion dollar deal in US history—and a potential 51st American state?
View(s):By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS (IPS)—When US President Donald Trump offered to declare neighbouring Canada as America’s 51st state, the Canadians vehemently rejected the proposal.
“We don’t want to be part of America,” was the rallying cry. And the short-lived offer was shot down in flames.
The next target was Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark which retains control over foreign policy, defence, national security, and the judicial and legal system.
Trump said he wants to purchase Greenland. But the Danes were not impressed. “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland,” said Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
A Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA. Source: US Department of Defense (DoD)
One of Trump’s enduring political slogans is “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) embedded in millions of baseball caps and tee shirts. In one of several political demonstrations in Greenland, directed against the US, one placard flipped the MAGA slogan: “Make America Go Away” (MAGA).
Perhaps Trump may be more successful in campaigning for a highly prosperous relationship with Saudi Arabia as a trusted ally and possibly America’s 51st state, according to a joke circulating in the delegate’s lounge, the UN’s watering hole.
The Saudis, who gave him a right royal welcome last week, promised a staggering $600 billion dollar investment in the United States.
Trump praised Saudi Crown Prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman calling him “an incredible man” and a “great guy,” but made no mention of human rights concerns in the country.
The history-making deal was focused primarily on US arms sales and military assistance to the Saudis, along with investments by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
An oil-blessed Middle Eastern nation, Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s biggest single purchasers of American arms—including fighter planes, combat helicopters, missiles, battle tanks and armored personnel carriers.
Following Trump’s heavily-publicised visit to Riyadh last week, the White House was emphatic in declaring that Saudi Arabia remains “our largest Foreign Military Sales (FMS) partner” with active cases valued at more than $142 billion–nearly double Saudi Arabia’s 2025 defence budget of $78 billion.
“Our defence relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is stronger than ever under President Trump’s leadership, and the package signed (May 13), the largest defence cooperation deal in US history, is a clear demonstration of our commitment to strengthening our partnership,” the White House said.
“The agreement opens the door for expanded US defence industry participation and long-term sustainment partnerships with Saudi entities.”
Zain Hussain, Researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told IPS Saudi Arabia is heavily reliant on arms imports from the US.
In 2020-2024, the US supplied 74% of all Saudi imports of major arms, and in the last decade (between 2015 and 2024), the US supplied 72% of Saudi imports of major arms, he pointed out.
Looking further at different armament categories reveals the extent of Saudi reliance on arms imports from the US. For example, between 2015 and 2024, the US supplied around 80% of Saudi imports of aircraft, 84% of Saudi imports of missiles, 65% of Saudi imports of armoured vehicles, and 89% of Saudi imports of air defence systems.
Of course, despite the strong reliance of Saudi Arabia on the US for arms imports, Saudi Arabia also imports arms from other states. For example, Saudi Arabia’s imports of ships between 2015 and 2024 were from Spain (67%), France (21%) and Germany (12%), declared Hussain.
The US-Saudi agreement encompasses a structured package of deliveries, upgrades, and training programmes related to existing weapon systems within the Saudi arsenal, as well as new capabilities, according to DoD.
These are divided into five main domains: air and space forces, missile defence, maritime and coastal security, land and border forces, and information and communication systems. Over a dozen US defence contractors, including Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Palantir, are involved in the programme.
In the air domain, Saudi Arabia is expected to gradually modernise its fleet of F-15SA fighter aircraft, which form the backbone of its air combat capability. These jets may be upgraded to a configuration approaching the F-15EX standard, with increased payload capacity, enhanced network connectivity, and compatibility with next-generation munitions.
Although no agreement has been announced for the sale of F-35s, one of the most sophisticated US fighter planes, the White House fact sheet suggests that discussions remain open.
Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, who represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations, focusing on conventional weapons and arms trade issues, told IPS: “We’ve seen this movie before”.
In 2017, President Trump said that US companies would sell $110 billion of military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Roughly a year and a half later, Glenn Kessler, fact checker for The Washington Post, concluded that there had been little progress toward implementing the agreement.
He gave the administration’s claim four Pinocchios, the maximum the paper normally gives for a false claim. There’s little if any evidence that the current agreements have any greater basis in fact, said Dr Goldring.
“As with any number of other issues, President Trump tends to make grandiose claims that frequently are not supported in reality. In this case, the press release touts his role as ‘the dealmaker in chief,’ even though it includes virtually no details about the proposed sales of military equipment and services. That makes it impossible to discern what proportion of these proposed sales originated in the Biden administration–or the first Trump administration, for that matter.”
She pointed out the Trump Administration’s approach puts the focus squarely on the hypothetical economic benefits of these agreements, rather than foreign policy and international security risks.
“The Trump administration needs to recognise that weapons aren’t toasters, and shouldn’t be sold as if they are. Yet the proposed deals don’t appear to reflect consideration of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, for example”.
Based on US law, Saudi Arabia’s human rights offences should disqualify them from receiving military equipment and services from the United States. And Saudi Arabia is by no means alone in this regard; for example, Israel should be ineligible on similar grounds, declared Dr Goldring.
(Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services (DMS) and a one-time UN correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly, London. A Fulbright scholar with a Master’s Degree (MSc) in Journalism from Columbia University, New York, he is Senior Editor at IPS and author of the 2021 book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote me on That”. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/)