Latest news with #JohnsHopkinsSchoolforAdvancedInternationalStudies
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump's trade war will last way longer than his Iran war
President Trump had a unique advantage when he ordered the June 21 US strikes against Iranian nuclear targets: giant "bunker buster" bombs able to penetrate deeper than any weapon short of a nuke. That allowed Trump to declare victory after a few bombing runs that barely lasted a day. In Trump's other conflict — the trade standoff with dozens of trading partners — there is no such decisive weapon. Trump pretends there is, claiming that other nations will suffer grievous harm if he raises tariffs on the goods they import to the US. But in these battles, Trump is often bluffing, and his adversaries know it. Trump's willingness to attack Iran provides lessons on how he handles risk and negotiates in challenging situations. It may also dispel a myth or two about how he's prosecuting the trade war. For one thing, Trump doesn't always "chicken out." The so-called TACO trade — "Trump Always Chickens Out" — became memey in May after a Financial Times columnist observed that Trump often postpones or backs down from tariff threats. But that isn't completely true. Trump has imposed new tariffs on imports from most countries, raising the average import tax from 2.5% before he took office to about 15%. American importers are paying those taxes, and they'll be the first to tell you that, alas, Trump hasn't chickened out. Trump certainly could have chickened out when it came to Iran, especially given that several of his White House predecessors declined to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, choosing diplomacy and negotiation instead. That was Trump's approach too, until Israel opened the door to a US strike with a week of bombing that accomplished much of the job of degrading Iran's nuclear program. Even then, Trump took a considerable risk in dropping bombs on Iran, given that it could seek revenge through attacks on Americans or efforts to disrupt oil flows and cause an energy shock. What Trump demonstrated in attacking Iran is that when he has a strong hand, he plays it. Strategist Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies said Trump has a "feral instinct for human weakness ... when his enemy is lying prostrate in front of him, he's perfectly happy to kick him in the head."That was the Trump who bombed Iran. Its air defense system was shredded, its leader hiding in a bunker. Trump took a risk other presidents haven't taken because he felt the odds of success were strongly in his favor — and he might have been right. In Trump's trade war, however, most adversaries aren't nearly as vulnerable. Trump has no magic weapon, and victory is elusive. This will likely become apparent once again as a July 9 deadline approaches for dozens of countries to make trade deals with Trump or risk his "reciprocal" tariffs. The trade war was never going to end in a day, or a month, or even a year. Trump announced draconian tariffs on April 2 but postponed them a week later after an ugly market sell-off. That was Trump showing weakness, rather than the other way around, because his tariffs amounted to friendly fire, causing unintended damage at home. Markets have yo-yoed as Trump's tariffs go on, then come off, triggering alternating bouts of despair and euphoria. But markets are generally adjusting to a tariff regime that might not be so bad because Trump doesn't have the leverage to strike a decisive and lasting blow, as he did with Iran. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Torsten Sløk, chief economist at private equity firm Apollo (Yahoo's parent company), recently mused that Trump may have "outsmarted everyone on tariffs." He suggested that as the July 9 deadline approaches, Trump may extend his trade deal deadline by as much as a year, giving markets time to adjust while the US pulls in something like $400 billion in tariff revenue, which would be nearly a fivefold increase over 2024 levels. The bigger surprise for markets, in fact, would be if Trump attempted some kind of shock-and-awe tariff blast around the July 9 deadline, rather than simply setting a new deadline. "The widely held assumption (which we share) appears to be that even if deals with trade partners do not materialize in the next two weeks (which is unlikely), the pause will simply be extended," Capital Economics explained in a June 24 analysis. "Market turmoil on the scale of those sparked by the original tariffs back in April looks improbable, if only because market participants would probably assume that any sell-off would lead to another u-turn." Trump's deliberations with China, as one example, suggest the whole ordeal could end up a quagmire rather than a decisive victory for one side or the other. In April, Trump hit Chinese imports with tariffs as high as 145%, which basically halted all inbound shipments. Trump lowered that to 30% in May. Some analysts described that development as a "truce" in the trade war and said it damaged Trump's credibility as a negotiator because he failed to act on a threat. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility Trump hasn't explained exactly what he wants from China, which could be part of a strategy that allows him to declare victory at any time and only then explain what his demands are, once he knows what he can get China to agree to. Yet China is making even that difficult. In response to Trump's tariffs, one Chinese move has been to impose new limits on exports of rare-earth magnets, a market China dominates, with about 90% of the world's supply. US companies that need those magnets for automobiles, fighter jets, medical equipment, electronics, and many other things are now running into shortages, in some cases threatening the shutdown of domestic assembly lines. As Trump sniffs out weakness in an adversary, he also recognizes strength. He must recognize that his promise of revitalizing US manufacturing will never pan out if American firms can't even get key components. China may not have all the leverage, but it certainly has some. This puts Trump in the position of bluffing, and the more he bluffs, the less serious he seems. That's why investors are fairly confident Trump's July 9 deadline will merely morph into another deadline, and maybe another one after that. The S&P 500 stock index has broadly recovered from the April sell-off, and it's close to topping the all-time high set in February. That's an indication investors don't think Trump's tariffs will harm corporate profits or stock values. There's no bunker buster in a trade war, and markets are grateful for that. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Iran strikes mark Trump's biggest foreign policy gamble
With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he'd long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks. But the strikes could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against US and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves evoke echoes of the "forever wars" the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. In the lead-up to the bombing, the US President had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities had paved the way. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratisation campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he'd long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks. But the strikes could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against US and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves evoke echoes of the "forever wars" the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. In the lead-up to the bombing, the US President had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities had paved the way. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratisation campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he'd long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks. But the strikes could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against US and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves evoke echoes of the "forever wars" the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. In the lead-up to the bombing, the US President had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities had paved the way. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratisation campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he'd long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks. But the strikes could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against US and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves evoke echoes of the "forever wars" the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. In the lead-up to the bombing, the US President had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities had paved the way. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratisation campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Perth Now
3 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Iran strikes mark Trump's biggest foreign policy gamble
With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he'd long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks. But the strikes could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against US and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves evoke echoes of the "forever wars" the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. In the lead-up to the bombing, the US President had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities had paved the way. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratisation campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Voice of America
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Voice of America
Saudi prince proving crucial to Trump efforts to end Ukraine, Gaza wars
Top U.S. and Russian officials wrapped up their meetings Tuesday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss a pathway to end the war in Ukraine, days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is set to convene a summit with leaders from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to discuss an Arab response to U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to take over Gaza. The two separate talks reflect the growing role of the prince in Trump's efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. On Tuesday, Trump again declared he would swiftly end fighting. "I have the power to end this war," Trump said from Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Florida, dismissing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's concern that Kyiv was excluded from the Riyadh meeting. "Well, you've been there for three years, you should have ended it," he said of Zelenskyy in response to a reporter's question. "I could have made a deal for Ukraine that would have given them almost all of the land." Trump did not clarify which part of land would remain Ukrainian. Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022 and now controls parts of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions, and fighting has been ongoing at the borders of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. The Saudi talks signaled a major détente between Washington and Moscow and an abrupt end of U.S. policy under former President Joe Biden to isolate Russia and support Ukraine "for as long as it takes." Instead, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio dangled the prospects of "the incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians" on trade and other global issues when the war ends. Arab response to Gaza plan Later this week, Prince Mohammed will bring together leaders from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the UAE to discuss an Arab response to Trump's vow to take over Gaza and create a "Riviera in the Middle East" by expelling Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries. Trump's plan has angered regional leaders, who are now scrambling to come up with a counteroffer that they will discuss in Riyadh ahead of a broader Arab League gathering in Cairo next week. One of the Arab proposals being discussed is an Egyptian-led plan that involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas and raising up to $20 billion from Arab and Gulf states over three years for reconstruction. As Saudi Arabia makes a play for the diplomatic mainstage, Prince Mohammed is motivated to be proactive rather than reactive, to counsel pragmatism rather than rigidity, said Laura Blumenfeld, a senior fellow and Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies. Blumenfeld told VOA that the prince could pair his approach with a language that Trump likes to speak: investments. This week, global financiers and tech executives will gather in Miami, Florida, in a conference hosted by the Future Investment Initiative Institute, a nonprofit arm of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund — the kingdom's sovereign wealth fund led by the prince. Reuters, quoting several people with knowledge of the event, reported that Trump is scheduled to deliver an address at the meeting. "Trump is a peacemaker in a hurry, with his eye on the Nobel Prize. [The prince] is a dealmaker in a hurry, with his eye on the Saudi Vision 2030 economic diversification plan," Blumenfeld added. "The two men are a match made in transactional heaven." Prince Mohammed the power broker With his efforts focused on Ukraine and Gaza, the 39-year-old de facto leader of Saudi Arabia has emerged as a power broker that Trump leans on for his foreign policy goals. Prince Mohammed has done this in part by leveraging close ties during Trump's first term, maintaining business ties while Trump was out of office, and further expanding the relationship since the president's inauguration last month. Saudi Arabia was Trump's first foreign trip in 2017, where he signed several deals, including a $110 billion arms deal, which could expand up to $350 billion over 10 years. Trump spoke openly about the transactional nature of the visit, telling reporters days after his second inauguration in January that the reason he chose Riyadh for that first visit was because "they agreed to buy $450 billion worth of our products." Trump suggested on the day of his last inauguration that he would again make Saudi Arabia his first destination in return for Saudi funds, and days later, the prince told him during a phone call that he planned to invest $600 billion or more in the U.S. over the next four years. In 2021, Saudi Arabia invested $2 billion with a firm that belonged to Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and former aide. The Trump Organization has also expanded its real estate presence in the region, announcing it had leased its brand to two real estate projects in Riyadh in December after launching the Trump Tower project in Jeddah. As Prince Mohammed cultivated his political and business ties with Trump, he maintained a relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin amid Biden's effort to isolate the Russian leader following his 2022 invasion of Ukraine. "The crown prince has been making the argument for the last five years that it's in America's interest that Saudi Arabia maintains very good ties with Russia and China," said Ali Shihabi, author and commentator on the politics and economics of Saudi Arabia. "Saudi Arabia was insisting on maintaining a multipolar policy while maintaining very strong ties with the United States," he told VOA. The prince is poised to host a summit between the two leaders that Trump said he agreed to during his call with Putin last week. The summit, Shihabi said, would be an example of how the prince's gambit has paid off. "I don't think there are any leaders in the world that have the relationship that the crown prince has with both Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump," he said. There is also a practical reason. The kingdom is not a signatory of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023.
