Since 2025, Trump’s trillion-dollar deals with Persian Gulf Arab states depend on uninterrupted oil and gas exports. Any major war could destabilise revenue and derail them.
In his second presidency, Donald Trump transformed economic diplomacy with Gulf Arab states into a high-stakes, high-value enterprise. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE announced record-setting defense purchases, investment commitments, aviation contracts, and technology partnerships worth well over two trillion dollars in total projections.
These numbers, however, are not backed by abstract wealth. They are backed by oil and gas money that must continue to flow through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. If this artery is blocked or destabilised — especially by an Israel–Iran conflict expanding into Qatar or the wider Gulf — the fiscal machinery underwriting these deals begins to falter.
The Trillion-Dollar Moment for US–Gulf Relations
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia emerged as the flagship partner of Trump’s 2025 agenda. Announced deals and investment visions included massive arms procurement, infrastructure alignment, aviation orders, and sovereign-fund commitments to US industrial and tech sectors.
Qatar
Qatar’s 2025 announcements pushed the Gulf’s numbers even higher: aviation deals, defense platforms, LNG technology cooperation, and investment pledges in US energy and advanced manufacturing.
UAE
The UAE positioned itself as the Gulf’s AI-and-chips bridge to the US, tying defense sales to semiconductor investment corridors, data-centre clusters, and aerospace packages.
The Combined Picture
Across Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi, the total 2025 announced contracts and long-term pledges are frequently described in headlines and diplomatic communiqués as surpassing two trillion dollars.
Still, it must be emphasised: much of this portfolio consists of multi-year or multi-decade frameworks, not fully financed immediate purchases.
The Hydrocarbon Bedrock of These Deals
Despite diversification rhetoric, Gulf economies remain fiscally anchored in hydrocarbons. Government budgets, sovereign wealth injections, arms purchases, global airport acquisitions, and tech investments are all ultimately tethered to oil and LNG export revenue.
Even when financed through sovereign wealth funds, the capital inside those funds originally came from decades of oil and gas surplus. Sustainability of these agreements is not ideological — it is geological, logistical, and maritime.
If the Gulf sells energy smoothly, Washington receives orders, investment tranches, and defense payments.
If flows break, financing breaks.
Hormuz: The Narrow Channel Beneath Trillion-Dollar Ambitions
The Strait of Hormuz remains the hinge of the entire arrangement.
Through this artery passes:
- roughly one-quarter of global seaborne oil
- a major share of the world’s LNG shipments
- nearly all of Qatar’s gas exports
- a significant portion of Saudi, UAE, Kuwaiti and Iraqi crude
No other route — pipeline or maritime — can absorb such volumes quickly. Bypass lines exist, but their capacity is a fraction of Hormuz’s. A flow-dependent economic model cannot survive a choke-point failure.
What Happens if a Major Israe.l–Iran War Spreads to the Gulf?
If conflict evolves from targeted strikes to a broader confrontation impacting Qatar or gulf export terminals, several consequences follow:
Shipping Interruption
Insurance firms can suspend coverage for tankers, LNG carriers may halt, and routing detours become economically irrational.
Tanker Avoidance
Even without closure, perceived danger alone is enough to empty shipping lanes, as seen in shorter past flare-ups.
Revenue Volatility
Hydrocarbon price spikes may not translate into usable revenue if export volumes drop or contracts stall.
Contract Delays
Defense and industrial commitments may be restructured over longer timelines or reduced discreetly.
Sovereign Fund Re-Prioritisation
Internal stability, border protection, and domestic infrastructure move ahead of foreign investment and arms expansion.
War introduces a brutal arithmetic:
no exports → no surplus → no payment schedule.
When Persian Gulf Revenues Shrink, US Promises Shrink Too
The United States did not merely plan for 2025; it engineered the year as a deliberate commercial showcase, embedding its own economic and political milestones within the fiscal calendars of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. This symbiosis was built on a clear, cyclical dynamic: Gulf sovereign wealth, fueled by hydrocarbon exports, is converted into strategic long-term purchases from American defense and aerospace giants. These purchases, in turn, underpin jobs in key congressional districts, justify production line expansions, and validate political narratives of “American resurgence” and “offshore balancing.”
However, this architecture is precariously exposed to any disruption in Gulf revenue streams. Should regional conflict—particularly a Hormuz crisis—trigger a sustained drop in oil prices, increase regional military expenditures, or spur capital flight, Gulf liquidity tightens. The shockwave travels along pre-established commercial channels to the United States with measurable, sequential impacts:
- delayed procurement
- cancelled option tranches
- slower investment instalments
- reduced aviation purchases
Therefore, the security of the Strait of Hormuz transcends geopolitics. It is a direct underwriting mechanism for a specific American economic model—one where high-value manufacturing jobs are sustained by predictable foreign demand. Instability doesn’t just threaten Gulf monarchies; it protects American contractors from volatile shareholder reports, protects aerospace workers from layoff cycles, and shields political narratives that depend on the appearance of a historic, self-financing win-win deal. The deal’s “win” for America is shown to be contingent, not inherent, exposing the vulnerability of an economy that has strategically hitched its advanced industrial output to the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf hydrocarbons.
The Fragility Beneath the Celebration
The 2025 agreements are outwardly bold, strategically symbiotic, and publicly triumphant. Yet beneath their surface lies a singular dependency: continued, safe, and uninterrupted transit of oil and gas vessels out of the Persian Gulf.
A single miscalculation — a strike on Iranian territory, retaliation at sea, an attack on Qatari infrastructure, missile barrages affecting Saudi or Emirati export terminals — can shift the Gulf from investor confidence to maritime panic.
Contracts signed in gold ink remain ink if tankers stop.
Conclusion
The Trump-era mega deals do not merely rely on diplomacy; they rely on geography, sea lanes, and the absence of catastrophe. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a chokepoint for tanker maps — it is the financial bloodstream of trillion-dollar policy.
If conflict escalates across Iran, Israel, and proximate Gulf producers, oil and LNG exports will waver, fiscal confidence will fracture, and the ability of Gulf states to meet contract obligations will weaken. Trillions in strategy, prestige and partnership remain suspended on the thinnest maritime thread in the world.
Peace in Hormuz is not abstract — it is the payment schedule.
References
-
White House, Gulf Economic Engagement Fact Sheet, 2025
-
US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Gulf Procurement Summaries, 2025
-
US Energy Information Administration, World Oil Transit Chokepoints – Hormuz
-
IMF Gulf Fiscal Dependency Outlook, 2024–2025
-
World Bank Gulf Hydrocarbon Revenue Indicators, 2021–2024
-
Strait of Hormuz Maritime Risk Advisories, 2024–2025
-
Leading Defense and Aerospace Contracting Outlooks, 2025
-
Global LNG Transit and Qatar Export Reliance Estimates, 2024–2025
-
Gulf Investment Announcements and Public Statements, 2025