Xerxes

When asking Grok : Did Saudi Arabia bought all their 2017 commitment to Trump —///////————- In 2017, during President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the kingdom announced a $110 billion arms deal with the United States, with potential expansion to $350 billion over 10 years. This was part of a broader $400 billion investment pledge, including defense and non-defense sectors like infrastructure and technology. The question of whether Saudi Arabia fulfilled its 2017 commitment requires examining the arms deal’s implementation and the broader investment promises. Status of the 2017 Arms Deal • Initial Commitment: The $110 billion deal included agreements for weapons, equipment, and services, such as Lockheed Martin’s THAAD missile defense systems, Boeing helicopters, and General Dynamics armored vehicles. It was framed as immediate sales, with an additional $240 billion in potential sales over a decade. • Actual Implementation: • By 2018, reports indicated that only $14.5 billion in contracts had been finalized, per the U.S. State Department. Many of the announced deals were non-binding letters of intent or rehashed existing agreements from the Obama era. • A 2019 analysis by the Center for International Policy found that Saudi Arabia had signed contracts for about $28 billion in arms by mid-2019, far short of the $110 billion touted. • Specific deliveries included: • $13.5 billion for THAAD systems (Lockheed Martin), with initial deliveries in 2020. • $5.4 billion for Patriot missile systems (Raytheon). • Smaller contracts for helicopters, naval vessels, and munitions. • By 2023, the Brookings Institution estimated that roughly $36 billion in arms sales had been implemented, with delays due to congressional scrutiny, production timelines, and Saudi Arabia’s financial constraints. • Challenges: • Congressional Opposition: Concerns over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, the Yemen war, and the 2018 Jamal Khashoggi murder led to bipartisan efforts to block some arms sales, though Trump often bypassed Congress using emergency declarations. • Financial Constraints: Saudi Arabia’s budget deficits, driven by low oil prices (e.g., Brent crude averaged $40-$50/barrel in 2017-2020) and Vision 2030 spending, limited its ability to fund large-scale purchases. • Overstated Figures: Critics, including the Washington Post and Reuters, noted that the $110 billion figure was inflated, combining firm contracts, potential sales, and non-binding agreements. Broader $400 Billion Investment Pledge • The $400 billion commitment included non-defense investments, such as: • $50 billion by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) in U.S. firms like Blackstone and SoftBank’s Vision Fund. • $20 billion for infrastructure projects with General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and others. • Energy and technology deals with companies like Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil. • Progress: • Some investments materialized, such as: • $20 billion in Blackstone’s U.S. infrastructure fund (2017). • $45 billion in SoftBank’s Vision Fund, which invested in U.S. tech firms like Uber and WeWork. • Smaller energy deals, including a $7 billion petrochemical project with Dow Chemical. • However, the total fell far short of $400 billion. By 2020, estimates suggested $50-$100 billion in actual investments, with many projects stalled or scaled back due to Saudi Arabia’s fiscal challenges and global economic disruptions (e.g., COVID-19). • The Saudi government’s need for oil prices above $80-$100/barrel to balance its budget (compared to actual prices often below $70) constrained its ability to meet ambitious pledges. Why the Full Commitment Wasn’t Met • Economic Realities: Saudi Arabia’s reliance on oil revenue and budget deficits (e.g., a $79 billion deficit in 2020) limited its purchasing power. • Political Hurdles: U.S. congressional pushback and international criticism over Yemen and human rights slowed arms deals. • Exaggerated Announcements: The Trump administration and Saudi Arabia overstated the deal’s scope for political optics, with many “commitments” lacking firm contracts. • Geopolitical Shifts: Tensions with the Biden administration, which paused some arms sales in 2021, and Saudi Arabia’s diversification of suppliers (e.g., Russia, China) reduced reliance on U.S. deals. Current Context (2025) • The 2017 commitment remains partially fulfilled, with arms sales likely totaling $40-$50 billion by 2025, based on historical trends and recent analyses. • The new $142 billion defense deal announced on May 13, 2025, during Trump’s second term, builds on the 2017 framework but is a distinct agreement. It includes new systems (e.g., MQ-9B drones, Patriot upgrades) and overlaps with some undelivered portions of the 2017 deal. • Saudi Arabia’s ability to meet the 2025 commitment faces similar challenges: oil prices (Brent crude at $64.77 on May 12, 2025, vs. a needed $96-$98/barrel), domestic spending pressures, and U.S. congressional oversight. Conclusion Saudi Arabia did not fully buy into its 2017 $110 billion arms commitment, with roughly $40-$50 billion in arms contracts implemented by 2025. The broader $400 billion investment pledge also fell short, with $50-$100 billion realized. Economic constraints, political obstacles, and overstated figures contributed to the shortfall. The 2025 $142 billion deal represents a renewed effort, but its success will depend on similar factors. Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Center for International Policy, Brookings Institution, U.S. State Department reports, and X posts (treated as inconclusive). If you want details on specific 2017 contracts or comparisons with the 2025 deal, let me know!

As rehabilitated as the Nazi scientists were when they started working for US Government post 1945 One can either be stuck in the past or move forward

I was not aware of their involvement in Sudan. I know they have presence in Djibouti. The prime trouble maker in Sudan are UAE, it’s frenemy Saudi Arabia support the other side. And I forgot on which side Turkey is; but is another player who wants its former Ottoman port on the Red Sea in its sphere.

If you mean risk of People’ Republic of Dragons doing a military power play in Syria. That is highly unlikely. Although we may associate PRC with potential military adventurism in Taiwan, historically they have not gone far from their water. They have their naval bases in the southern hemisphere, but I don’t see them doing imperial adventurism. China does not waste resources doing nation shaping far from mainland. It deals directly with established regional powers, namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE.

Paris Air Show is in a few weeks, Looks like Trump visit to the Middle East, is taking the attention from would be jet orders just in a few weeks, pulling them forward.

Just like we give criticism to Trump like there is no tomorrow, we must give the American strongman, praise when it is due. I thought removing sanctions from Syria was a great move. Fresh start for the new Syria. Now it is up to Damascus to prove itself. A strong Syria means one that is not susceptible to malign Russian, Iranian and Israeli influence, and their expansionist agenda.

They are not. Far from it. That said, I don’t believe in Iran, they call Sea of Oman or the Arabian Sea, as Iranian or Persian Sea. Because of historical reasons. As far as the Gulf is concerned, the naming contention though is between Persian and Arab. But is and always been known as Persian Gulf. But regardless it doesn’t concern Americans. (<= and I don’t mean you, so please don’t think I am being rude, I mean US Gov) Feel free to call it what you like

Arabian Gulf vs Persian Gulf …. lol Stupidity never ends. Do people in The White House can even point to the Gulf on the map.

Well the real issue is two fold really: Bribery and security - is this considered a bribe for influence. Or is that really a normal way in this day and age. - prime minister of UK offered a second royal audience and state visit with the monarch, wouldnt that be considered a bribe as well ? Or is that really a normal way in this day and age. the other issue really is I think the security of US head of state. But nothing that a good retrofit won’t be fix.

the same thing that the Americans of all political leanings do everyday, all day long. bitch and complain about everything.

I don’t know folks, the Qatari 747-8 is a beautiful plane. Tempting offer for sure From my recollection they also gifted a plane to the president of Turkey at some point in time, when Erdogan couldn’t get his jet build in time.

plenty for sure. But I (me anyways) don’t do podcast. So my blind spots remain unknown to me and I don’t get exposed to the full fury of the market for the truth. That said I do post on this forum (I don’t have or use any other forum). So hopefully folks will continue to do correction on my wrong statement.

understood. so discussion was sandboxed really around what falls within or out of explicit religious extremism .. sanctioned by the Holy Book and levered by the aggressor as jet fuel. I would just submit that the actual victim does not care if it is sanctioned or not by the holy book. I could be from Congo have seen my entire family limps being chopped off by Christians for sports. It being in the Holy Book or not has little significance to me, …. But that was not what the discussion here is about. So I ll stop here and will derail no further

Lastly Ottoman Empire was a war machine bent on conquest. If it wasn’t Muslim it would have been using some other ideology as jet fuel. Or do folks here really think the Ottoman Turks, if they were Christian, they would be spreading peace and love at the gate of Vienna !! You got to be fuxking kidding me. If you want use an example, use one that makes sense. For instance use the Umayyed Caliphate that was systematically built on spread Islam by force. I always find it funny how posters here put all Muslim empire in one category. It speaks to complete lack of understanding of Asian history. I would include the Timurid empire in the same basket as the Ottomans. They are waged war for war sake.

Just for clarity: are you pushing back because you think since the bible doesnt say anything about spreading Christianity by the sword, those cases shown by Sanjeev doesn’t demonstrate Christian doing nasty things I agree with you that British Empire had nothing to do with spreading Christianity by the sword in a systematic way, in the same way Spanish were doing, but nonetheless racism and complete subjugation was how they did business in Asia. Whether the Bible gives a tacit consent or not. It doesn’t matter in my view. But clearly it seems to matter to most Westerners. With that said, I do wonder how Westerners (those that are whiter than me) view Belgian atrocities in Congo. I mean it is not sanctioned by the Holy Book, but it was Christians committing it. So Christians get a pass for it.

Those are actually neither Muslim or Christian, … but Persian lands long before Jesus himself began contemplating the meaning of life Get your facts straight

I started to listen to this podcast episode until I got to this statement surely someone with a PhD (self declared intellectual) is aware the near impossibility of penguins ever meeting polar bears, as they are located in different continents literally on either side of world. perhaps he is fond of this Coca Cola commercial from 20 years ago

Chinese hardware in actual combat in Pakistan/India https://apple.news/A-rZILZMrT3WUa_YH7oPekg

Need to get a Lego set for this one

It is sad, I actually consider doing hikes in Kashmir and the Karakoram mountain ranges earlier this spring. had already changed my plan though probably, I ll re consider 5 years from now.

Good bye Just Justin

Do we have a foodie thread … if not

Bough the dip at $135 CAD for the hardcover. current public mark on EBay and the last copy on Amazon: $214CAD and $360 CAD

thank you. looks like he got to it eventually

MGM