Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and reached agreements that go beyond the scope of traditional trade or diplomacy.
Almost two trillion dollars in investments, military and technology packages, as well as personal gestures that raise suspicions of conflicts of interest in the West, are far more than ordinary bilateral relations.
They point to the essential transformation of the Persian Gulf from a passive factor into a director of the contemporary global stage.
The UAE has announced investments totalling USD 1.4 trillion in the US economy. Saudi Arabia signed a new security package worth USD 142 billion and announced additional infrastructure and energy agreements worth over USD 600 billion.
Qatar went a step further by gifting President Trump a Boeing 747 featuring a luxurious interior, a move that sparked serious questions from both the American public and Congress.
The increasingly clear shift in power
Apart from the gift affair, however, the essence of the visit lies in the increasingly clear shift in power from the traditional decision-making centres to the states, which for decades were seen not as strategy creators but as logistical resources for the West.
Today, the Gulf monarchies are investing not only in oil and gas but also in artificial intelligence, education, military-industrial complex and infrastructure, making them an important hub for global movements.
Their investments are no longer passive means of diversification but levers of influence
Their investments are no longer passive means of diversification but levers of influence.
When the UAE builds the largest AI campus outside the United States, it is not an investment in development but in position. When Qatar acquires stakes in leading media and sports brands, it is not about profit but about shaping a narrative.
The consequences of these agreements are not symbolic. With these agreements, the Trump administration is clearly demonstrating that focus has shifted from Europe and the Indo-Pacific region to the Arab world as an area of new strategic support. At a time when European partners are showing signs of weakness, internal divisions and growing disagreements with Washington, the Persian Gulf is proving to be a more reliable ally, willing to invest enormous resources without imposing democratic or institutional conditions.
This dynamic creates a new kind of stability for Trump's policies, but at the same time, it destabilises existing international norms.
If gifts to heads of state, huge military spending and political spins in the name of strategic loyalty are acceptable, where is the line between alliance and bribery?
And what does this mean for the future of international relations, particularly in a world where the moral superiority of the West increasingly seems to be a thing of the past rather than a principle?
Seizing the moment
The Gulf states are skilfully seizing the moment. Russia is preoccupied with its own isolation and war. China is under pressure in the Pacific and is still unable to position itself strategically outside Asia.
Europe is torn between internal elections, the rise of the far right and the post-Brexit confusion. In this void, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha are formulating a new kind of power based on money, media, technology, and discretion.
Their power is not aggressive, but it is omnipresent. They are not threatening, but they are changing courses.
What benefits does the global community truly derive from these alliances?
The crucial question is whether these countries understand how to turn this new position into responsibility. Influence, lacking a clear vision, swiftly contributes to instability.
If Saudi Arabia sponsors security projects throughout the Middle East but, at the same time, uses repressive methods in its own country, the paradox of the authoritarian stabiliser arises.
If the UAE invests in AI while restricting knowledge and access to information, what benefits does the global community truly derive from these alliances?
Occupying neglected space
Trump's visit raises another question. How personalised has American foreign policy become? When trillion-dollar deals are made in a format that resembles personal business arrangements rather than national strategy, can anyone guarantee the continuity and seriousness of these relationships after the changes in the White House?
The Qatari plane is more than simply a gesture; it represents a symbol of the new American weakness that consents to compromising principles to get short-term advantages.
The Gulf monarchies have made it clear that they no longer want to be observers but actors with their own agendas and alliances - Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani
In the European context, these events shed further light on the loss of EU influence in the Middle East.
While Brussels debates green transitions and regulations, the Gulf states are buying technologies, alliances, and narratives.
Their presence in Africa, the Balkans, Asia and the heart of Europe is no longer symbolic, but rather structural.
This is not about the return of the Arabs to the global stage but about occupying the space that others have neglected.
It is expected that the Gulf states will also increase their presence in the institutional mechanisms by the end of 2025.
Saudi Arabia has long been lobbying in favour of full membership in the G20’s financial bodies. The UAE wants to play a greater role in the UN Security Council, while Qatar is expanding its diplomatic missions and parallel peace platforms with Sudan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.
Their aim is not just symbolism, but the functional assumption of roles that once belonged to the West.
The Gulf monarchies have made it clear that they no longer want to be observers but actors with their own agendas and alliances.
Value principles no longer guide them, but a cold assessment of advantages and positions.
The crucial question for the West now lies not in its ability to control them but in its ability to adapt to the new game rules. If not, the influence that was once taken for granted will become a privilege that must be fought for — not just with capital, but with credibility.
