According to recent reports, the Trump administration has decided to decouple U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program from the Kingdom’s normalization of ties with Israel.
This policy shift suggests moves aligned with strategic objectives of emerging power blocs in a world consolidating into three dominant, increasingly totalitarian “managerial” blocs (Western/NATO, Chinese, Islamic/Sunni) and the formation of a post-Abraham Accords Middle East Union.
The U.S. decision removes a key condition previously placed on nuclear cooperation, granting Saudi Arabia a significant concession in its pursuit of nuclear energy, including potential enrichment capabilities. Publicly, this is framed within Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 goals for economic diversification and future energy needs, and the U.S. rationale includes securing strategic economic and military deals while navigating the political realities following the Gaza conflict that complicate Saudi normalization with Israel.
However, Vision 2030 itself may be a sophisticated exercise in statecraft, employing language of modernization and peace as instruments for power concentration and regime expansion. From this perspective, Saudi Arabia’s drive for nuclear technology, even under the guise of civilian use, is not merely an energy initiative but a strategic play to enhance its capabilities and leverage within the consolidating “Islamic Bloc,” a critical component of the emerging global triad alongside the Western and Chinese blocs.
The push for enrichment capabilities, despite proliferation risks and U.S. non-proliferation standards (like the Section 123 Agreement), can be seen through the lens of the “security dilemma” where the perceived threat from rivals (such as Iran) compels the acquisition of potentially destabilizing capabilities, drawing nations further into a “historical and political vortex.”
For the United States, representing the Western/NATO Bloc in this framework, the decision to decouple normalization from nuclear aid can be interpreted as a move aimed at maintaining dominance within a complex, multipolar world order. A U.S. president during this “advanced stage of the global shift towards totalitarianism” must prioritize maintaining American dominance among emerging “managerial societies,” potentially overriding other considerations, including traditional alliances or sentiments, for strategic necessity. Securing large economic and military deals with Saudi Arabia reinforces economic ties and leverages power, aligning with the “corporate fascism” aspect attributed to the NATO bloc and its reliance on economic influence and covert projection of “hard power.” By facilitating Saudi nuclear ambitions, even with risks, the U.S. may be attempting to manage the capabilities of a key player within the Islamic bloc, ensuring alignment or dependency, rather than allowing uncontrolled pursuit of such technology.
Furthermore, this policy shift gains significant context when viewed alongside the understanding that the Abraham Accords are not merely normalization agreements but precursors to the formation of a Middle East Union. This emerging entity is posited to be dominated by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and later Egypt, featuring supranational structures, including integrated military and judicial bodies potentially involving Israel and “Palestine.” In this light, the U.S. decoupling of nuclear aid from Israeli normalization could be interpreted as facilitating Saudi Arabia’s consolidation of power and capabilities prior to or during the formation of this Union. By obtaining advanced nuclear assistance from the U.S. before Israel is formally integrated into a structure potentially dominated by Saudi Arabia, Riyadh gains significant leverage and a strengthened position within the nascent Union, supporting the argument that Vision 2030 and related strategic maneuvers aim at “power concentration and regime expansion.”
While Islamic apologists claim the primary religious application for taqiya is protecting oneself and one’s faith under duress, the concept of deception in warfare is inseparable from the context of conquest and jihad. This principle allows for strategic and tactical deception of the enemy during wartime as a legitimate means to achieve victory and minimize casualties. Taqiya may involve strategic silence, ambiguous statements, or the outward appearance of alignment with a dominant political force to advance Islamic interests or long-term goals.
Thus, taqiya is not mere passive concealment due to fear of persecution, but active dissimulation employed strategically against adversaries in a state of conflict, as a tool for outmaneuvering enemies.
The implications for Israel, being at the “epicenter of the conflict” between the blocs and facing a strategy to abolish the traditional “Jewish State,” are particularly stark. Israeli alarm over proliferation and potential sidelining might be missing the deeper strategic objective. The Abraham Accords may be a “Trojan Horse” designed to prevent Israeli sovereignty and pave the way for a binational, democratic “State of Israel & Palestine” with equal rights, integrated into the Saudi-dominated Middle East Union. U.S. decoupling, by empowering Saudi Arabia within the regional architecture, advances the conditions for this Union structure, which would fundamentally alter Israel’s character and sovereignty by requiring external, supranational approval (from the ME Union assembly) for the use of its military forces.
The broader mechanisms described in the article, Trump, the Rise of the Triad, and Israel: The Emergence of Three Totalitarian Global Superstates – strategic deception, manufacturing consent, and unrestricted warfare – are also relevant. The public narratives around Vision 2030’s benevolent goals, the Abraham Accords as purely peace initiatives, and the “civilian” nature of the nuclear program appear to be tools for “manufacturing consent,” designed to mask the underlying strategic maneuvering related to bloc consolidation and the formation of the ME Union.
Events like the October 7th attacks may have been engineered to propel Israelis into a “war hysteria” necessary to commit their army as a “forward shock troop for the global new world order,” clearing territory for Saudi/American interests, representing an extreme example of strategic manipulation, with even devastating conflict being used as a tool of control and geopolitical restructuring.
Russia’s role, as the “wildcard,” lies in its potential to exploit the tensions and shifts created by this dynamic. While not directly involved in the U.S.-Saudi nuclear talks, Russia could seek to leverage the evolving power balance within the Middle East Union’s formation or the strains it places on U.S.-Israel relations to advance its own interests, such as maintaining its Syrian foothold or disrupting Western influence, aligning with its strategy of exploiting divisions and sowing chaos.
The Trump administration decision to decouple Saudi nuclear cooperation from Israeli normalization should not be seen as an isolated policy choice or standard diplomatic negotiation. Instead, it is a move deeply embedded within the struggle for dominance between emerging global managerial superstates and the formation of a Saudi-dominated Middle East Union. The pursuit of nuclear capability, the rhetoric of modernization (Vision 2030), and regional agreements (Abraham Accords) function as instruments of power consolidation, strategic deception, and the restructuring of the region into a new, potentially less sovereign, order for its constituents, including Israel, driven by the interests of the managerial elites controlling these emerging blocs, showing how complex, covert strategic objectives underpin seemingly conventional diplomatic and economic actions.
