Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently secured a $440 million arms deal with the United States, fueling debate over the Crown Prince’s motivations for large-scale military spending, particularly as Saudi Arabia is not currently engaged in direct war. This new deal includes 1,014 TOW 2A and 2B missiles—precision-guided anti-tank missiles known for their effectiveness in combat situations—alongside equipment for support, training, engineering, and logistics, to be supplied by the U.S. government. Observers note that bin Salman personally oversaw this transaction, reflecting his close control over defense matters, despite Defense Minister and brother, Prince Khalid bin Salman, being officially responsible for such acquisitions.
Expanding Arms Deals Amid Economic Concerns
This recent deal is part of a larger pattern of increased arms spending by Saudi Arabia. Just last month, the U.S. approved another $139 million in weaponry for Saudi Arabia, including 10,000 M456 high-explosive anti-tank rounds, howitzer shells, grenades, detonators, and technical support. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of State highlighted that these arms support U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, stating that American military experts will be embedded within the Saudi military. This revelation has raised concerns over the extent of foreign influence within Saudi defense operations, suggesting that the U.S. may have access to sensitive Saudi military operations and intelligence.
While Saudi Arabia’s oil revenues remain substantial, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently projected a decrease in oil revenue, expecting it to fall to 778 billion riyals ($207 billion) by 2029. These forecasts, coupled with heavy defense spending, have prompted questions about the sustainability and necessity of these arms deals.
Russian and European Deals Add to Controversy
Bin Salman’s focus on arms acquisitions is not limited to the United States. Last month, Saudi Arabia signed a deal with Russia for advanced air defense systems valued at approximately $11 million. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has invested around $2 billion in European-made air defense and surveillance equipment since the onset of the recent Israeli-Gaza conflict. Sources report that some of these systems—featuring early-warning sensors, night vision equipment, and intercept missiles—are intended to counter aerial threats that could affect regional stability, with particular emphasis on defense measures aligned with Israeli interests. This has led to speculation that some of these systems might indirectly protect Israeli assets from potential regional threats, particularly from Yemen.
Palestinian Issue and Normalization Talks with Israel
As bin Salman’s military spending has intensified, his stance on the Palestinian issue has also drawn international attention. Reportedly, bin Salman conveyed to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he has limited personal interest in the Palestinian cause but sees it as a crucial factor in Saudi normalization talks with Israel due to its significance to the Saudi public. However, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan’s remarks have been more divisive, labeling Palestinian resistance as extremist and an obstacle to peace, reflecting a shift in rhetoric that has generated backlash among pro-Palestinian advocates.
Domestic and International Reactions
Saudi defense analysts question the necessity of this large-scale defense spending, especially given Saudi Arabia’s relatively stable borders, natural geographical barriers, and current lack of active military conflicts. Critics argue that the Crown Prince’s lavish spending on military acquisitions may be excessive for a country that already possesses extensive defensive infrastructure, particularly as economic concerns like poverty and unemployment remain prevalent among Saudi citizens. Some view these arms deals as part of bin Salman’s broader strategy to position Saudi Arabia as a formidable regional power and secure alignment with U.S. and Israeli interests.
As Saudi Arabia’s defense budget continues to grow, these transactions and their implications on regional stability remain under close scrutiny, fueling debate over whether these resources could be better allocated toward addressing domestic socio-economic issues.
