Keep Scrolling for continue reading for more stories

The Trump White House Was Intent on Nuclearizing The Arabian Peninsula


In international relations, where geopolitical strategy often mingles with the pursuit of economic gain, few chapters in recent history are as charged as Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions during the Trump administration.

The landscape of the Middle East, with its intricate web of alliances, rivalries, and ever-shifting power dynamics, saw a new player entering the fray: Saudi Arabia’s intent on harnessing nuclear power. But, parallel to this vision ran another narrative — one not of a nation’s progress but of personal profit. As the Saudi monarchy sought to elevate its energy prowess, key figures within the Trump administration saw not just a geopolitical shift but a golden opportunity for financial windfall.

This confluence of interests, where the line between national policy and personal gain blurred, set the stage for a series of controversial deals, backdoor negotiations, and ethical dilemmas that would reverberate on the global stage.

A Nuclearized Saudi Arabia: An Intricate U.S.-Saudi-Russia Nexus

The narrative around the Trump administration’s dealings with Saudi Arabia over nuclear technology is not just confined to bilateral relations; it is further complicated by the shadow of another major global player: Russia. In 2019, the American public began grappling with the Trump administration’s seemingly keen interest in facilitating the transfer of nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia, as highlighted by Vanity Fair. The undercurrents of these dealings, however, suggested that there was more than met the eye.

The story becomes more nuanced with the involvement of Michael Flynn, who held a significant position in the Trump administration’s early tenure. As reported by NBC News, Flynn was at the forefront of championing the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. This by itself raised eyebrows, but what was even more intriguing was the alleged backdrop of this push. Whistleblowers intimated that Flynn’s interest in the nuclear deal might not have been merely about U.S.-Saudi relations. Rather, there appeared to be a backdrop of maneuvers involving Russia, especially in the context of building nuclear power plants in the Middle East, as per an article from Newsweek.

The intricacy of this geopolitical web doesn’t stop there. Thomas Barrack Jr., an influential Trump fundraiser, also emerged as a prominent figure lobbying for the U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal, as USA TODAY reported in 2019. With Barrack’s strong ties to Trump, questions arose about the real motivations behind such vigorous advocacy. Were there other international players, like Russia, also involved or benefiting indirectly?

Further insight from Vanity Fair and Reuters elucidated that there might have been personal financial gains on the horizon for some of Trump’s close allies. These publications suggested that the nuclear deal was perceived by some not only as a tool for geopolitical strategy but also as a potential avenue for lucrative returns. Given the significant economic interests that Russia has in nuclear energy, it’s plausible to wonder about its role or benefit in such transactions.

In the grander scheme, The Washington Post posed broader, existential questions about the Trump administration’s motivations. In transferring such advanced technology to Saudi Arabia, was the U.S. acting in its best interests or were there other forces, like Russian interests, at play? And were the necessary safeguards in place to prevent potential misuse of this technology, especially in a volatile region like the Middle East?

Piecing together the details from these reputable publications, one gets a sense of the multi-layered tapestry of international relations at play. It wasn’t just about the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Russia’s potential involvement, whether directly or indirectly, added another dimension to this unfolding story, making it an essential part of the broader understanding of nuclear ambitions and allegations during the Trump era.

Profiteering Ambitions: The Trump Administration and a Nuclearized Saudi Arabia

The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia during the Trump era was characterized by a complex web of personal, political, and financial ties. Amidst the myriad of interactions, a key concern that emerged was the ambition of several individuals in the Trump administration seeking to benefit from the prospect of a nuclearized Saudi Arabia.

Michael Flynn’s Nuclear Plans

Michael Flynn, the short-lived National Security Advisor to President Trump, was at the heart of the nuclear discussions with Saudi Arabia. According to NBC News, Flynn backed a plan to transfer nuclear technology to the Saudis. The blueprint aimed to construct a series of nuclear power plants across the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia as a potential key beneficiary. Flynn’s involvement in this proposal raised alarms, especially given his role in the administration and his past consulting work which had ties to the project. Whistleblowers voiced concerns that the plan could violate U.S. laws designed to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Thomas Barrack Jr.’s Lobbying Efforts

Thomas Barrack Jr., a significant fundraiser for Trump’s 2016 campaign, was another key figure entwined in the nuclear narrative. USA Today detailed how Barrack actively lobbied for the Saudi nuclear deal. The gravity of these allegations was heightened when reports from Vanity Fair and Reuters suggested that Barrack saw the Saudi nuclear initiative as an opportunity for personal profit. His involvement raised critical questions: Was U.S. foreign policy being influenced or shaped by individuals with vested interests?

IP3 International and the “Iron Bridge” Program

At the nexus of personal interests and the Saudi nuclear deal was a company named IP3 International. As highlighted by reports from Vanity Fair and Reuters, IP3 developed a program known as “Iron Bridge,” which aimed at providing nuclear power technology to Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia. This project was poised to be highly lucrative, and several members or allies of the Trump administration, including Barrack, reportedly had ties to IP3. The alignment of private interests with a matter of national and international security significance again raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The Broader Network

Beyond Flynn and Barrack, there was a broader network of influencers and power players connected to the Saudi nuclear aspirations. For instance, Newsweek reported on a grand scheme that sought to build nuclear power plants not just in Saudi Arabia but across the Arab world. This initiative involved a consortium of U.S., Russian, and other international firms, underscoring the global stakes and potential financial windfalls at play.

Quid Pro Quo: Financial Gains and Political Leverage

While it’s clear that the involved parties stood to benefit financially from the successful execution of the nuclear deal, the nature of what they hoped to gain in return is multifaceted.

Firstly, there were the direct financial gains from the deals themselves. The construction of nuclear power plants represents billions of dollars in contracts, supplies, services, and maintenance over many years.

Secondly, by being key players in such an international venture, these individuals would solidify their positions as influential power brokers, bridging the gap between Washington and Riyadh. Their central roles in such a monumental deal could provide them with unparalleled political leverage and access, both domestically and overseas.

Lastly, by aligning themselves with Saudi Arabia’s ambitions, they could potentially gain favor with the Saudi royal family, opening the door to future business ventures in the kingdom and the broader Middle East.

In summary, the ambitions of individuals within the Trump administration regarding a nuclearized Saudi Arabia were not just about immediate profit but also about long-term influence, access, and potential opportunities in one of the world’s most resource-rich regions.

Navigating Concerns and Controversies of Nuclear Saudi Arabia

According to Vanity Fair, there was a strange eagerness within the administration to hand over nuclear secrets to the Saudis. The reasons behind this willingness were manifold and layered with potential business interests.

NBC News highlighted how a plan, backed by Michael Flynn, aimed to transfer nuclear tech to the Saudis. Whistleblowers raised alarms, suggesting that the actions might have breached U.S. laws.

The very idea of providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia was seen as problematic by many. The Washington Post raised a critical question: Why was the Trump administration so keen on offering such sensitive technology to a regime that had shown signs of recklessness? Such concerns were intensified by revelations related to potential personal gains. A report from USA Today revealed how Trump fundraiser, Thomas Barrack Jr., lobbied for the Saudi nuclear deal. Both Vanity Fair and Reuters detailed allegations suggesting that Trump’s billionaire friend sought to profit from the proposed Middle Eastern nuclear deal. These insinuations of personal interests muddying policy decisions became a recurring theme, causing both political and public consternation.

Financial transactions between U.S. entities and the Saudis added another layer to the concerns. The New York Times reported that the Saudi Investment Fund had reservations before investing billions into Jared Kushner’s venture. Yet, the deal went through, raising eyebrows and questions about the nature of Kushner’s relationship with the Saudis and whether it influenced U.S. foreign policy decisions. In another instance, The Washington Post revealed that a Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel following the 2016 election. Such transactions, critics argue, might suggest a pay-for-play dynamic, though it remains a point of contention.

Communication channels between key U.S. figures and Saudi officials were often shrouded in mystery. For instance, Business Insider detailed how Jared Kushner reportedly used WhatsApp to chat with Mohammed bin Salman. This informal and potentially insecure mode of communication, away from the purview of official diplomatic channels, drew criticism. Further intensifying concerns was a report by The Intercept, which suggested that the Saudi Crown Prince boasted about having Kushner “in his pocket.”

Despite the cloud of controversies, President Trump often appeared to be in favor of maintaining strong ties with the Saudi regime. After the tragic Khashoggi incident, Trump, according to The New York Times, stood by the Saudis, a move that sparked global debate about the balance between diplomatic relations and moral responsibility.

Throughout this period, the Trump administration found itself navigating a treacherous path. With each revelation, be it financial ties, backchannel communications, or controversial policy decisions, the administration was tasked with reconciling national interests with mounting concerns about the nature and depth of its relationship with the Saudi kingdom. The multiple concerns and controversies became not just a diplomatic challenge but also offered a reflection on the interplay of power, profit, and policy in global politics.

Further complicating this financial web, Vanity Fair and Reuters unearthed details of Trump’s allies, most prominently billionaire Thomas Barrack Jr., positioning themselves to garner substantial profits from deals with Saudi Arabia. Notably, one of these deals was the much-discussed nuclear agreement. The prospect of the Trump administration benefiting financially from major international policy decisions presented both a perplexing and disconcerting narrative.

In totality, the interwoven financial connections between the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia, from vast investments to hotel bookings, painted a picture rife with potential conflicts of interest and concerns. While each individual transaction could perhaps be rationalized, their collective pattern remained a significant point of focus throughout Trump’s presidency.

Personal Communications Between Jared Kushner And MBS

Navigating the corridors of diplomacy often entails covert meetings and discreet communications. The Trump administration’s association with Saudi Arabia was no exception, and the nature of these interactions has fueled intense curiosity and speculation.

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, took center stage in many of these covert communications. Business Insider underscored Kushner’s communication habits, revealing that he used WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging app, to converse with none other than Mohammed bin Salman (‘MBS’), the Saudi Crown Prince. Such a mode of communication, while ensuring privacy, also circumvents traditional, monitored diplomatic channels, leading to concerns about transparency and potential security risks.

This wasn’t an isolated instance of Kushner’s deep ties with the Saudi leadership. The Intercept uncovered an alarming revelation that the Saudi Crown Prince boasted about having Kushner “in his pocket.” This casual assertion not only depicted a cozy relationship but also hinted at the possibility of Kushner being amenable to influence by Saudi leadership.

Further diving into the shadows of these interactions, Vox outlined the involvement of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor. Flynn’s dealings encompassed a grander scheme aimed at constructing nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia and the broader Arab world. This ambitious plan, while potentially transformative for the energy landscape, was shrouded in secrecy, adding to the intrigue and the multiple questions surrounding the Trump administration’s rapport with Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, The New York Times shed light on the complex nature of the relationship between the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia, particularly in the aftermath of the tragic killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This incident strained U.S.-Saudi relations, and the communications between the two nations during this tumultuous period further highlighted the nuanced and often controversial nature of their rapport.

There’s no doubt that the depth and nature of these personal communications between key members of the Trump administration and Saudi leaders were intricate. Whether it was Kushner’s unorthodox messaging habits or Flynn’s ambitious nuclear endeavors, these behind-the-scenes interactions provide invaluable insights into the multifaceted and often contentious relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia during the Trump era.

The Strange Bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue

The high-stakes world of international diplomacy often moves behind closed doors, and during the Trump administration, these corridors seemed particularly opaque. At the heart of this enigmatic diplomacy was Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, whose dealings with Saudi Arabia raised eyebrows, especially in the backdrop of the notorious case of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

In the bustling heart of New York City, 666 Fifth Avenue, a property bought by Kushner Companies, was hemorrhaging under a nearly $1.4 billion debt. As Kushner grappled with this financial dilemma, his influential role in shaping U.S. policy towards the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, became increasingly significant. Reports from The Intercept highlighted his close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with the latter reportedly asserting that Kushner was “in his pocket.”

Against this backdrop emerged the grim incident involving Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist and a critic of the Saudi regime. In 2018, Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The act sent shockwaves internationally, but within the Trump administration, the official response appeared surprisingly restrained. The New York Times reported that President Trump, in an extraordinary statement, stood firmly with the Saudis despite the implications surrounding Khashoggi’s murder.

The ensuing narrative began connecting disparate dots. Kushner’s 666 Fifth Avenue, teetering on financial ruin, seemed to find solace in potential investments from the Middle East. The New York Times highlighted the Saudi Investment Fund’s initial hesitations before committing significant financial resources to Kushner’s business ventures. This, combined with Kushner’s personal and informal diplomacy – like his reported WhatsApp communications with the Saudi Crown Prince – deepened the intrigue. When Khashoggi’s murder was thrown into this mix, the lines between personal business and official U.S. foreign policy seemed even more indistinct.

The official U.S. response to Khashoggi’s murder, juxtaposed against Kushner’s dealings in the region, inevitably raised questions. Was the administration’s muted stance on the journalist’s killing influenced by the close personal relationships and potential business dealings between key U.S. figures and Saudi Arabia?

The bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue by sources that included firms with strong ties to the Middle East, such as Brookfield Asset Management (which has significant investment from Qatar), added fuel to the speculations. In this intricate web, discerning between genuine foreign policy decisions and those possibly influenced by personal interests became a challenge.

While the narrative should be navigated carefully, ensuring a distinction between established facts and conjectures, the interplay of Kushner’s personal interests, the Khashoggi incident, and U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia during the Trump administration posed unsettling questions about the true motives behind America’s diplomatic decisions.

Affinity Partners and the Saudi Investment Controversy

Jared Kushner, senior advisor to former President Trump, embarked on a new venture after his stint at the White House: Affinity Partners. While the investment firm projected its influence towards Asia and the Middle East, it’s Kushner’s potential financial entanglement with Saudi Arabia that has attracted the spotlight, particularly given his past diplomatic engagements with the region.

The intricate ties between Kushner and Saudi leadership aren’t new. His frequent engagements with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) had been a topic of interest and concern throughout Trump’s presidency. According to a report by Business Insider, the two shared informal communication channels, including the use of WhatsApp for discussions. This casual approach to diplomacy, coupled with MBS’s alleged comments boasting about having Kushner “in his pocket,” as cited by The Intercept, highlighted a relationship that seemed beyond just official duties.

Such bonds naturally intensified speculations when it came to the operations of Affinity Partners. The New York Times reported in April 2022 about Saudi Investment Fund’s deliberations on extending billions to Kushner, even as it expressed doubts. The potential direct investment from Saudi Arabia, speculated to be around $2 billion, was in itself a matter of controversy. Given Kushner’s past political role and his close relationship with Saudi leadership, there were apprehensions of a conflict of interest.

The perception of the blending of Kushner’s political and business interests wasn’t unfounded. During Trump’s tenure, several events raised eyebrows. The Washington Post reported on Saudi-funded lobbyists booking 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after the 2016 election. There was also Trump’s unusual eagerness to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, as noted by Vanity Fair and the Washington Post. Furthermore, officials like Michael Flynn expressed interest in schemes to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia, as detailed by Newsweek and Vox.

The lobbying didn’t just stop at Flynn. As per USA Today, Trump fundraiser Thomas Barrack Jr. was implicated in lobbying for a Saudi nuclear deal. Various sources, including reports from Vanity Fair and Reuters, suggest that there was an orchestrated attempt by Trump’s allies to profit from a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, specifically with a firm named IP3 International which aimed to build nuclear reactors in the region.

Adding to the puzzle was the Trump administration’s curious handling of sensitive issues involving Saudi Arabia. Following the tragic killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump’s statement standing with the Saudis, as reported by The New York Times, seemed in stark contrast to global reactions. Trump also notably went out of his way to highlight Saudi Arabia’s regret over a shooting at a Florida naval base, as Business Insider highlighted.

In sum, while Affinity Partners in itself is a legitimate business venture, the firm’s potential financial engagements, particularly with Saudi Arabia, are riddled with complexities due to Kushner’s past diplomatic role and personal affiliations. The entwined narratives of politics, diplomacy, and business have left a trail of questions, requiring transparency and answers.

Khashoggi’s Murder and the Official Cover-Up

The tragic killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and critic of the Saudi regime, became a flashpoint in U.S.-Saudi relations, unveiling the delicate balance of geopolitics, business interests, and human rights. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, never to emerge alive. His disappearance and subsequent revelations about his brutal murder strained the relationship between two allies and posed profound questions about the nature of diplomacy, morality, and international power dynamics.

The New York Times provided an unsettling account of how the Khashoggi hit job unfolded. The meticulous planning, the chilling actions of a 15-member Saudi hit team, and the subsequent efforts to cover up the crime all painted a picture of an operation that, many believe, could not have been carried out without the knowledge, if not the directive, of the highest echelons of the Saudi government. Yet, as the details emerged, a pressing question persisted: how would the Trump administration respond to such an egregious act by a long-standing ally?

Indeed, the initial response by President Trump drew intense scrutiny. As reported by The New York Times, in an extraordinary statement, Trump stood by the Saudis despite mounting evidence of their involvement in the Khashoggi killing. This stance was not merely a matter of diplomacy; it was also a testament to the tangled web of business and political interests between the two nations. With billions in arms sales and other economic interests at stake, the Trump administration seemed to walk a tightrope, trying to balance condemnation with conciliation.

The intricate dance of diplomacy became even more evident when Business Insider reported on how Trump and his team went out of their way to highlight Saudi Arabia’s regret over the shooting incident at a Florida naval base. Such immediate emphasis on the Saudi stance was seen by many as an attempt to manage the narrative and protect the relationship.

The reaction of other world leaders, international organizations, and the global media contrasted starkly with the Trump administration’s approach. Widespread condemnation of the act and calls for justice for Khashoggi echoed around the world, demanding accountability from the Saudi regime.

Yet, amidst the outrage and the calls for punitive measures against Saudi Arabia, the Trump administration’s stance appeared to favor maintaining ties over punitive actions. The Washington Post, in an opinion piece, questioned the administration’s eagerness to provide nuclear technology to what many viewed as a reckless Saudi regime, especially in the light of the Khashoggi incident. The article underscored concerns about the potential misuse of nuclear technology and the broader implications of prioritizing business interests over human rights and international norms.

The killing of Jamal Khashoggi and its aftermath served as a litmus test for international diplomacy, forcing nations, including the U.S., to reassess the values and principles that guide their foreign relations. The episode not only shed light on the stark realities of geopolitics but also laid bare the complexities inherent in the relationship between two nations intertwined by history, business, and strategic interests.

An Unconventional Defense: Trump’s Apology for Saudi Arabia Post-Pensacola Shooting

On a somber day in December 2019, the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, became the site of a deadly shooting. An officer from the Royal Saudi Air Force, stationed in the U.S. for training purposes, opened fire, tragically taking the lives of three American sailors and injuring eight others. As America tried to come to terms with this act of violence on its soil, President Donald Trump’s response to the incident stood out, not just for its content, but also for its diplomatic undertones.

Rather than unequivocally condemning the act or taking a strong stance on vetting processes for foreign military trainees, Trump’s comments post-incident focused on relaying condolences from Saudi leadership. As reported by Business Insider, Trump and his team went out of their way to emphasize the sorrow expressed by the Saudi King and Crown Prince. He relayed that they were devastated by the event, reinforcing that the attacker’s actions were not representative of the broader sentiments of the Saudi people towards Americans.

This posture was perceived as an anomaly, particularly in the backdrop of recent U.S.-Saudi relations. The Trump administration, as highlighted in various sources, displayed a recurrent pattern of seemingly prioritizing Saudi interests, or at least smoothing over potential diplomatic conflicts. Vanity Fair reported in 2019 on the eagerness of the Trump administration to potentially share nuclear secrets with the Saudi regime. This was amid concerns about Saudi Arabia’s potential nuclear ambitions and raised eyebrows among diplomatic circles and policy experts.

However, the diplomatic entanglements didn’t stop there. Financial ties between Saudi entities and Trump’s businesses had raised several red flags. One significant point of contention, as reported by The Washington Post, was the Saudi-funded booking of 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel shortly after the 2016 election. Such financial transactions, in the context of broader U.S.-Saudi relations, made Trump’s defense post-Pensacola even more puzzling to observers.

To add another layer to the already complex relationship, the administration’s reaction to the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 was a topic of intense debate. The New York Times documented Trump’s stance in which he stood by the Saudis despite global uproar over the killing, further entrenching the perception that the administration was wary of offending the Saudi leadership, even in the face of blatant human rights violations.

The Trump administration’s handling of the Pensacola shooting, against this backdrop, seemed to be yet another instance of prioritizing Saudi relations, possibly at the expense of clear communication and transparency with the American public. While the intricacies of diplomacy are complex and multifaceted, the incident and its aftermath became a poignant case study of U.S.-Saudi relations during Trump’s presidency.