Why a US–Saudi defence pact is a risk America doesn’t need

As Washington and Riyadh reportedly inch closer to a “Qatar-plus” defense agreement—one modelled on the recent U.S.–Qatar security guarantee—the idea of a formal U.S. pledge to defend Saudi Arabia is back in the headlines. But as Responsible Statecraft argues, beneath the diplomatic fanfare lies a deeply flawed concept: a security pact that would add risks, bring few rewards, and lock the United States into obligations that serve neither its interests nor its credibility.

The article begins by tracing how this new push emerged in the wake of the Trump administration’s September 29 executive order guaranteeing Qatar’s security—America’s most explicit commitment to an Arab state. While framed as a tool to preserve Qatar’s mediation role during the Gaza ceasefire crisis, the deal set a dangerous precedent. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia, long eager for its own formal security guarantee, now wants the same treatment.

Supporters of a U.S.–Saudi pact argue that such an arrangement would reassure Riyadh of Washington’s reliability, counterbalance China’s growing influence in the Gulf, and incentivize Saudi normalization with Israel. Yet Responsible Statecraft dismantles each of these justifications. For one, Saudi doubts about U.S. commitment are rooted in strategic reality, not perception: defending the kingdom is simply not a vital U.S. interest. Oil no longer holds the existential weight it once did, with global markets now far more resilient to shocks and the U.S. itself a net exporter.

As for China, the outlet notes that Beijing’s engagement in the Middle East is primarily economic, not military or hegemonic. Promising to “protect” Saudi Arabia will not lure it away from Beijing; instead, it would hand Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a bargaining chip. Indeed, MBS himself has admitted to “playing major powers against each other” to extract concessions from both sides.

The article also challenges the idea that a defense pact could catalyse Israeli-Saudi normalization. The two countries already cooperate informally on security and intelligence matters; a U.S. security guarantee would merely formalize existing dynamics while adding a dangerous new liability for Washington.

More troubling, however, are the potential consequences. Responsible Statecraft warns that such a pact could encourage “reckless driving”—the moral hazard of U.S. allies acting rashly, confident that American forces will bail them out. Saudi Arabia’s catastrophic intervention in Yemen serves as a cautionary tale. Extensive U.S. support enabled a war that left nearly 400,000 dead and tarnished America’s reputation. It was only when Riyadh realised that U.S. protection was not unconditional that it began to seek peace.

Even a symbolic agreement, the analysis continues, risks trapping the U.S. in another endless security entanglement. Once written, such a pledge would generate political pressure to intervene should Saudi territory come under attack. It would also delay the long-overdue strategic rebalancing away from the Middle East—tying American resources and credibility to a region of diminishing importance.

By Vugar Khalilov