Articles from Saudi Arabia and Ukraine portray Donald Trump’s policy as a mix of threats, bargaining and possible economic deals. Amid the threat of imminent military action against Iran, options for economic engagement with Tehran are also being discussed. With regard to Russia and Ukraine, concerns center on possible sanctions relief and agreements between major powers: critics warn that such decisions could ease pressure on Moscow and undermine Kyiv’s interests. This article is based on reporting by Al Jazeera (Saudi Arabia) and Slovo i Dilo (Ukraine).
Threat to Iran Raises Risks for Oil and the Strait of Hormuz
US statements about a possible new military operation against Iran, along with Donald Trump’s promise to secure a “big and beautiful” deal, are adding to uncertainty over the security of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the global oil market. As Al Jazeera notes, for Saudi Arabia this is more than a dispute between Washington and Tehran: an escalation near its borders could affect hydrocarbon exports, maritime trade, shipping insurance costs, the investment climate and the implementation of long-term development programs.
Trump is effectively issuing Tehran an ultimatum: accept an agreement or face a military strike. The US president says the United States can “finish the job” quickly and identifies preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as the central condition for a lasting settlement. At the same time, reports say Washington is considering various operational scenarios, ranging from attacks on military and political targets deep inside the country to strikes on civilian and energy infrastructure.
The possibility that the conflict could spread to the energy sector is especially alarming to Gulf states. Strikes on Iranian infrastructure could trigger retaliation in the Persian Gulf, maritime incidents, sabotage, or threats to oil terminals and shipping. In that case, not only Iranian facilities but also export routes across the region would be at risk.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the United States of derailing a temporary agreement, calling the US administration “cowards.” He nevertheless advocated making another attempt to reach a deal. Tehran also rejected reports that it was prepared to link the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to the lifting of the naval blockade. These signals suggest that both sides are formally leaving room for negotiations, but their positions remain hard-line, and the strait remains one of their main instruments of pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz is of strategic importance to Riyadh. It is one of the world’s key oil shipping routes, and even limited instability in the area could send prices soaring, increase insurance costs, disrupt supplies and raise risks for tanker traffic. Trump’s statements about increased shipments through Hormuz may be aimed at reassuring markets, but they do not eliminate the main threat: a military conflict could quickly change the conditions for maritime traffic.
Saudi Arabia’s primary interest is to prevent the war from spreading. Any clash between the United States and Iran raises the likelihood of strikes, sabotage and maritime incidents near the territory of the kingdom and its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Even a brief escalation could disrupt supply chains and have consequences not only for oil revenues but for the wider regional economy.
This prospect is particularly concerning for the Vision 2030 program. Saudi Arabia’s diversification strategy depends on a steady flow of international capital, tourism growth, predictable business conditions and secure infrastructure. A crisis-driven rise in oil prices could bring short-term budget gains, but a protracted regional war runs counter to the goals of economic modernization and undermines investment prospects.
In recent years, Riyadh has sought to reduce tensions with Tehran, including by restoring bilateral contacts. The prospect of US strikes is therefore seen not as a guaranteed way to resolve the nuclear issue, but as a risk of undoing a fragile regional détente. The article does not quote Saudi officials or experts directly, but its focus on the Strait of Hormuz, energy and the risk of the conflict spreading reflects concerns that matter to Gulf states.
Saudi Arabia’s view goes beyond the question of whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. The cost of a possible military campaign, and who will bear its consequences, also matters. Diplomacy built around the formula “a deal or a strike” could leave neighboring countries hostage to decisions made outside the region, while the security of the Gulf, stable shipping and the continuity of oil supplies require not escalation but a lasting political settlement.
Trump Says US Could Do Business With Ukraine and Russia After the War
US President Donald Trump said that after the war ends, Washington will “do business with both Ukraine and Russia.” As the Ukrainian outlet Slovo i Dilo reports, he did not specify which sectors he meant or what conditions would be imposed on Moscow and Kyiv.
For Ukraine, the wording is particularly sensitive. Russia continues its full-scale war, so the prospect of its economic ties with the West being restored soon raises concerns that normalization could come before questions of accountability for aggression, reparations and security guarantees for Ukraine are resolved.
The article discusses Trump’s remarks against the backdrop of economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine that is already underway. The US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, it notes, has concluded its first minerals deal and approved four more projects, including initiatives to support the energy sector. For Kyiv, these are not merely commercial agreements but also a tool for postwar recovery, attracting US capital and strengthening energy resilience.
At the same time, the Ukrainian outlet draws attention to reports by The New York Times about possible economic offers to the Kremlin in exchange for a partial ceasefire. Among the options discussed was restoring Russian gas exports to the European Union. Such a scenario is especially alarming in Ukraine, where dependence on Russian gas has previously given Moscow significant political leverage.
The return of Russian fuel to the European market without eliminating the military threat could revive the previous model of relations, in which Western countries’ economic interests weaken their willingness to resist pressure from Russia. From Ukraine’s perspective, this creates a risk that an end to active hostilities will be treated as sufficient grounds for bringing the aggressor back into the global economy.
Trump also considered the possibility of imposing 200% tariffs on Ukraine and Russia as a way to push the parties toward peace. However, he acknowledged that the measure seemed unrealistic because the volume of trade is relatively small. For Kyiv, this approach illustrates the risks of “transactional diplomacy,” in which war, sanctions and peace talks are discussed primarily in terms of tariffs, markets and economic deals.
Ukraine assesses possible agreements by different criteria: preserving sovereignty, liberating occupied territories, holding Russia accountable, securing compensation for damages and establishing reliable mechanisms to prevent another war.
Although Slovo i Dilo’s article does not include separate comments from politicians or experts, its structure conveys the Ukrainian view of Trump’s statement. His remarks about doing business with both countries are presented alongside the prospect of investment in Ukraine’s economy, reports of possible concessions to Moscow and the question of Russian gas.
The central issue for Ukraine, then, is not the prospect of postwar economic activity itself, but the conditions under which it takes place. Economic cooperation with the United States could contribute to the country’s recovery and the long-term deterrence of Russia. But in Kyiv, restoring business ties with Moscow before the consequences of aggression have been addressed, reparations paid and security guarantees established is seen as a risk of renewed destabilization.
