President Donald Trump is actively exploring the possibility of asking Gulf nations to shoulder the immense financial burden of America's ongoing war with Iran, a conflict already expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. During a press briefing yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that transferring the costs of the conflict to regional states is an idea Trump is keenly interested in pursuing. When asked whether the Gulf countries would step up to help foot the bill, Leavitt declined to get ahead of the president, but made clear that it is very much a concept he has in mind. The public could hear more from him on the matter as the administration weighs its financial options.
The proposal draws obvious parallels with the financial arrangements of the 1990–1991 Gulf War, when a broad coalition of nations banded together to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. On that occasion, regional states and coalition members—including Germany and Japan—raised $54 billion, equivalent to some $134 billion today, to help cover the cost of American military intervention. The present situation, however, is starkly different. Unlike the Gulf War, in which the United States led a coalition assembled with the formal consent of its allies, the current military campaign against Iran was launched unilaterally by Washington and Tel Aviv, without the prior involvement of regional partners.
That distinction matters enormously. Because the Gulf states were not party to the decision to go to war, the prospect of demanding that they now fund it represents a considerable political gamble. These nations had explicitly warned that a conflict of this kind would carry devastating consequences for the wider region and those warnings are now bearing out. Regional commentators have described it as a "big ask" to expect countries already suffering the economic and security fallout of a war they did not choose to suddenly underwrite its costs. Gulf states are currently absorbing direct threats and the full weight of regional instability, making any financial contribution politically fraught, however deep their sovereign wealth funds may be. Officials close to the discussions acknowledge that whilst this remains early-stage thinking rather than a formal proposal on the negotiating table, it has already generated considerable pushback. The prevailing sentiment across the region is straightforward: since the United States and Israel chose to act unilaterally, they ought to bear the financial consequences rather than passing the bill to countries that were simply caught in the crossfire.
Other voices aligned with the Trump administration have floated alternative means of financing the campaign. Conservative commentator Sean Hannity recently suggested that any ceasefire agreement should compel Iran to repay the United States in oil, covering the full cost of military operations. The proposition, however, appears largely fanciful. Tehran has actively countered this narrative by placing its own demand for American war reparations at the centre of its conditions for peace. Despite Iran's public dismissal of US peace proposals as unrealistic, Leavitt has maintained that private negotiations are continuing and making meaningful progress, arguing that what Iran says behind closed doors differs markedly from its public posture, and that the administration intends to rigorously test any private commitments Tehran makes.
Privately, while several Gulf allies were initially irked by the lack of advance notice before the US-Israeli strikes began, they have reportedly conveyed through private channels that they do not wish to see the military operation end prematurely. Many of them view the campaign as a historic opportunity to fundamentally weaken Iran's clerical leadership, and are pressing Washington to continue until there is either a dramatic change in Iranian behaviour or a significant transformation in its governance. They believe that halting the conflict now would fail to produce a settlement capable of guaranteeing long-term regional security. They want a durable agreement to comprehensively neutralise Iran's nuclear programme, dismantle its ballistic missile capabilities, sever its support for proxy forces across the region and secure permanent freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has publicly praised these allies for their resolve and alignment with American objectives.
The human and economic toll of the conflict continues to mount. More than 3,000 people have been killed across the Middle East since fighting began, including nearly 2,000 Iranians. The financial cost to the United States is escalating rapidly; the first twelve days of the war alone are estimated to have cost $16.5 billion, prompting the White House to seek at least $200 billion in additional military funding from Congress. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which a fifth of the world's oil supply once flowed — has sparked a global energy crisis, pushing crude oil prices to $116 a barrel and petrol prices at American pumps to $4 a gallon, with ripple effects felt far beyond the region.