The White House said on Monday that Donald Trump was in favour, at least in principle, of Arab participation at the cost of the war against Iran. When asked at a press conference about the idea of sharing the bill with Arab states, spokesman Karoline Leavitt replied that it was « something the president would rather be interested in doing », without announcing specific mechanisms or quoting countries.
The sequence is important, as it marks a shift from debate to political and strategic financing of the conflict. According to reports of the press conference, Karoline Leavitt did not confirm that a formal request had already been made to Arab capitals, but she suggested that Donald Trump could publicly come back on this subject. The idea therefore remains, at this stage, at the level of an option envisaged by the US Presidency.
This position comes as the Trump administration continues to combine diplomatic opening messages with military threats against Tehran. On the same day, Donald Trump claimed that « serious discussions » were under way with a more « reasonable » Iranian « new regime, » while threatening to hit Iran’s energy infrastructure massively if no agreement was reached quickly and the Ormuz Strait was not reopened.
The question of an Arab contribution also refers to a well-known historical precedent in Washington: the Gulf War of 1990-1991, a significant part of which had been compensated by regional allies, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It was this reminder that served as a point of support for Karoline Leavitt’s question at the briefing, according to the Wall Street Journal.
At this stage, no public engagement from Arab countries has been announced. Moreover, the positions of the Gulf monarchies remain complex: several United States regional partners support a hard line against Iran, but are also concerned about the economic, security and energy consequences of prolonged war. Information published in recent days shows that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are pushing Washington not to conclude an agreement with Tehran too quickly, while keeping in mind the risk of escalation in the Gulf.
In the immediate future, the White House’s statement adds a new dimension to the Iranian case: after diplomacy, threats to Ormuz and ultimatums on oil infrastructure, the question of war financing is now entering the American public debate. It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will turn this idea into a concrete request addressed to the Arab capitals, or whether it is for the moment a political signal launched in a context of maximum pressure on Tehran.
