A paradigm shift amid a regional escalation
From strategic commitment to transactional model
Reactions from the Gulf: dependence and mistrust
The financial dimension: investments as a lever for pressure
A paradigm shift amid a regional escalation
Amid the escalating tensions between the United States, Israel and Iran, a debate is taking shape that transcends the military sphere and enters fully into the political, economic and strategic realms: who pays for security in the Gulf?
The idea that regional allies must shoulder a greater share of the cost — championed by Donald Trump — points to something deeper than a mere budgetary negotiation. What is at stake is a redefinition of the security model that has sustained the balance of power in the Middle East for decades.
To understand the magnitude of the change, it is worth remembering that the relationship between Washington and the Gulf did not begin as an economic contract, but as an implicit strategic agreement. Since the historic understanding between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ibn Saud, the logic has been clear: security in exchange for energy stability and political alignment.
For decades, this framework has enabled the United States to guarantee the flow of oil and maintain a decisive military presence in one of the most sensitive regions in the world.
US President Donald Trump talks with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani – REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN
From strategic commitment to transactional model
Today, that balance is beginning to come under strain. The Gulf remains a critical hub for the global economy, not only because of oil, but also due to its role in trade routes and as a key area for US military deployment.
Bases, defence systems and naval presence —especially at strategic points such as the Strait of Hormuz— form part of an architecture that protects both regional and global interests.
The proposal that “they should pay” introduces a significant conceptual shift. It is not merely a matter of funding bases—something that already happens to some extent—but of extending the contribution to military operations, advanced defence systems—such as missile defence shields—and potential scenarios of post-conflict reconstruction. It is a clearly transactional approach: security ceases to be a structural commitment and becomes a service with an explicit cost.
This approach also responds to internal dynamics within the United States. Weariness following years of interventions in the Middle East, pressure on public spending and a political narrative increasingly focused on the economic return from alliances have reinforced the idea that partners must contribute more.
In this context, the Gulf emerges as an obvious candidate, given its financial clout and its dependence on the US security umbrella.
President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman shake hands during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C. on 18 November 2025 – REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN
Reactions from the Gulf: dependence and mistrust
The reaction in the region, however, is ambivalent. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait face a strategic dilemma. On the one hand, they need US protection against the Iranian threat.
On the other, they perceive that key decisions — particularly in scenarios of escalation — are not always coordinated with them, despite the fact that they are the first to face the consequences.
Iran is not a passive player on this chessboard. The potential rift between the United States and its Gulf allies opens a window of opportunity for Tehran, which can exploit any sign of weakness or lack of coordination. The greater the mistrust between Washington and the Gulf states, the greater Iran’s room for manoeuvre in the region.
Smoke rises from the Saudi Aramco oil refinery in Ras Tanura following an alleged attack by Iranian drones, amid the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran, in Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia, on 2 March 2026 – PHOTO/ REUTERS
The financial dimension: investments as a lever for pressure
The relationship between the United States and the Gulf states is not limited to the military sphere. It is deeply intertwined at a financial level. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has committed massive investments in the US economy, ranging from technology to large funds and strategic sectors. These flows form part of a network of interdependence that has strengthened the bilateral alliance.
However, the harsher rhetoric in Washington introduces a risk factor. If pressure on the Gulf to fund security intensifies, these investments could become a bargaining chip. This would not necessarily involve an abrupt withdrawal, but rather a slowdown, reorientation or diversification into other markets.
Gulf sovereign wealth funds, among the largest in the world, have the capacity to influence key sectors of the US economy. A strategic review — even if only partial — could affect project financing and the stability of certain assets.
Oil tankers off the coast of Fujairah, whilst Iran threatens to fire on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, amid the conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran, in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates – REUTERS/ AMR ALFIKY
Energy and global balance
The energy factor remains decisive. The influence of players such as OPEC has a direct impact on global markets. Any deterioration in relations between the United States and the Gulf could spill over into prices, production and international economic stability, at a time already marked by volatility.
Rather than an immediate rupture, the most plausible scenario is a gradual erosion of the relationship. This would manifest itself in cumulative decisions: lower investment volumes in the United States, greater strategic autonomy and an active diversification of international alliances.
The cost to the United States
For Washington, the risk is no less significant. A rift with the Gulf could weaken its ability to project power in the Middle East, make its military presence more costly and reduce its influence over energy markets. Furthermore, it would open the door to other powers interested in expanding their presence in the region, altering the global geopolitical balance.
The issue is no longer simply who foots the bill for a specific war. What is being redefined is the nature of the relationship between the United States and the Gulf. If the model shifts from being structural to transactional, the result may be a more pragmatic, but also more fragile, alliance, subject to shifting interests and less predictable in an environment that is already unstable.