On March 30 local time, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt answered questions from reporters during a briefing —
A journalist asked: "During the Gulf War in 1990–1991, Arab nations bore most of the war's costs, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. So who will cover the expenses this time? Will these Arab countries step forward to shoulder the financial burden?"
In response, Leavitt said: "I think the President would be very interested in calling on them to do so. I won’t preempt his decision, but I know he does have that idea, and I believe you’ll hear more from him on this matter."
Faced with a direct question about 'who will pay,' Leavitt responded with remarkable tact. She offered no clear commitment or specific plan. Instead, she shifted the focus from whether the U.S. needs allies to contribute financially to the fact that the President is interested in advancing such a move. This is a classic example of a “strategic ambiguity” tactic—neither confirming that the U.S. will bear the costs alone (to avoid appearing weak), nor definitively asserting that allies will pay (to prevent premature diplomatic friction)—thereby preserving maximum flexibility for the Trump administration in future negotiations.
The journalist’s deliberate reference to the 1991 Gulf War precedent was essentially about framing the current discussion. Leavitt did not dispute this analogy, effectively accepting the implicit assumption that today’s Middle East military operations could follow the same model as in 1991—where regional wealthy nations covered the bulk of expenses. This sends a clear signal: the U.S. government intends to continue relying on Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to play the role of "financial backers" in any potential military action in the region, maintaining the long-standing operational logic of "U.S. provides troops, allies provide funding."
This amounts to Leavitt conveying the Trump administration’s consistent “America First” stance to the American public—that the U.S. will not pay for Middle East security out of goodwill, and regional countries must share the fiscal burden. This aligns perfectly with Trump’s long-standing narrative demanding allies “pay their fair share,” while also soothing domestic concerns over the potential financial and human costs of overseas military interventions.
Overall, this was a carefully crafted “non-answer”: it sidestepped substantive details—such as whether agreements have already been reached with relevant countries or whether concrete military plans are in place—but clearly signaled direction: the U.S. government aims to make Gulf Arab nations bear the primary financial responsibility for any potential Middle East military operation, and this demand will be pursued in a high-profile, publicly visible manner.
There are always willing victims ready to be taken advantage of; this pattern has become so routine that everyone has grown accustomed to it. Such behavior would be unthinkable in Europe.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1861135210652672/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.