Nournews: Gabriel Souma, an adviser to Trump’s team, stated that Persian Gulf countries must pay for the costs of war. His remarks reveal a crucial reality in U.S. foreign policy: in Washington’s view, security is not a commitment but a commodity for sale. This approach comes at a time when U.S. officials have explicitly acknowledged that these wars were not fought for self-defense but to support specific allies, particularly the Israeli regime.
This obvious contradiction shows a structure in which Arab countries are defined as “paying clients” rather than “independent security actors.” In such a framework, security, instead of being a product of regional cooperation, becomes a tool for dependency and the perpetuation of dominance. The result is a kind of security illusion, whose costs far outweigh its benefits.
Israel’s Priority and the Erosion of Regional Security
Field evidence and official statements from U.S. officials indicate that Washington’s main priority in the region is not the stability of Arab countries but the security of the Israeli regime. From Trump to senior U.S. military and diplomatic officials, all have emphasized this priority. Even some former U.S. officials have admitted that Iran did not pose a direct threat to the U.S., and entering the war was solely to support Israel.
Meanwhile, Arab countries, by spending billions of dollars on arms purchases, have effectively trapped themselves in a cycle whose outcome is not security but increased vulnerability. Dependence on the U.S. security umbrella has prevented these countries from developing domestic security capacities and left them without independent decision-making abilities in critical moments. This situation has effectively tied regional security to an external project whose priorities do not align with the real interests of the peoples of the region.
American Invoicing and the War Economy
U.S. history in various parts of the world shows that the country has always sought to extract costs from others after military interventions. From Afghanistan and Iraq to Ukraine and even Europe, Washington’s approach follows a pattern of “invoicing”—a model in which war becomes a business.
In this context, demanding the costs of war from Arab countries is not an exception but part of a structural pattern. Through arms sales, military bases, and imposed security costs, the U.S. has effectively imposed a war economy on the region. Meanwhile, these same countries have often been unable to ensure the security of vital routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, during crises.
By contrast, Iran’s experience demonstrates that relying on domestic capabilities can build a form of power that is not only deterrent but also capable of altering regional balances. This difference clearly shows that security is not something that can be bought—it must be built.
Strategic Error and the Need to Return to the Region
Continued dependence of Arab countries on the U.S. is a clear example of a repeated strategic miscalculation. By becoming military bases and financial supporters of U.S. policies, these countries have not secured their own safety and have instead been exposed to greater threats.
The way out of this situation is to return to a domestic security model—one based on regional cooperation, elimination of foreign interventions, and strengthening integration among countries in the region. Expelling U.S. forces and closing military bases could be the first step in this direction.
Moreover, unity against common threats, particularly the Israeli regime, could pave the way for a new regional order—one in which security is provided from within the region, not imposed from outside. Otherwise, maintaining the current situation, especially amid sensitive energy conditions and the Strait of Hormuz, could impose even heavier costs on Arab countries.