Trump Eyes Arab Funding for US-Israel Iran War, Says White House

The White House indicated President Donald Trump is considering asking Arab nations to help finance the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. This comes as Pentagon figures reveal the conflict cost over $11.3 billion in its first six days alone, with billions more in projected losses. The administration is seeking an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund the war and replenish munitions. Unlike the 1991 Gulf War, this conflict lacks a broad international coalition or formal regional backing.

Key Points: Trump May Ask Arab Nations to Fund Iran War Costs

  • Trump interested in Arab funding for Iran war
  • US spent over $11.3B in first six days
  • White House seeks $200B more from Congress
  • War lacks broad coalition of 1991 Gulf War
2 min read

Trump 'interested' in asking Arab countries to help pay for US-Israeli war with Iran: White House

White House says Trump is interested in having Arab countries help pay for the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, as war costs soar.

"I know that he has and something that I think you'll hear more from him on. - Karoline Leavitt"

Washington, March 31

US President Donald Trump "would be quite interested" in calling on Arab countries to help pay for the costs related to the ongoing US-Israeli war against Iran, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

"I won't get ahead of him (Trump) on that," Leavitt said at a White House press briefing. "But certainly it's an idea that I know that he has and something that I think you'll hear more from him on."

Pentagon officials told the US Congress earlier this month that the Trump administration spent more than $11.3 billion in the first six days of its war against Iran, Xinhua news agency reported.

The figure does not include battle damage and replacement of losses, which likely costs the Pentagon roughly $1.4 billion to $ 2.9 billion over the first three weeks of the war, according to a Wall Street Journal report, quoting Elaine McCusker, former Pentagon budget official who has been tracking the cost for the American Enterprise Institute.

The White House is seeking at least $200 billion in additional military spending from Congress to help fund the military campaign in Iran and replenish the Pentagon's munition stockpiles.

Leavitt also reiterated the Trump administration's assertion that the surge in energy prices will be outweighed by the gains of weakening Iran.

"The overall message, as we repeatedly stated again: These are short-term actions and short-term price fluctuations for the long-term benefit of ending the threat that Iran poses to the United States of America, our troops and our allies in the region," she told reporters.

During the Gulf War, the United States led a broad international coalition of dozens of countries, acting with UN backing and at the request of Kuwait and several Arab states after Iraq's invasion. In contrast, the current conflict with Iran sees the US and Israel acting largely on their own, without a comparable coalition, formal regional support, or the same level of international legitimacy.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
The cost figures are staggering! $11.3 billion in six days? That money could transform healthcare and education in so many developing countries, including parts of India. War is never the answer, and making others pay for it feels unjust. 🙏
A
Aman W
From a strategic perspective, India has vital interests in the Gulf for energy and diaspora welfare. This conflict destabilizes the entire region. The US should not act unilaterally with Israel; it needs broader regional consensus, like during the Gulf War. Our government must engage diplomatically to protect Indian interests.
S
Sarah B
While I understand the security concerns about Iran, the approach seems flawed. The "short-term pain for long-term gain" argument is often used, but regular people in India and worldwide feel the pinch at petrol pumps immediately. The human and economic cost is too high.
V
Vikram M
This feels like a business deal, not foreign policy. "You fight, you pay" is Trump's style, but it damages America's standing. As a country that values strategic autonomy, India should be wary of such transactional approaches to international relations. It sets a dangerous precedent.
K
Kavya N
The article mentions the lack of a broad coalition or UN backing. That's key. Without legitimacy, it's just aggression. India has always advocated for peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue. Hope cooler heads prevail before this spirals further and affects global stability. 🇮🇳

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50