Skip to main content

When the Check Precedes the Cannon: How Gulf States Quietly Finance Foreign Wars

One constant has emerged in Middle Eastern conflicts since the early 2000s: war is not always waged by those who fund it — but it is often paid for by the same players. From the 2011 war against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya to the current tensions with Iran, several Gulf powers — particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — have played the role of silent financiers of wars carried out by others, primarily the United States and its allies.

The Libyan Precedent: A NATO War Funded by the Gulf

In 2011, the military campaign against Gaddafi, launched under a UN mandate and led by NATO, was heavily financed by Gulf monarchies. Qatar took an active role on the ground, supporting armed rebel groups, while the UAE and Saudi Arabia provided discreet diplomatic and logistical support. Although the war was framed as a humanitarian intervention in response to repression, it clearly served geopolitical aims: to eliminate a non-aligned leader, reshape the regional balance of power, and secure energy interests. Gulf funding was not merely an act of solidarity — it was a strategic investment in a regional reconfiguration that would benefit their influence.

Trump, Iran, and the Saudi Billions: An Unspoken Pact?

In 2017, shortly after Donald Trump took office, Saudi Arabia signed arms and economic cooperation agreements with the U.S. valued at over $400 billion. This deal went far beyond arms sales. It symbolized a strengthened alliance built on mutual interests: containing Iran, halting the political expansion of Shiism, and supporting Israel within an emerging — if quiet — regional normalization.

But that was only the beginning. During Trump’s latest tour of the Gulf in 2025, as part of his political comeback and return to the global stage, he reportedly secured massive contractual pledges from Gulf monarchies worth an estimated $3.5 to $4 trillion. These unprecedented figures included arms deals, joint investments, energy programs, and infrastructure projects — all pointing to an implicit bargain: American (and indirectly Israeli) military, political, and technological support in exchange for virtually unlimited Gulf funding.

In this arrangement, Israel appears to be the regional enforcer, conducting targeted operations in Syria, Iraq, and even inside Iran, while the United States provides the diplomatic and strategic umbrella. Yet, it is the Gulf monarchies — primarily Saudi Arabia and the UAE — that quietly shoulder the financial burden of this undeclared war.

A Geopolitical Pattern: Gulf Money, Foreign Firepower

This configuration echoes earlier episodes: Gulf financing of armed groups in Syria, logistical support for Western interventions, or even direct military engagement in Yemen’s protracted war. Wealthy but militarily constrained, Gulf regimes have consistently opted to outsource warfare to more capable powers, even if it means footing the entire bill.

This approach is grounded in an internal logic of regime preservation. By outsourcing war, Gulf states avoid military casualties, domestic backlash, and maintain their image of stability. In return, they gain leverage over the regional security architecture, especially regarding Iran — perceived not just as a rival, but as an existential threat.

Rented Sovereignty or Strategic Partnership?

Yet this model raises serious questions about sovereignty and strategic autonomy. When a state funds a war it does not control, can it truly manage its outcomes? The Libyan and Syrian interventions demonstrated that financing war does not guarantee victory — nor does it ensure favorable political results. In many cases, these interventions triggered new cycles of chaos and instability that even their financiers could not contain.

In the case of Iran, the stakes are even higher. Any escalation risks direct retaliation on Gulf territory — something no American missile defense system can fully prevent.

Conclusion: Contracted Warfare Is a Dangerous Gamble

Gulf monarchies have embraced a unique role in today’s geopolitical order: the quiet bankers of strategic, long-distance wars. This role gives them influence, but also exposes them to unpredictable consequences. Torn between silent support for Israel, military dependence on the U.S., and open hostility toward Iran, they find themselves in an increasingly ambiguous position — at once powerful and vulnerable.

Wars today are no longer fought by armies alone, but by financial commitments and geopolitical investments. In this new framework, Gulf petrodollars are as central to regional conflict as Israeli missiles or American drones.


By Belgacem Merbah



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Fall of the Rafale: A Russian Report Unveils Pakistan’s Silent Aerial Supremacy

A recently released Russian report sheds critical light on the underlying causes of the Indian Air Force’s setback in a high-stakes aerial encounter with Pakistan. At the heart of this analysis lies a stark conclusion: Pakistan’s integration of advanced airborne surveillance and missile systems—particularly the Saab 2000 Erieye—enabled it to outmaneuver and ambush Indian Rafale jets without warning, and with surgical precision. Saab 2000 Erieye: The Eye That Sees All At the core of Pakistan’s aerial strategy is the Saab 2000 Erieye, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft of Swedish origin. Pakistan currently operates a fleet of nine such aircraft, equipped with the Erieye AESA radar—a cutting-edge system with a detection range of up to 450 kilometers, a combat radius of 3,700 kilometers, and an endurance of nearly 9.5 hours. This high-altitude sentinel offers a formidable command-and-control platform, allowing Pakistan to orchestrate engagements from a distance, wit...

Algerian-Moroccan relations through the media prism and Moroccan-led mediation attempts

On August 24, 2021, Algeria took the historic step of officially severing diplomatic relations with Morocco. This move, seen as a direct response to Morocco's hostile actions, highlights a series of political, historical and geopolitical tensions that have plagued relations between the two neighbors for decades. This summary explores the major reasons for this rupture, integrating media dynamics, unsuccessful attempts at mediation, and historical grievances accumulated against Morocco. Relations between Algeria and Morocco have historically been marked by geopolitical tensions, notably due to the Western Sahara conflict and deep-seated political rivalries. This climate of mistrust is exacerbated by media coverage on both sides, with Moroccan media playing a key role in maintaining an obsession with Algeria, while Moroccan attempts to seek international mediation to ease these tensions remain unsuccessful. 1. Historical and political background The rivalry between Algeria and Morocc...

Operational Analysis of a Hypothetical Military Conflict between Algeria and Morocco

This article analyzes the potential for a military conflict between Algeria and Morocco in an operational and objective manner, without foreign intervention. It focuses on military capabilities, potential conflict scenarios, and strategic implications for both nations. The methodology is based on a comparative assessment of the armed forces of the two countries, geopolitical considerations, and hypothetical scenarios based on historical precedents and current military doctrines.