By: DANIELLE GREYMAN-KENNARD

WASHINGTON, JUL 14: US President Donald Trump wants Gulf states to reimburse the United States for the protection provided to them amid ongoing Iranian attacks, the president told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday.

“I want to be reimbursed because we’re protecting a very rich portion of the world. We’re spending money, so… we are going to be reimbursed for protection,” Trump told reporters.

The US doesn’t “need” those countries because “we have more oil than any other country in the world,” he asserted. “We’re protecting all of them, and we’ve done a very effective job.”

Trump previously said Washington would become the “guardian of the Hormuz Strait,” protecting the vital waterway, responsible for a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas, in exchange for a reimbursement rate of 20%.

Though potentially lucrative, Professor Chuck Freilich warned The Jerusalem Post that Trump’s “absurd demand” validated Tehran’s own demands for fees in Hormuz.

A view of Iranian-flagged cargo ship M/V Touska as the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided missile destroyer USS Spruance conducts its interception in a location given as the north Arabian Sea, in this screen capture from a video released April 19, 2026.
Iran’s FM Araghchi mocks Trump 20% demand, Tehran jockeys for Hormuz control
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had earlier mocked Trump’s demand for a 20% fee for crossing the Strait of Hormuz, seemingly positioning Tehran as the preferred administrator.

“POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service,” Araghchi wrote on social media. “Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.”

Asked what Trump’s motives could be, Frieilich said that “money is his primary motivation in life; he thinks only in monetary terms.”

Though the financial demand on Gulf states may be a new development, Dr. Yoel Guzansky, the head of the Gulf Research Field at the Institute for National Security Studies, said that it was likely something Gulf states expected from Trump, who has built his identity on being a businessman.

“Trump, he is transactional, always looking for where the money is. He’s a businessman, he admits it, and he’s not ashamed of it; he’s proud of it, and the Gulf States understood that from the beginning,” Guzansky commented.

Asked how Gulf states would justify the cost of US protection, given that Washington’s military presence in the region has itself been cited by Iran as a justification for attacks, Guzansky responded that the security benefits of hosting US forces ultimately outweigh the risks and would likely tip the balance in favor of maintaining an American presence.

Without America’s presence in the region, Guzansky argued that many Gulf states would have been conquered by Iran, or at least subjected to Iranian attempts. “There’s a price to pay for US bases in the Gulf, but one cannot live without them because the threat of Iran is still there,” he asserted.

The problem would not be paying for America’s protection; the issue would lie with what that protection would look like, he highlighted.

A gap in trust and expectations
“I think they expect more from the US, not just from this administration, but from the US as a whole, to do more for their defense than it has done so far during this war,” he commented. “There is a lot of disappointment in the Gulf with US strategy toward Iran and with the way the US conducted itself during the war. So yes, there is a transactional element, but the question is: what do we get in return? I think there is a gap between what the US understands as protection and what the Gulf states understand as protection.”

That gap in trust and expectations has largely contributed to the continued dialogue held between Gulf states and Iran, he continued, asserting that the talks and financial involvements were “not because they love Iran” but out of “fear.”

Aware that the US “can’t wait to leave the Gulf,” the states are less likely to throw their full weight behind any US efforts, even as they build deeper military ties, because they need to maintain some level of appeasement because the US, while capable, cannot be fully relied upon.

Many of the Gulf states pushed for the conflict with Iran to be resolved through diplomacy, particularly Qatar and Oman, and the efforts eventually materialized in a failed Memorandum of Understanding that offered no real resolution to the Hormuz crisis and gifted Iran what many experts see as a financial lifeline.

“The US is the strongest military power in the world, but it faces many constraints on how it can use that power. The political will, if you may, was not there. So the Gulf states will do everything possible to strengthen their relations with the US, maintain a continued dialogue with Iran, and strengthen their own militaries. This is hedging, doing several things in parallel because none of these options is perfect. You hedge your bets, as you would with financial risks,” he explained.

Asked about Trump’s motivation in Washington receiving some kind of financial gain for its continued involvement, especially given that the war lacks popularity, Guzansky said he wasn’t sure, but it was possible that a continued military presence in the region would be “easier to sell as a business transaction.”

“There is a lot of opposition in the US, especially within the Republican Party, to what is called the ‘long war’ and foreign intervention. This is what I was referring to earlier, the pressure on Trump to step back, move away from the war, and cut his losses. But it is very difficult when the Strait of Hormuz is at stake, and the stakes are high. So would it be easier to sell this as a business transaction? Perhaps to some in the Republican Party, maybe. I really don’t know; I would only be guessing,” he concluded.

YouGov reported in March that only 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran, while 59% oppose it. A slight majority of Republican voters (62%) supported the action, though that number fell to 33% when it came to non-Trump-supporting Republicans.