Gulf States Expose US Security Guarantee as a Billed Service

The United States' security guarantee to the Gulf states has been exposed as a facade. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the US assembled a coalition to drive Saddam out. The Gulf saw this as proof of the American covenant: protection in exchange for loyalty. But look closer at what Washington told Baghdad before the invasion.

On July 24, 1990, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler stated that the US had 'no defense treaties with Kuwait' and no special commitments to protect it. The next day, American Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam directly that Washington had 'no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts,' including his border dispute with Kuwait.

This was not a slip-up; it was a deliberate message. Historians still debate whether this gave Saddam the green light to invade, but the underlying truth is clear: the US fought in 1991 not to defend its ally, but to prevent an unfriendly power from controlling Gulf oil reserves.

The US has been shifting its priorities since then. As it became more energy-independent through shale production, its focus on protecting Gulf oil flows waned. This was evident when a 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco's Abqaiq facility knocked out half of the kingdom's output and received only a reserve release from Trump.

In October 2018, Trump revealed that he had told the Saudi monarch: 'King, we're protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us.' This was not an isolated remark; it reflected a long-standing American approach to the Gulf, where protection is a service billed monthly.

The Gulf's rulers understood this arrangement and continued to pay the price for protection, committing over $2 trillion in investment and trade pledges to the US between 2025. The deal included a $142 billion arms package for Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the notion that protection was bought, not guaranteed.