For seven months, the Gulf states have waited: for the next drone, for the next presidential threat, for a deal that is always close. This week, Washington gave them an answer: more ships.
The Pentagon is dispatching roughly 9,000 troops to the Middle East, which could put three aircraft carriers in the region by the end of October. The Washington Post reported that President Trump is considering renewing strikes on Iran after the midterm elections. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, for his part, called negotiations with the U.S. “futile.” This escalation is without a strategy or defined end, and the countries that will pay for it — with losses of life, infrastructure, and capital — never got a vote.
On Oct. 7, Axios reported that the Pentagon had told the military to prepare for a possible resumption of major combat operations. That night, Trump told a San Antonio rally that a deal “isn’t really something that I want to do.” A day later, he promised not to attack Iran before the midterm elections, and oil prices fell. A pledge to hold fire until Nov. 3 is a timeline and not a strategy. It tells allies when the next phase might begin, not what it is meant to achieve.
The Gulf states have lived with the consequences since the war began on Feb. 28. Iran and its proxies in Iraq have targeted their territory repeatedly. In August, officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain told the Washington Post that their frustration with Washington was growing. One Gulf official said, “Trump started this war, and we are paying the price.” Some have begun to question whether hosting U.S. bases is even worth the risk.
The bill keeps growing, too. The Pentagon told Congress in May that the war had cost $29 billion, but Harvard economist Linda Bilmes argues the real figure is closer to $200 billion and could eventually top $1 trillion once veterans’ care and munitions replacement are counted. Even oil offers no relief. More crude is flowing out of the region than at any point since the war began, yet prices remain near $100 a barrel.
The Gulf’s bill is just as painful. The World Travel & Tourism Council forecasts that the Gulf will lose about 137,000 tourism jobs this year — 46,000 of them in the UAE — and Gulf airline capacity fell by more than a third in April. Analysts estimate that repairing war-damaged energy infrastructure across the region could cost $58 billion. Even defense is lopsided: Shahed drones cost between $20,000 and $50,000 each, while Gulf states answer with expensive interceptors like the Patriot PAC-3.
Washington’s response to its allies’ anxiety has been hardware. Two more Patriot batteries went to Saudi Arabia and Qatar this week, the State Department approved over $2 billion in arms sales to Egypt, Kuwait, and the UAE, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. intends to “live by” its security pact with Riyadh.
Some may argue that sustained pressure may be the only thing that brings Tehran to the table, and a visible show of force reassures partners who feel exposed. But seven months of pressure have not produced a deal: seven months of Gulf citizens holding their breath for the next strike, the next alarm. A partner that is being shot at does not need a bigger arsenal as much as it needs a defined end, and the Gulf’s greatest fear is that Washington will declare victory and leave it to face an embittered Iran with influence over the Strait of Hormuz.
That clarity should start in Congress, and the pause until Nov. 3 gives lawmakers a window to demand it. “Clear” should mean four things. First, a single stated objective that can be verified, such as a limit on Iranian enrichment backed by restored international inspections. That is a sharper aim than the shifting targets of a nuclear program, then missiles, then Hormuz.
Second, a new authorization for the use of military force with an expiration date that forces another vote. Third, a written strategy defining what success looks like, what it will cost, and what happens in the Gulf afterward, with further war funding withheld until it exists, including the $80 billion the administration requested this summer.
Fourth, a diplomatic track with Gulf partners at the table, since their territory absorbs the retaliation whenever the U.S. strikes. Sceptics will say this ties the commander in chief’s hands, but the War Powers Resolution exists so that Congress has a say.
Congress must state a clear objective, a timeline, and a real diplomatic track that includes Gulf partners at the table.
It is time Washington gave its allies, and its own voters, a reason to exhale.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.