Former President Donald Trump has increasingly articulated a vision where the United States military functions as a paid service rather than a tool for advancing American strategic interests. This approach reframes global security as a commodity that other nations should purchase, whether through naval escorts in the Strait of Hormuz or a broader "guardian" role financed by Middle East oil revenues.
This transactional strategy marks a departure from the long-standing justification for the U.S. global military presence, which has historically been presented as serving America's own economic and security interests. Trump's proposed model, however, centers on the expectation of direct financial returns from military interventions.
Recent reports indicate that Trump administration officials considered ideas to incentivize shippers to resume passage through the Strait of Hormuz, despite ongoing safety concerns. One proposal reportedly included a "VIP pass" system where companies would pay for U.S. naval escorts. This initiative was being discussed prior to Iran's announcement on June 20 that it would reclose the strait, casting doubt on such arrangements.
Expanding on this concept, Trump suggested in an interview that if Iran does not adhere to its agreement with the U.S., a potential response could involve the United States acting as "the guardian of the Middle East." This role would be compensated with 20 percent of the region's revenues, essentially establishing a paid regional security force.
Trump further elaborated on this idea via a Truth Social post, asserting that any tolls imposed on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz would be exclusively for the United States, intended as reimbursement for services rendered as a "Guardian Angel" to Middle Eastern countries.
This stance represents a shift for a president who previously questioned the necessity of large-scale military deployments and foreign engagements. It also diverges from the historical rationale behind the U.S. military's significant presence in the Persian Gulf, which has been driven by the vital national interest of ensuring the free flow of oil, as established by the "Carter Doctrine" and continued through subsequent administrations.
The proposed model has been characterized as resembling a state-backed mercenary force rather than a global guardian. It aligns with what political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman have termed "the enshittification of American power," suggesting a shift from providing valuable services to allies to extracting value from them once they are dependent on U.S. military primacy.
Concerns have been raised about the potential customers for such a service, especially in light of recent conflicts and regional dynamics. Countries in the Gulf have reportedly begun to re-evaluate their reliance on the U.S. as an ally, particularly after a recent war that resulted in missile attacks on their cities and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, with the Iranian regime remaining in power. Discussions are also underway for regional security frameworks that may exclude the United States.
Furthermore, the capacity of the U.S. military to fulfill a global troubleshooter role is being questioned. A recent conflict with Iran, though relatively short, reportedly depleted U.S. stocks of missiles and interceptors, prompting Trump to meet with defense contractors to urge increased production. The military's increasing reliance on private contractors and AI-enabled warfare also introduces vulnerabilities, as demonstrated by incidents involving companies like SpaceX and Anthropic.
The notion of an ongoing "guardian" role for the U.S. in the Middle East also contrasts with Trump's past promises of "everlasting peace." This approach appears to align with a strategy of periodic missions to degrade adversaries rather than achieving long-term security, potentially prioritizing short-term profit over sustained stability for both the U.S. and its allies.