The report suggests Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman exerted pressure on President Trump by presenting a “credible threat” to unload Saudi Arabia’s U.S. Treasury holdings, which totaled $140.3 billion in .

Economist Steve Hanke stated that the Crown Prince used this potential bond sale as leverage to force Trump to abandon planned strikes on Iran, signaling the kingdom’s intent to unload the assets if the U.S. proceeded with the military action. Hanke argued that this pressure was effective, concluding,

“TRUMP RECEIVED MBS’S MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR.”

That argument is precisely why the story stirred up so much debate. From one angle, critics view the idea of a foreign leader using financial leverage to halt a U.S. military operation as a clear sign of weakness—making the administration look like it backed down under pressure.

From another angle, supporters and foreign policy realists frame the move very differently. They argue that taking a step back wasn’t about bowing down, but about avoiding a massive regional mess. An Iranian counterattack on Saudi oil infrastructure could have triggered a global energy shock, spiked gas prices, and dragged the U.S. into a much broader, unpredictable conflict. In that light, pulling back is presented as a pragmatic move to protect economic and strategic stability rather than walking into a trap.

Ultimately, whether it looks like walking away from a fight or avoiding a costly blunder depends entirely on which set of consequences you prioritize.