White House spokesman Sean Spicer declined to specifically rule out whether the Trump administration plans to seize Iraq's oil on Monday, two days after President Trump revived the issue during an appearance at CIA headquarters.

On Saturday, Trump said "if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we'll have another chance."

When a reporter during Monday's White House press briefing asked Spicer whether that's still an option, he said Trump wants to protect America's interests and investments when conducting military operations.

"I think what the president has been very clear about in foreign policy is too often the United States is going in with a lot of money, a lot of manpower, and in many cases losing both loss of life. And we want to make sure that our interests are protected if we are going into a country for a cause," Spicer said. "I think he wants to make sure that America is getting something out of it for the commitment and the sacrifice that we're making."

The reporter asked if Trump was "foreshadowing military action." Spicer said he wasn't, but declined again to say it would never happen.

"No, I think he has been very clear throughout the campaign that he is committed to making sure that America, the American people, the American taxpayer see some benefit and ensure that our interests overseas are not just sending blank checks, that we are doing something that either protects America or is in our American interests."

Gordon Trowbridge, who until last week was a civilian spokesman at the Defense Department, said Spicer needed to say definitely that the answer is "no."

"WH spox needed to clearly say US is not going to take Iraq's oil," Trowbridge tweeted. "Every moment that statement stands puts our troops at greater risk."

He added: "The only acceptable answer to 'are you going to steal your ally's oil' is 'no.'"

The only acceptable answer to "are you going to steal your ally's oil" is "no." https://t.co/N9piSgmxFH — Gordon Trowbridge (@G_Trowbridge) January 23, 2017



Legal scholars have said such an act would be a violation of international law.