The war with Iran, which began following strikes by the United States and Israel on 28 February, has created economic and human costs that will continue for years or decades. The conflict has impacted global energy and transport sectors and involved global powers.

Economic and domestic impacts

Domestic concerns in the United States focus on rising gasoline and diesel fuel prices. These increases are driven by Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz and damage to Middle East oil infrastructure. Higher gasoline prices have affected the president's approval rating. Diesel prices have reached an all-time high, which may increase business costs for farmers and lead to higher food prices. Even if the Strait of Hormuz is freed from Iranian control, rebuilding damaged oil production capacity will have a lingering impact on prices.

The conflict lacks a clear explanation for its commencement, approval by Congress, or a full accounting of its budgetary and economic impacts.

Human and environmental costs

The war has resulted in severe human costs. In Iran, deaths have occurred from bombings, including a raid on an elementary school, and other attacks that have killed or wounded civilians. There are also immense costs associated with repairing damaged infrastructure across Iran and the region, which may be partially funded by the United States or other powers.

Environmental damage has also been documented. A study by the Conflict and Environment Observatory, noted by Ashley Gate in the Intercept, recorded over 300 incidents of environmental damage in 12 countries during the first six months of the conflict. This includes the pollution of waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and the intensive use of fossil fuels.

Impact on U.S. military and veterans

Since the conflict began on 28 February, at least 18 U.S. troops have died and over 750 have been wounded. The Pentagon faces several requirements, including:

• Repairing damage to U.S. communications nodes and military bases caused by Iranian drone and missile attacks.
• Deciding, in consultation with Congress, how much to spend replacing expended munitions.
• Deciding whether to replace or repair major equipment, such as U.S. aircraft destroyed or crashed during Iranian attacks.

The Navy has experienced significant wear and tear, specifically regarding destroyers and aircraft carriers that have been deployed for longer periods than usual without port calls for maintenance and repairs.

Long-term costs include the care of veterans. This includes medical and psychological support for sailors facing the physical and psychological impacts of long deployments, both while in the armed forces and via disability benefits through the Veteran's Administration after they leave the military.

Broader budgetary implications

The article notes that underestimating war costs is a recurring issue. During the runup to the Iraq war, advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated a cost of $100 billion, while the Brown University Costs of War Project later placed the full cost at over $2 trillion. Linda Bilmes of Harvard's Kennedy School noted that the Iraq war was financed through deficit financing, requiring repayment through increased interest on debt over many years.

A report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) estimates that security-related costs outside the Pentagon budget add $500 billion per year or more. These include:

• Spending on ICE and the border patrol.
• Veteran's benefits and services.
• Military aid in the State Department's budget.
• Work on nuclear warheads at the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

The administration is seeking to fund the Pentagon budget at a post-World War II level of $1.5 trillion. These costs may limit federal investment in other areas such as public health, environmental protection, nutrition assistance, or efforts to address wealth and income inequalities.

Proposed solutions for future conflicts

To limit the costs of future wars, the article suggests two possible approaches:

1. Imposing a specific tax to pay for conflicts rather than using deficit financing, which could prompt more debate and eliminate added interest costs.
2. Engaging in more careful consideration of whether war is necessary. This decision should involve the opinions of Congress, as required by the Constitution, and take into account the views of the taxpaying public.