Cost of wars, the Trump way

Even as the US President Donald Trump projects himself as a peacemaker, who stopped several global wars, and justifies the ones that he initiated or supported, the cost of the latter for America may touch $1 trillion. If one extrapolates what was spent, what is being demanded immediately, and the wishful figure, the US may end up spending this amount over the next 1-2 years. Obviously, the figures are estimates, and subject to the approvals by the elected representatives. Here is how the calculations, although rough and back-of-the-envelope ones, and possibly a bit speculative, may work out.

At present, the US, according to some estimates, has spent tens of billions on the Russia-Ukraine war. The American Congress had approved a budget of just under $200 billion for it. Of course, the money was not spent by Trump’s regime, since the war began in 2022 during his predecessor’s tenure. Now, the Pentagon, via the White House, wants the Congress to approve a budget of another $200 billion for the ongoing Iran war. Combine this with Trump’s wish list. Before the Iran war, he wanted the Congress to up the defence budget by more than $650 billion to $1.5 trillion. Even if one includes the $200 billion for Iran within it, the overall figure inches up closer to $1 trillion.

Now, let us put the various figures in perspective. The nearly $200 billion for the Russia-Ukraine war was a part of a larger corpus, which included huge and ongoing contributions from the NATO allies in Europe, either in cash, kind, or equipment. Hence, the American share was relatively low compared to a lonely war. In the case of Iran, America’s only ally is Israel and, hence, the US share may be higher in terms of value and proportion. Thus, the $200 billion demand for Iran for a shorter war compared to Russia-Ukraine one, makes sense.

Nearly three weeks after the US, in collusion with Israel launched a near full-scale war on Iran, the expenditure seems huge. After all, the idea is to not inflict damage but dismantle the “Iranian’s regime security apparatus.” Official estimates contend that the American forces struck “more than 7.800 targets, and made over 8,000 combat flights, and damaged or destroyed more than 120 Iranian vessels.” However, what was expected to be a short war lingered on, and even expanded due to Iran’s relentless retaliations despite being under pressure. Hence, the demand for $200 billion to attack, and re-stock.

Of course, there is the politics of war, and war-related financial demands. During the election campaign, Trump talked about ending “American adventurism” by ending all wars. Once he became the president for the second time, he demanded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending several ongoing and long-lasting global wars. Yet, he kidnapped the Venezuelan president, tried hard to annex Greenland, and attacked Iran. In each case, he offered justifiable excuses, which hinted that the actions were in the interests of America, and its people. But the politics of war is influenced by perspectives, and not logic.

Although most Republicans may go with Trump’s $200 billion demand for the Iran war, they do not seem to have a legislative strategy, or certainty that they can keep the party flock together. There are murmurs of protest within the party against the current war. In addition, the Republicans, according to media reports, need to find a “clear path to surpass the Senate’s 60-vote rule,” or the number they need to push through the demand for $200 billion. Based on the reactions, the Pentagon may rejig the figures accordingly.

The Pentagon's demand will depend on the attitudes of the Democrats, who are “sharply critical” against the Iran war. After a recent classified briefing on the Iran war, Democrat senator Richard Blumenthal said, “I emerge from this meeting as dissatisfied and angry, frankly, as I have from any past briefing in my 15 years. I am left with more questions than answers, especially about the cost of the war.” Another senator added that Trump “cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, goals we are trying to accomplish, and methods for doing that.”

According to analysts, who depend on the estimates that the Pentagon gave to the Congress during the first week of the war, America spent $25 billion on Iran at the time of writing this piece. This includes the $11.3 billion spent in the first six days, and estimates of a billion dollar a day in the subsequent period. Some analysts contend that these figures, even the Pentagon’s estimate of $200 billion may be highly understated. According to one of them, “The cost of the war in Iraq ended up being almost $3 trillion. So, this (Iran) could be astronomical, easily.”

It is evident that the Iraq war was a long war, and included non-war or post-war elements and ingredients. One is not sure if the US will be willing to enter Iran like the way it did in Iraq, or even in Venezuela (which was not a war, really). Some estimates indicate that even if the US does not stay in Iran, but puts boots inside the territory through foot soldiers, a two-month war may cost up to $100 billion. Seen from this perspective, Pentagon’s demand for $200 billion may seem fair, if it includes actual costs, and money for replenishments.

Jack Watling, an author of a book on statecraft, admitted in a podcast, “That would be my view, yes, that they (American political leadership) discounted the risk, and they probably overestimated the military’s capacity to deal with this problem quickly. I think there has been a growing trend because of the ability to conduct precision strikes at very, very long ranges for people to overestimate how quickly you can achieve something with military means.” This may imply that the Iran war may go on for longer than expected, and may even last a few months, albeit at a milder and subdued scale with intermittent attacks.

For many analysts, the random retaliation factor creates confusion. In a rational war, one can expect the two sides to inflict and take in less pain, and yet maximise the gains. For example, in the Russia-Ukraine war, as Watling explained, the Russian Navy can blockade Ukraine’s trade. But if Ukraine sinks Russian ships, it will be a huge blow for the enemy’s economy. It is a blow that the Russians “want to avoid.” By attacking locations in the Middle East, and virtually crippling a huge portion of the global oil logistics, Iran has proved this.