Talal Abu-Ghazaleh

Figures speak for themselves and they don’t lie. Regardless of the attempts to downplay or exaggerate, the rising numbers revealed by the US regarding the cost of confrontation with Iran reflect not only the enormous military expenditure involved, but also the seriousness of the dilemma facing the US. 
The US Department of Defense has recently reported that direct losses surged to $29 billion in a relatively short period, compared to estimates of at around $25 billion just two weeks earlier. This matter goes beyond updated calculations or technical discrepancies reflected in the additional $4 billion compared to estimates released at the end of last month. This is an indication that the war, which President Trump initially described as a short excursion lasting only a few weeks, has turned into the beginning of an escalating and prolonged conflict whose consequences remain unclear.  

What has already become evident, however, is that the war is far less controllable than the White House has promoted. In politics, as in economics, the most perilous moment is not at the outbreak of war, but when major powers come to recognize that their ability to sustain its costs has significantly diminished.
Accordingly, the most important figure is not the tens of billions disclosed by the Pentagon, but the estimates suggesting that the overall cost to the American economy could surpass one trillion dollars. Such impact extends well beyond military expenditures alone and threatens to inflict sustained pressure on military inventories, fiscal stability, energy markets, supply chains, and the broader American public sentiment, especially following President Trump’s remarks about the future of the war, which fueled sharp domestic controversy.
The US, which for a long time based much of its global standing on the idea of overwhelming and absolute deterrence and decisive military supremacy, is now facing a different strategic equation. Military power may initiate conflicts, but it is no longer capable on its own to contain their economic and political consequences. This is precisely what the prolonged experiences from Iraq and Afghanistan to the war with Iran have revealed.

There is another aspect to the American estimates that is worth noting. They are not limited only to the cost of munitions, operating aircraft carriers, or repairing military installations. Rather, they include the cost of long-term attrition. Replacing advanced weapons systems has become more expensive and complex, rebuilding military arsenals requires years, while medical care for soldiers as well as the reconstruction of facilities become indefinite financial burdens that do not end when military operations cease.
The most evident point is that this war comes at a sensitive economic moment within the United States itself, where markets appear increasingly unable to absorb further shocks in energy prices and inflation. In this context, war becomes a local issue as well. This can be seen in public opinion polls showing that 75% of Americans believe the Iran war has made their lives worse.

This indicates that Iran is not the only party testing the limits of American patience. Rather, the American economy itself seems to be entering a new phase of constraints and tension concerning its ability to finance open-ended conflicts in a rapidly changing world, where the traditional ability to shift costs primarily onto others is steadily declining.
Another important point is that Washington, which for decades managed wars as a tool for reshaping international balances, is now confronting a different reality. The world that once absorbed the repercussions of American power with ease is no longer the same. Markets have become more fragile, the global economy is more interconnected, and Western societies themselves have become more sensitive to the human and financial costs of long-running conflicts.  

The new fiscal directions in Washington can also be viewed as a direct reflection of this expanding military logic. According to the outlines of the budget proposal submitted to Congress, the United States is moving toward unprecedented levels of defense spending while simultaneously reducing non-defense expenditures. This shift marks a clear reordering of state priorities in favor of the military, at the expense of other social and economic dimensions.
In this context, the most important issue is that this increase follows prior accumulations that raised military expenditures and pushed US defense spending to the trillion-dollar brink for the first time. This once again raises the question about the relationship between foreign wars and the ability of the US domestic economy to continue financing them.