The Dollars And Cents Of Military Action Against Iran

Are we headed toward a new war with Iran? The possibility looks increasingly likely. Over the past month, Washington has marshaled a massive military contingent in the Persian Gulf as part of a pressure campaign designed to compel Iran’s clerical regime to make meaningful changes to its strategic programs and regional posture.

The buildup is extensive. The amount of American air power that has been deployed in the Middle East now rivals or exceeds the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It includes two carrier strike groups, the first of which is helmed by the USS Abraham Lincoln, which ordinarily operates nearby in the Arabian Sea. In recent days, it has been bolstered by the arrival of another, headed by the USS Gerald Ford, which participated in the ouster of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro last month.

It is also costly. While there has been no shortage of speculation about the probability of an American attack on Iran, far less attention has been paid to the real-world expenses associated with America’s current regional deployment – and the price of military action against the Islamic Republic, should it happen. Yet those numbers are sure to factor into the Administration’s decision-making.

Even a partial tally makes clear why. According to the Center for New American Security, it costs approximately $6.5 million dollars a day to operate a carrier strike group. That brings the total for America’s current force presence in the Persian Gulf to some $13 million daily. Per day costs for the extra ships and hardware that make up President Trump’s Mideast “armada” add to that total. Put another way, the past month of keeping forces “on station” in the southern Gulf has already cost the U.S. military on the order of $200 million. And if negotiations continue to drag on, the tally for the current, augmented presence will reach or exceed half-a-billion dollars by mid- to late March.

But if battle with Iran is joined, the costs will become steeper still. Last year’s “Operation Midnight Hammer,” as the 37-hour American campaign against Iran’s nuclear program was officially called, is estimated to have cost the U.S. government some $2.25 billion total. A new effort to further erode Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities is likely to carry a similar price-tag, while a more extensive one (potentially focused on regime military and leadership targets) would entail even greater expense.

Then there is the question of defense. Any U.S. military action against Iran can be expected to generate a concerted Iranian response – either directly against American forces or against regional allies such as Israel. Protecting against those missile and drone strikes requires additional deployments of equipment, as well as other outlays.

Indeed, in last year’s strike on Iran’s nuclear program, the lion’s share of American expenditures came from the deployment of advanced air defense systems like the THAAD. A new conflict with Iran would see the same sort of defense requirements come into play.

What does all this mean, as a policy matter? It suggests that the price Tehran will need to pay will become steeper over time. After all, all politics are ultimately local, and the longer Washington maintains this posture the more politically costly a narrow deal becomes for the Trump administration in domestic terms.

That, in turn, suggests that the sort of minimalist arrangement Iran’s ayatollahs undoubtedly prefer –one resembling the 2015 JCPOA, which merely delayed the development of Iran’s nuclear program – is increasingly unlikely to pass muster with the White House.

President Trump said as much in his State of the Union address earlier this week. “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy,” the President made clear. “But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon.”

The ayatollahs should stand so instructed. The real-world math is compelling.