According to a new analysis by Moody’s Analytics, the Iran war has cost U.S. households an average of $2,000 each, with the highest impact coming from higher gasoline prices and increases in the cost of items shipped by trucks reliant on diesel.
The costs of the war could have significant effects when voters go to the polls. Back in June, when the problem was less severe than it is now, 46 percent of potential voters told pollsters for Politico that gas prices would have an impact on their decision when they go to the polls in November.
This secondary effect is only one of the indirect costs of the conflict. Others include rebuilding or replacing military equipment damaged or destroyed in the war, and taking care of military personnel injured or traumatized in the conflict.
These ripple effects are rarely considered or discussed when the decision is being made about whether to go to war. They certainly were not seriously discussed before the United States launched this war against Iran, since it was started without consulting Congress or debating the merits of the conflict with the public. Going to war at the whim of one person, or the president and a small inner circle, frequently leads to bad results. That’s why the constitution gives the power to authorize war to Congress, a proscription that has been routinely violated for decades. Congress has made some efforts to regain its authority in these matters by bringing resolutions under the War Powers act that would require a withdrawal of U.S. troops from a given conflict. The most recent attempt, with respect to the Iran conflict, lost by just one vote in the Senate.
If the Iran war drags on into next year, the new Congress should take up the war powers issue immediately when it convenes in January.
Debate over the cost of the Iran war should be coupled with careful scrutiny of the Pentagon’s outlandish proposal for a $1.5 trillion budget for next year. The case of such a huge increase has not been made. The United States already spends almost three times as much as its closest rival, China, and the budget is loaded with costly weapons systems that either don’t work as promised or are irrelevant to the most likely conflicts we face in the years to come. They are being purchased not because we need them to defend the country, but because they enrich weapons contractors who put their facilities in the states or districts of key members of Congress. This is no way to make a budget, especially on as consequential a function as defending America. The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending — it needs more spending discipline.
The ultimate responsibility for how much money gets thrown at the Pentagon belongs to the voters, the taxpayers, and those of us who refrain from exercising our right to cast a ballot. Way back in 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of unwarranted influence wielded by the military-industrial complex, he said that the only effective counterpoint was “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.” That is as true today as it was 65 years ago, when Eisenhower made his speech. We need to demand a detailed explanation of why the Pentagon is spending such large sums of our money, and what exactly it is spending them on. And our representatives in Congress need to ferret out that information, share it widely, and use it as a tool to eliminate unnecessary spending. That is, after all, their job. Let’s hold them to it.
This article was originally published on Forbes.com