Hey, Donald Trump's war with Iran is proving to be a genuine bargain! According to the Department of War (once upon a time the Department of Defense), it has cost us a mere $25 billion. (Or could that be a mere $72 billion and rising?) And that, of course, is distinctly chump change, the equivalent of everyday bus fare on this planet of ours, if Donald Trump gets his wish and the future Pentagon budget rises to a trillion and a half dollars (not including Iran war funding).
And mind you, that $25 billion estimate doesn't even include the estimated $25 billion or so that it will cost just to rebuild recently damaged American military bases within shooting distance of Iran. Nor does it include (obviously) the $200 billion that, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is reportedly planning to ask Congress for to further fund the ongoing conflict. And that's just to start down a list. Nor, of course, does it faintly include the costs to the American public of soaring gas prices (or soaring inflation) thanks to that conflict and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Yes, indeed, it does turn out that our "Peace President" is proving to be quite a bargain the second time around as M.W. (for "making war") becomes his middle initials. And, of course, who knows what bargains still lie ahead of us? In the meantime, let TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan take you into her world, in the midst of the Iran war, in a distinctly up close and personal fashion. Tom
Butter (and Schools), Not Guns (and Warfare)
The War Against Iran, Up Close and Personal (and All Too Far Away)
Guns or butter. Butter or guns. Can we have both? If not, which should come first? Consider it one of those chicken-and-egg conundrums of modern society.
"Guns" is the stand-in for a well-funded military and "butter" for all the human goods, comforts, and needs of a society.
Economists, politicians, and generals have long considered the balance of guns and butter. Wage too many wars, produce too many arms, and there won't be enough money to keep a nation decently fed and comfortable. Produce too many consumer goods, meet everyone's needs, and a nation might find itself ill-prepared and vulnerable in the face of a possible attack or even invasion. Everyone from Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has had something to say about the balance of guns and butter (or, more likely, the lack of it).
No surprise, but I like butter and don't like guns. I have long been attracted to the graphics produced by groups like the National Priorities Project (NPP) and Brown University's Costs of War Project that dramatize the opportunity costs of war investment in the United States. At some point, one of those groups created a pen that had a long scroll on a pull-out flap inside it. At parties, as you were discussing the military budget, you could take out that pen and unfurl a long bar graph comparing U.S. military spending to the budgets for education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Neat trick, right?
These days, NPP has a new factsheet that offers a breakdown of how the cost (so far) of Trump's Iran "escapade" could have been so much better spent:
- Covering Medicaid for all 14 million people at risk of losing their insurance,
- AND the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, for all four million people at risk of losing food assistance, including 3.5 million due to new work requirements for older people and caregivers,
- AND expanding Medicaid to an additional 10.3 million people.
Those numbers are based on the Pentagon's request for $200 billion in supplemental funding for the Iran war effort. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill on April 30th, supporting a lowball estimate of the war costs as a mere $25 billion (and worth every dollar!) and asking for support for an inconceivable $1.5 trillion for Trump's war machine in fiscal year 2027. Guns vs. Butter? More like guns force-fed foie gras and caviar and saute'ed in the world's most expensive butter.
Every Warship Launched, Every Rocket Fired
If I ever got a tattoo, it would probably be of this line from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1953 "Chance for Peace" speech: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Eisenhower gave that speech 73 years ago (even as military budgets increased significantly while he was president) and yet the words ring truer than ever today. In reality, I'm unlikely to get a first tattoo at the age of 52, but I did see all of this up close and personal a couple of weeks ago at my Connecticut town's school board meeting.
For months, school board members had been ringing an alarm bell about their budget. After years of scrimping and shaving, layoffs and early retirement packages, they were no longer able to economize their way to a balanced budget, and so were considering a "nuclear option": closing one of our local schools.
Community members rallied, testified, and harangued. Busloads of kids joined our superintendent at the state capitol to ask for more support for our schools. For the last two months, everyone in my neighborhood has been talking about this, and on a Monday night a few weeks ago, the school board held a public meeting to make an ultimate decision about what to do.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
