MORAL AND FINANCIAL COST OF WAR

People are outraged, confused, incredulous, perplexed, and demoralized. They are feeling helpless because they are unable stop the administration from waging the president's senseless, calamitous conflict with Iran. President Trump and key cabinet members make a point of insisting that our military incursion into Iran should be described as alternatively either a full fledged war or as something else, more euphemistically palatable. Although we constitutionally are not officially at war, because only Congress has the power to declare war, the consequences of our invasion point decisively at war-time activity. Furthermore, under international law and rules of warfare, a military attack is only recognized and legally justified as an act of self defense against armed aggression, or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council. A legitimate objective of warfare must be to stop a major wrong, defend the innocent, push back invaders, or restore peace - not to gain land, economic advantage, power or be used as a diversion from an uncomfortable preoccupation with domestic politically damaging issues. So, constitutionally, internationally, and certainly morally, this war ought to be considered illegal. President Trump continues to depict the conflict as a military action that is "small potatoes." His justification remains that "Epic Fury," as the conflict has been branded, was necessary as a preemptive action to insure that Iran would never be able to obtain a nuclear weapon capable of threatening Israel or U.S. cities, even though he claimed in 2025 , after completing operation "Midnight Hammer," that this specific objective had already been accomplished. While politically the introduction of confusing language may convince some that the action remains minimal and short of war, for the vast majority of our population the consequences of aggressively perpetuating this conflict, now in its 6th month, are inescapable. Trump's casual, callous comment dismissing the ongoing military conflict with Iran as "small potatoes" and "not a big thing for the United States," as he did during an Oval Office exchange earlier this month, won't sit well with families directly affected by the 18 U.S. military fatalities and 800 plus wounded service members resulting from the conflict thus far. According to the Pentagon each casualty affects at least 10 immediate family members, which does not even include friends, neighbors and other associated individuals. Add to these between 3,400 and 6,000 Iranian casualties, including 1,400 civilians, and the extent of the calamity already resulting from this senseless, unjustified and unnecessary war becomes clear. Not a big thing? Small potatoes? Aside from the growing human cost, the economic repercussions are rapidly increasing and threatening to get out of control as well. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that since the war started on February 28, its price tag already totaled $43.6 billion, and is increasing by $3 billion a month. Others have estimated the cost to be closer to $100 billion. In addition, the expense of replacing munitions has reached $21.6 billion, spread out over missile defense interceptors, cruise missiles and other munitions. Rebuilding these supplies could, reportedly, take five years, and might leave us in an uncomfortably weak defensive position. According to Brown University's Climate Solutions Lab, the added fuel cost for U.S. families already hit $100 billion, while, according to the CBO, inflation will at least increase by 0.5%. All said, to pay for the war, each household should expect to see their annual expenses minimally increase by $1200. This figure includes direct energy price hikes, transportation inflation, higher borrowing costs and military spending burdens. Trump insists that this is an "inexpensive price to pay" for his "relatively little war." In an attempt to minimize the apparent cost, he likes to compare the expense of his war with what we spent on Vietnam during the 8 years of our combat presence in that country. Between 1965 and 1973 we spent $168 billion on that conflict, which amounted to approximately $2 billion per month. This compares to the $7 billion we are currently spending each month. Recognizing significant budgetary shortcomings, the Defense Department has already requested Congress to provide it with an all time high $1.5 trillion military budget, which include an additional $95 billion for the war. Again - small potatoes? The numbers don't lie. We will all be confronted by the economic consequences of this military conflict. Some of us will doubtlessly even experience much more dire, personally devastating, outcomes. President Trump may continue to adjust his rhetoric to mask shifting strategic realities, manage domestic political fall-out and redefine unmet military objectives as victories, while moving between demanding unconditional surrender and striking a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Many, if not most of us will continue to wonder: "why?" What are we getting out of this senseless, illegitimate, morally and economically deficient show of bravado? Midterm elections are fewer than 50 days away. A great time to raise these questions and confront our outrage, incredulity and feeling of impotence. Theo Wierdsma