

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump’s Iran War is killing almost twice as many civilians per day as Afghanistan and, during the first week, cost nearly three times as much per day as Iraq.
US President Donald Trump's war in Iran has passed the two-month mark with little to show for it besides thousands of dead civilians, gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon, and tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds spent.
It's just the latest in a decades-long series of US-led wars that have cost unfathomable amounts of blood and treasure, according to an analysis out this week by Al Jazeera.
It estimates that major US military engagements since 1950—in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—have directly cost the lives of nearly 4.5 million civilians and more than $5.7 trillion.
The data, collected into a sprawling open-source WarCosts archive maintained by TheDataProject.AI, comes from a variety of government reports, peer-reviewed academic research, and investigative organizations.
The civilian casualty number notably only includes those directly caused by the wars themselves, not those caused by the resulting losses of food, healthcare, or war-related diseases. It also does not include the lives lost in proxy conflicts funded by the US, Saudi Arabia's brutal war in Yemen, which resulted in an estimated 150,000 violent civilian deaths between 2015-22, or Israel's more than two-year genocidal war in Gaza, which has resulted in at least over 75,000 deaths, and likely many more.
The dollar figure, meanwhile, does not include the additional $2.2 trillion the US is expected to spend caring for veterans of the post-9/11 wars until 2050, according to Brown University's Costs of War research series.

Even compared with the staggering figures throughout US history, the cost of the war in Iran so far is uniquely high.
The Pentagon estimated that during just the first six days of the war, the US government spent an average of $1.88 billion per day, nearly three times the daily cost of the next most expensive major conflict, Iraq.
On Wednesday, Pentagon comptroller Jules Hurst told Congress that the Iran War had cost about $25 billion in total since it began two months ago. But many critics, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), have suggested that this number is "totally off" and the cost is likely much higher.
Stephen Semmler, a data analyst and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated based on statements from officials, federal procurement and operations data, and reporting on military deployments and armaments use that by March 13—just two weeks into the conflict—the war had already cost about $28.7 billion, over $2.1 billion per day. This analysis included the military's operational costs, the costs of weapons, damage to US military assets, and subsidies to Israel.
The Trump administration has reportedly requested an additional $200 billion in military funding from Congress for the war.
The war in Iran resulted in 1,701 civilian deaths during its first 40 days, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, equivalent to about 43 per day—nearly double the number killed per day in Afghanistan.

What distinguishes the Iran War from previous US military adventures is its staggering unpopularity. At its start, polls showed 43% of Americans disapproved of Trump's decision to launch the war. Disapproval had jumped to 60% as of April 12.
With the exception of the Korean War, which began very unpopular and gained approval over time, no other major US conflict has begun with so little backing from the US public—just 9% disapproved of the Afghanistan War when it began, 23% disapproved of Iraq, and 24% disapproved of Vietnam, and it took years for the majority of the public to turn against them.

The WarCosts data center estimates that the nearly $8 trillion spent on these major wars could have paid for a century of four-year public college for every American, 400 years of clean drinking water for everyone on Earth, or more than 200 years of universal pre-K for every child.
Citing a recent expert estimate that the Iran War could cost $1 trillion if it goes on for a decade, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lamented in a social media post that "somehow, there is always money for war, but never enough money for housing, education, or the needs of working people."
The senator said, "We must and will change our national priorities."
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets, this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond," said one researcher.
Global military spending around the world surged in 2025 in response to further eroding geopolitical stability, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute revealed in a report released Monday.
In its annual report on trends in global military expenditures, SIPRI found that global military spending in 2025 totaled nearly $2.9 trillion, a 2.9% increase over defense spending in 2024. Global defense spending now accounts for 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level since 2009.
Despite the Pentagon's ballooning budget, overall defense defense spending in the US actually decreased in 2025, as the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled US Congress stopped sending new military aid to Ukraine, which had received nearly $130 billion in military aid under President Joe Biden over the previous three years after it was invaded by Russia in 2022.
Even without additional US involvement, spending on the Russia-Ukraine conflict grew significantly in 2025, as Russia increased its defense spending by 6% and Ukraine increased its military expenditures by 20%.
"In 2025 military expenditure as a share of government spending reached the highest level ever recorded in both Russia and Ukraine," said Lorenzo Scarazzato, researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program. "Their spending is likely to keep growing in 2026 if the war continues, with revenues from Russia’s oil sales increasing and a major European Union loan expected by Ukraine."
The dip in US defense spending may not last long given that President Donald Trump has proposed a record $1.5 trillion military budget and the president's unauthorized war of choice with Iran has already cost US taxpayers an estimated $63 billion.
Both Israel and Iran spent less on defense in 2025 than the year before, although both countries are similarly likely to see a surge in spending given the conflict between the two countries that began when the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February.
Elsewhere in the world, the SIPRI report finds that defense spending in Europe grew by 14% in 2025, while growing just over 8% in Asia and Oceania.
The US, China, and Russia were the three biggest military spenders, and their combined spending of $1.48 trillion represented more than half of the global total.
Xiao Liang, researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, said that the big increases in defense spending came in response to "another year of wars, uncertainty, and geopolitical upheaval with large-scale armament drives."
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets," the researcher added, "this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond."
Trump is currently asking for a $1.5 trillion military budget—a 64% increase in military spending since last year—which provides the budgetary pressure needed to justify gutting necessary programs that have been on the books for decades.
Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, spoke candidly years ago about why Republicans like tax cuts so much. In his 1986 book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, he confided that tax cuts served the purpose of creating budget deficits that could then be used to justify spending cuts on government programs. Typically, administrations only cut spending for a program if it’s no longer necessary, and the resultant surplus may then be used as a tax cut to stimulate the economy. However, Stockman turned this on its head by using the tax cuts to create a budgetary crisis that would then require cuts in spending regardless of whether the programs were necessary or not.
In other words, Stockman used tax cuts to create a revenue problem that the Reagan administration could then mask as a spending problem. This is known as “starving the beast.” The administration starves the beast—important government services—of important tax revenues in order to slash government spending.
Stockman himself admitted the failure of this strategy since budget deficits during the Reagan administration did not bring down public spending in a meaningful way. This failure, however, didn’t stop the next generation of conservatives from making it a key part of their larger political project. In 2001 and 2003, for instance, George W. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts meant to impose a “fiscal straitjacket” on Congress. This then prompted Bush’s Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to gut government programs.
Republican lawmakers attempted this again after they took control of the House of Representatives during the Obama administration in 2010. At the time, the US economy was struggling through the Great Recession, which congressional Republicans blamed on government profligacy and “out of control spending.” Not only did they hold the debt ceiling hostage to prevent future spending, but they urged more tax cuts to stimulate the economy. In general, starving the beast has become a more common, and outright underhanded, stratagem by which lawmakers have gone about cutting federal spending.
What happens when conservative lawmakers want to cut more government spending in healthcare or education? Will they manufacture a national security crisis to justify cuts in those social programs?
This strategy has also functioned as a form of class politics: Wealthy elites are often the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts financed by cuts in social services on which the average American is more likely to depend. For instance, Reagan’s 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act slashed top marginal tax rates from 70% to 50%, a rate that only the top 2% of Americans paid (those rates dropped even further to 28% in 1986). This cut was largely paid for with reductions in Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid funding, student loans, and other social services. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 served the same agenda. According to research by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the richest 20% received 65% of the benefits of those tax cuts, while the top 5% received 38%. Spending was then cut under the Deficit Reduction Act by targeting Medicaid, Medicare, the Migrant and Season Farmworkers Program, literacy programs, and others.
The American public is now far more aware of who has, and who has not, benefited from cuts in taxes and spending, and public opinion makes it harder for lawmakers to starve the beast. New polling shows that only 19% of Americans support the idea of cutting taxes on the wealthy, while 58% say the wealthy should be paying more (this number rises to 63% when asked about large businesses and corporations). At the same time, the majority of Americans want the government to maintain spending on the kinds of programs that are usually targeted, such as Medicaid and food stamps, medical and cancer research, federal childcare programs, or the arts in public schools. In other words, Republican lawmakers are going to have a harder time gutting these programs by further cutting top marginal tax rates.
That is why they are finding new ways to starve the beast. The latest strategy has been to leverage the heavy cost of national security issues.
Nowhere is this more evident than through the US and Israel’s joint war with Iran. The bombing of Iran has proven to be even more expensive than the initial stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the daily burn rate averaging around $1-2 billion a day. Shortly after launching the war in late February, President Donald Trump sought an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund it. The GOP is now using that price tag to plan massive cuts to important government programs.
In early April, for instance, Republicans proposed a reconciliation bill they claim would save $30 billion but would also drive up the out-of-pocket premium costs and increase the number of people without health insurance. Later that week, Trump candidly spoke of his intentions to slash government spending against the backdrop of a budgetary crisis caused by the war:
We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people, we’re fighting wars […] Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal [level]. We have to take care of one thing: military protection—we have to guard the country. But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place, you have to let states take care of them.
Trump’s claim that the United States can’t afford these programs are patently false. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid are planned spending that are not responsible for budget deficits.
However, the president’s comments make sense when contextualized against his longer-term plans to rein in federal spending. Through the creation of DOGE, Trump attempted to usher in an era of “government efficiency,” which included sharp reductions in several programs including Medicare and Medicaid. Although technically still operational, DOGE is largely seen as a failure as it never achieved its goal of major spending cuts (in fact, government spending increased 6% in 2025).
The Iran war can complete the job that DOGE couldn’t. Trump is currently asking for a $1.5 trillion military budget—a 64% increase in military spending since last year—which provides the budgetary pressure needed to justify gutting necessary programs that have been on the books for decades. In doing so, Trump is essentially reviving the starve-the-beast strategy by fitting it into a large military project.
Although the strategy to starve the beast has changed, the class politics remains the same. Those affected will be those most reliant on programs designed to provide healthcare, education, and food. However, in this case the consequence are no longer restricted to the American taxpayer. The increase in military expenditures will be used to inflict harm upon vulnerable populations abroad. The strikes in Iran have already killed thousands of people and displaced over a million civilians.
The horrifying reality is that this carries the very real danger of becoming a common finance strategy. What happens when conservative lawmakers want to cut more government spending in healthcare or education? Will they manufacture a national security crisis to justify cuts in those social programs? Trump’s war in Iran establishes just such a dangerous precedent. For this reason, the American people must realize that their livelihood at home requires placing greater controls on what a president can do abroad.