
3 ways Americans could pay for Trump's war with Iran
An Iranian cleric stands next to a scale model of an Iran-made surface-to-surface missile, which is displayed during an anti-Israeli protest at Palestine Square in downtown Tehran, Iran, on April 9, 2025. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images
President Donald Trump has framed his strikes on Iran as a costless triumph. The president is not asking Americans to accept sacrifices in service of destroying the Iranian nuclear program — only to applaud his already successful destruction of it.
'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' Trump declared Saturday night. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.'
From this precarious position, the Iranian leadership might conclude that it can ill afford an escalating conflict with the world's greatest military power. Perhaps, it will follow the same basic playbook it did following Trump's assasination of its military leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020: Back then, Iran responded with face-saving strikes on US military bases in Iraq — but ones that it heavily telegraphed, enabling American soldiers to take cover and retain their lives, which in turn allowed Trump to call things even and end the conflict. Iran's strike on a US base in Qatar on Monday could be interpreted as fitting this mold: The US said that it had advanced warning of the strike and that there were no American casualties.
What's more, it is even possible that the Iranian regime could conclude that its nuclear program is more trouble than it's worth and sheepishly return to the bargaining table, now ready to accept more stringent restrictions on its freedom to enrich uranium or build ballistic missiles.
But such rosy outcomes are far from certain. And if things do not transpire as Trump hopes, his war could impose significant costs on the American people — in terms of money, blood, and nuclear security.
How Trump's war on Iran could impact the economy
For Americans, the most widely felt consequences of Trump's war with Iran would likely be economic. Oil prices have climbed by more than 12 percent since the end of May, when Israel began threatening to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. An escalating US-Iran conflict could further elevate Americans' energy costs.
The nightmare scenario here concerns the Strait of Hormuz, the world's only waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the open ocean. Each day, about 20 million barrels of oil — or about 20 percent of the world's total supply — moves through the strait. Iran could plausibly choke off all shipping through the waterway if it wished to do so. And on Sunday, the Iranian Parliament reportedly approved such a course of action, although it remains up to the nation's Supreme National Security Council to enact a blockade.
Were Iran to take that extraordinary measure, the price of oil could shoot up past $130 a barrel, according to industry analysts (as of this writing, a barrel is trading at $72). That would dramatically increase the costs of energy and transportation for US consumers. And since energy is an input into the production of more or less every good and service, a sustained blockade could push up prices more broadly. Faced with higher inflation, the Federal Reserve would likely scrap plans for cutting interest rates. In this scenario, Americans would see lower real wages and higher borrowing costs than they would have enjoyed in a world where Trump did not bomb Iran.
It's worth saying that a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely. Were Iran to pursue such a policy, it would effectively be sabotaging its own economy, which is heavily dependent on exporting oil via the waterway. Nevertheless, the threat of disrupting shipping through the strait is the regime's greatest point of leverage over other world powers.
Iran could also disrupt global commerce in more modest ways. Tehran is allied with Yemen's Houthi militia, which is already threatening to recommence its attacks on US ships in the Red Sea. Any disruption to Red Sea trade could increase global shipping costs, which would eventually bleed into US consumer prices.
Alternatively, Iran could strike oil and gas infrastructure in Middle Eastern countries allied with the United States. In a 2019 drone attack allegedly backed by Tehran, the Houthis bombed two major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, temporarily cutting the country's oil production in half and spiking crude prices.
At a moment when the president's tariffs are already nudging up the cost of imports, any war-related disruptions to global trade could prove painful for American households.
Trump's attack has put American soldiers in harm's way
As Monday's attack on US troops in Qatar demonstrated, Americans stationed in the Middle East face a far graver threat than more expensive gasoline. More than 40,000 US soldiers are serving on bases and warships in the region, well within reach of Iranian missiles.
Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities represented a far broader and more destructive attack than his strike against Soleimani five years ago. It's reasonable to fear that Tehran's response will be proportionally more severe, and that Monday's strikes at Qatar represent only the beginning of its retaliation. At least, this is what the regime is telling Americans to expect.
'Any country in the region or elsewhere that is used by American forces to strike Iran will be considered a legitimate target for our armed forces,' Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Saturday. 'America has attacked the heart of the Islamic world and must await irreparable consequences.'
Some of these 'consequences' could transpire on American soil. Although Iran's immediate targets will likely lie close to home. Years after the Soleimani strike, Iran allegedly orchestrated failed assassination attempts against former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Donald Trump.
According to US officials who spoke with NBC News, Iran warned Trump at this year's G7 Summit that it could respond to an American strike on its nuclear facilities by perpetrating terrorist attacks within the United States. The regime claimed to have sleeper cells in America ready and waiting to commit such violence.
Trump may have made an Iranian nuclear weapon more likely
Trump's war with Iran may risk making all Americans poorer while getting some of us killed. But in his administration's ostensible view, these potential harms pale in comparison to the threat posed by Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon — a threat that Saturday's strikes greatly mitigated.
It is not obvious how much Americans actually have at stake in preventing Iran from developing atomic weapons. No serious analyst believes that the Iranian regime is suicidal. Tehran is not going to order a nuclear first strike against the United States or any other country. Rather, it almost certainly sees nuclear weapons primarily as a deterrent against both foreign intervention and domestic challenges to its authoritarian regime.
Nevertheless, all else equal, Americans have an interest in preventing nuclear proliferation. Were Iran to acquire an atomic weapon, Saudi Arabia would be liable to pursue its own. And a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would increase the tail risk of a future atomic catastrophe.
And yet, it is possible that Trump's strikes on Iran have actually made that nation's acquisition of a nuclear weapon more likely.
Before Saturday's bombings, Iran was engaged in negotiations over its nuclear program without the United States. And Tehran had previously reached an agreement to limit its enrichment of uranium in 2015, a nuclear deal that Trump tore up during his first term in office.
Now, all diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program appears dead. And Tehran may see a nuclear weapon as more indispensable for its security than ever before. After all, the regime's conventional military defenses have proven grossly inadequate to deter or defeat Israeli and American incursions.
Already, Iranian officials are signalling that the nation will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move that would mean an end to the nation's cooperation with United Nations inspections of its uranium enrichment. At present, the UN's nuclear watchdog says it is uncertain about where Iran is storing the highly enriched uranium it has already produced. Tehran claims that, before Trump's strikes, it had moved its uranium stockpiles out of the three sites that he targeted.
American and Israeli bombing has surely undermined Iran's capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium. Tehran has lost some of its top nuclear scientists and suffered massive damage to its enrichment facilities. But Iran retains both the technical know-how and raw materials necessary for building an atomic bomb. And the world may have now lost visibility into its nuclear activities.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Allies to the rescue — European leaders try to keep Trump on the correct side in Ukraine/Russia war
It's not often that you have eight European leaders, including one whose country is at war, descend on Washington in as close to an unplanned snap visit as you can get. Let's hope that the White House visit convinced the White House resident of the importance of the moment. Monday afternoon, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was joined by the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, the U.K., Finland, the European Commission and NATO in a surprise summit following President Donald Trump's Alaska meeting with Russian despot Vladimir Putin. Trump seems to have understood the Oval Office meeting as him, the genius dealmaker, convening the allies after a successful rendezvous with the Russian adversary, bringing everyone together in advance of brokering the peace deal that will win him the Nobel Peace Prize. Whatever it takes; and that perception was likely reinforced by the heavy praise heaped on him, though of course he doesn't grasp that his NATO counterparts have internalized the fact that flattery is the only language Trump will listen to. That and English, which fortunately they all speak well enough to have been able to tag team off each other without translators in bringing Trump around on not selling out Europe to an imperialist Russia, something European leaders probably did not expect to have to be doing 80 years after the end of WWII. In actuality, this was more like the adults rushing to stop a toddler who had announced his intention to put a fork in the light socket before any further damage could be done. They certainly all watched in horror as Trump accomplished little but once again parroting Putin talking points after rolling out the red carpet for his admired authoritarian on U.S. soil, a meeting at which the Ukrainians were not represented. This after having spent days talking about the possibility of ceding Ukrainian territory as part of some sort of agreement, and chastising Ukraine — invaded unprovoked by a much larger neighbor — of starting the war itself. At least this frenzied intervention by our European friends does seem to have yielded some success, primarily in the form of Trump agreeing to some form of U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, which are likely to be the only thing that actually incentivizes Putin to back off and stay back when a peace deal is reached. Something akin to NATO's core Article 5 on joint defense comes to mind. The problem is that such guarantees are only really worth anything if they're credible; it is fundamentally a threat, and threats are meaningful when the target has reason to believe there will be follow-through. Unfortunately, we can't say that we expect Trump to stick to this message discipline. Given everything that we've seen so far in this administration, odds are that shortly Trump will be insisting that Ukraine handle its own affairs or that the U.S. will only provide security guarantees in exchange for some kind of pay or materials deal; either that or he'll simply back off from the position altogether. Even if he then comes around again, every time Trump wobbles on dead-serious international commitments, including support for the NATO alliance itself, it saps at their ultimate credibility and therefore makes them less potent. We guarantee this: neither Trump nor any of us want to live in the world in which Putin believes he is not going to face consequences for his aggressive expansionist agenda. Trump made the commitments, now prove us wrong by sticking to them. _____
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Cracker Barrel outrages conservatives with new logo: ‘This is your Bud Light moment'
Cracker Barrel's decision to revamp and simplify its longstanding logo has inadvertently become a new culture war flashpoint, with conservatives raging against the redesign. The southern-themed restaurant chain, which is based in Lebanon, Tennessee, and first opened its doors in 1969, originally had simple gold branding with its name spelled out in brown lettering, intended to evoke the atmosphere of a friendly wood-frame general store selling dry goods to the pioneers. Then, in 1977, it added the seated figure of a man wearing overalls leaning against a wooden cask alongside the name, in the process creating an icon of folksy Americana that has endured ever since. The revamp removes the leaning figure and marks a return to the original design, with the company saying that its new logo 'is now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.' In a statement, the business elaborated: 'Anchored in Cracker Barrel's signature gold and brown tones, the updated visuals will appear across menus and marketing collateral, including the fifth evolution of the brand's logo, which is now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.' As harmless as that may sound, the move has incensed members of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement, who have taken to social media in their droves to hammer out howls of complaint. 'WTF is wrong with Cracker Barrel ??!,' wailed Donald Trump Jr, the president's eldest son, quote-tweeting the Woke War Room account, which attacked the company's CEO Julie Felss Masino. 'She scrapped a beloved American aesthetic and replaced it with sterile, soulless branding,' it wrote. 'Masino kept a DEI regime that promises to 'identify, recruit, and advance' hires by race – and now faces civil rights complaints from America First Legal to the [Equal Opportunities Employment Commission] and the Tennessee AG.' MAGA podcaster Benny Johnson called the new logo 'absolutely horrible' while right-wing pundit Owen Shroyer told Cracker Barrel: 'This is your logo. It's literally a cracker and a barrel. Yes, own the hilarious irony of using a racial slur against your main demographic. It will attract that younger crowd you're reaching for. Or serve better food.' Watching on with glee, anti-Trump poster Ron Filipkowski commented: 'They are melting the f*** down over the new Cracker Barrel logo and I'm here for it!' Many people compared the redesign to the Bud Light controversy of 2023, when conservatives, led by rapper Kid Rock, moved to boycott the beer label for featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in a brief commercial. One person labelled Cracker Barrel 'the Bud Light of formerly great restaurants' and an account called Turbo Truther posted a picture of Felss Masino wearing a clown wig with the caption: 'Cracker Barrel... the Bud Light of Barrels.' At the other end of the political spectrum, one person posted their alternative logo, in which the leaning figure is posing next to a sign that reads 'Release the Files' about the Jeffrey Epstein furore. At the same time, AI developer Mario Pawlowski scolded conservatives for their hostility. Pointing out that the company employs 77,600 people across 660 locations, Pawlowski warned against an equivalent boycott on economic grounds, saying it would only hurt the company's staff. 'It's tradition terrorism,' he complained. 'Wrecking brands that employ thousands and support local communities, all for meme points. Wake the hell up!' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
EU-US trade deal does not include wine and spirits, says EU trade chief
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The EU-U.S. trade deal does not include wine and spirits, European Union Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said on Thursday, adding that the door was not closed to tariff reductions for the sector and others not included in the deal. He made the comments after the European Union and the United States detailed commitments made in a deal reached last month that includes a 15% U.S. tariff on most imports from the bloc, including autos, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber. "This one we didn't get in. But I can tell you that there is clear commitment from the European Commission to put it on the table", Sefcovic said, referring to wines and spirits. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States expressed disappointment in a statement. "Without a permanent return to zero-for-zero tariffs on spirits, American distillers do not have the certainty to plan for future export and job growth without the fear of retaliatory tariffs returning", it said. It added that it was "determined to continue engaging with the Trump administration to urge for additional negotiations". Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data