Costs of a Needless War Has an Economic Impact on Citizens
“Trump’s war in Iran has wiped out 1.5 years of wage growth,” Economic Policy Institute
The Trump administration’s decision to start a war with Iran has imposed disastrous costs (both economic and humanitarian) around the world. The U.S. has been insulated from these costs more so than most other countries. Yet, even here the costs are extremely large. The war’s effect in pushing up U.S. energy prices has erased all the real (inflation-adjusted) wage gains workers have made during his second term.
According to today’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) release, overall inflation was 4.2% over the last year. The sudden burst in inflation, along with slowing nominal wage growth, means the average hourly real wage for private-sector workers is now no higher than it was in January 2025.
So far, excessive inflation has been limited to energy and airfares. But as long as the war continues, there is an increasing threat of price increases spilling over to the broader economy. Such (price increases) will trigger a more permanent increase in the cost of living and cause further reductions in real earnings.
Deliberate ignorance and stupidity have consequences.
This is why history is taught in schools. Wise people do not repeat mistakes.
Compare to the costs of doing nothing. Iran has nukes and total unchecked control over the region and the Straight of Hormuz. What is your definition of a “needless” war?
@commenter,
There’s a lot of daylight between doing nothing and going to war. Iran doesn’t and didn’t have nuclear weapons. And it has been checked in the region by Saudi Arabia and Israel. And before Trump’s elective war, the Strait of Hormuz was completely open with free passage. My definition of a “needless” war is a war that is unnecessary. The war on Iran by Netanyahu and Trump didn’t need to happen.
Hope that helps.
Joel:
True on all counts. Also, there was no real threat of nuclear weapons anytime soon or having such go undiscovered.
If you can tell me when in your opinion would have been the right time to go to war with Iran, that would help me understand your position or is it just you think all armed conflicts should be avoided. If for the sake of argument you accept that the sanctions weren’t working and they weren’t going to stop trying to build the bomb, then what do you wait for? Do you ever attack, and what is the signal that you need to attack now vs waiting?
@Commenter,
The right time to go to war with Iran would be when they pose an existential threat to the United States or a NATO ally. That has never been the case. I don’t accept that sanctions and treaties weren’t working well enough. There is no evidence that Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon before Trump and Netanyahu attacked. I didn’t fall for Bush’s phony WMD argument in Iraq and I don’t fall for Trump’s phony WMD argument in Iran. YMMV.
I believe all armed conflict should be avoided. I’m not a war-monger.
Hope that helps.
I understand your position but don’t agree with it. I trust you will consider my responses even if you don’t agree with them (I understand there are a lot of underlying factual premises that we don’t seem to agree on):
1) perhaps it is unwise to wait until a country is capable of actually posing an existential threat before getting involved – by then it might be too late;
2) perhaps the level of existential threat is setting the bar too high, perhaps a significant or strategic threat is enough (i.e., the US may respond strategically to strategic threats);
3) Iran certainly did threaten some countries in the Middle East that the US considers allies, some existentially. Ignoring threats doesn’t make them go away IMO.
@Commenter,
1) Yes, of course the US should be “involved” before going to war;
2) The US can respond strategically short of war;
3) Name one country that Iran threatened existentially.
Iran certainly threatened Israel’s efforts to become the sole ME hegemon. That’s not an existential threat.
Please point out where I wrote that the US should ignore threats. Take all the time you need.
Hope that helps.
Commenter:
I doubt there was ever a comment made that could be ignored as a threat which Mr. Trump passed by. It gives him a chance to make a return threat and strut. He is definitely one who is steeped in making comments in return to any supposed threat to his manhood rather than take it as a come-on to garner a reply.
What were you doing in 1969? For me? I was one of those suckers, snooks (as labeled by Trump) based at Camp Lejeune with Head Qtrs. Bn. 2nd MarDiv. I believe the Middle East was in an uproar due to something, a peninsula? We were held on base JIC. The Middle East (as you call it) did not need us then, why does it need us now?
Trump is an easy one to bait too.
The US could bomb them into the stone age and then fund their rebuild. Nobody is ignoring their threats. You have Trump who will leap to any reason to do so no matter how small. And yes, the US now has an issue with the strait and fees to be paid for passage. And yes, the US is watching them as well as wherever you are.
Thank you for your comment. Please be a future commenter. We welcome other commentaries.
@Joel Eissenberg – the ‘ignore’ comment was relating back to your statement “I believe all armed conflict should be avoided”, more particularly focused on the word ‘all’ within the sentence. My position is that not all armed conflict can be avoided or should be avoided. You and I agree on avoiding armed conflict in most cases.
@Commenter,
The statement “I believe all armed conflict should be avoided” cannot possibly be interpreted as meaning threats should be ignored. And the “all” in the statement “I believe all armed conflict should be avoided” in no way implies that all armed conflict can or must always be avoided.
All cancer should be avoided. Not all cancer can be avoided.
Commenter:
Have you been involved in a conflict, a policing duty as the US gets asked to do, or maybe just drafted or doing a mandated military service?