Yes, wars have consequences, and the war with Iran seems to have been a serious mistake.

Tyler Cowen has a post up about recent developments in the U.S./Iran war. His post contains criticism of some not-so-smart and confused but unnamed others, and an attempt to win an argument with these unnamed opponents by questioning their credentials. I find this an unhelpful mode of argument. But he does ask an interesting question, viz., is the outcome we currently see emerging different than we would have expected without the war? Cowen seems to be suggesting that the answer is “not really”, and that war critics are assuming a lot of questionable “path dependence”. That is, Cowen thinks that war critics are assuming without justification that the (medium-run, or ultimate?) outcome will be much different – and worse – because of the war.

Since I have been critical of the war, I should be able to respond to Cowen’s question. So what do I think has changed for the worse due to the war?

Billions of dollars have been spent, literally set on fire by our government and Israel’s government.

Many innocent people have died. Thousands.

A new generation of hard-line leadership seems to be in place in Tehran. This may have happened eventually without the war, but it would hardly be surprising if our attack unified the country and strengthened the hand of the hardliners.

Very possibly the mood of the Iranian people has changed, again in a way that strengthens the hardliners. Reports from Khamenei’s funeral suggest a large rally-round-the-hardliners effect. Genuine domestic fury at the United States may be contributing to the breakdown of the ceasefire.

The sanctions regime that had weakened the domestic position of the regime may be at least partially dismantled. The finances of the government may well end up being greatly improved, in a way that will make the regime politically secure and facilitate a massive military buildup. As I said in a previous post, “If you think the Iranian missile program is a problem now, just wait.”  

The Iranians have greater confidence in their ability to absorb an American/Israeli assault.

Other countries, in the Gulf and around the world, will update their view of American power generally and of Trump’s leadership in particular. Focusing on the latter, Trump has reinforced the perception that he is weak, and in particular that he will cave in the face of even modest economic pressure. Granted, this is hardly news (remember TACO), but it seems likely to encourage at the margin any adversary who was thinking of engaging in foreign adventurism.

Now, one can of course identify potentially offsetting effects of the war that may benefit the United States over time, such as a more rapid move to renewables and more rapid rearmament by the Europeans. But even though these developments might be considered benefits, they still represent path dependence, and they hardly constitute justifications for this insane war.