The war in Iran costs the US nearly $900 million a day.
A study by an independent think tank estimates that the first three days of the conflict cost $3.7 billion that Washington had not budgeted for.
Barcelona / WashingtonApproximately $891.4 million per day. This is the cost of the first 100 hours (from Saturday to Tuesday) of the war initiated by the Trump administration with the attacks on Iran. In this short period, Washington has spent a minimum of $3.7 billion (approximately €3.2 billion), according to an independent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This is the first estimate made since the US and Israel began the conflict, which has spread throughout the Middle East and even into EU territory (Cyprus) and NATO territory (Turkey), among others. Another characteristic of this cost, which will increase the longer the conflict lasts, is that a significant portion was not budgeted in the accounts approved by Congress, meaning it will be financed by generating deficits and, therefore, debt.
These operations entail a much higher cost than the one that led to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, with $31 million a day that in this case was budgeted, according to analysts of this think tank. In any case, the costs of the Middle East conflict may decrease as US forces opt for less expensive munitions instead of missiles, and as Iran reduces its drone and missile launches. Nevertheless, "unbudgeted costs will be substantial" and will depend "on the intensity of operations and the effectiveness of Iranian retaliation."
According to this study, of the $3.7 billion spent in the first few days, approximately $1.7 billion was invested in air interceptors, such as the Patriot system; and another $1.5 billion went to missiles and other defensive munitions. Air operations cost $125 million; maritime operations, $64 million; and ground operations, $7 million. Based on previous air campaigns, the CSIS estimates that it will cost more than $3 billion to replenish the inventory of munitions used in this war. In any case, these are amounts that will contribute to increasing the US public deficit, which stands at over 6% of gross domestic product (GDP), trending towards 7%, and around two trillion dollars annually. To understand the order of magnitude, in Spain, this shortfall is equivalent to around 3% of GDP. They will also add to the debt, which is around 38 trillion dollars, equivalent to 125% of GDP.
Previous studies estimate that just moving one of the large US aircraft carriers daily, such as the Lincoln and the Gerald FordEach one costs about $12 million. The current campaign is not the only one that places a financial burden on the U.S. as a result of its participation in armed conflicts. Professor Linda J. Bilmes of Brown University conducted a study calculating the costs of a wide range of military actions in support of the interests of the U.S., Israel, and their allies in the Middle East from the October 7, 2013, attacks until September of last year. The costs of the operations during this period ranged from $9.65 billion to $12.07 billion, according to this analysis, which is part of the project. Cost of war (The Cost of War), from Brown University. To this sum should be added $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel, bringing the total to between $31.35 and $33.77 billion, according to another professor involved in this project, William D. Hartung.
Job losses
In addition to maintaining a trade deficit similar to the previous year despite the tariffs recently overturned by the Supreme Court, other indicators of the US economy are negative. This is the case with the labor market. The unemployment rate rose one-tenth of a percentage point to 4.4% in February, when a total of 92,000 jobs were lost, a net loss and worse than the 50,000 jobs created by analysts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These figures contrast with the revised increase of 126,000 jobs created the previous month, a situation that could influence the Federal Reserve's (Fed) decisions on interest rates less than two weeks before its next meeting. The decline in employment in the second month of the year in the United States reflects decreases in the healthcare sector, due to strikes in this sector, the BLS highlights in its report. White House chief economist Kevin Hassett acknowledged in statements to CNBC that these figures were not expected, which he attributed to the poor weather conditions in February, when much of the US suffered intense cold waves, the healthcare worker strikes on the West Coast, and...